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.

When their 3rd Edition codex came out, weren't they considered very powerful then?

... Iced is a lot more eloquent than me, and has an awesome sig, so... yeah.

ExNoc, do you mean Sisters or Necrons?

Necrons, should have made that clearer

Siphen wrote:
I was recently talking with a friend about the eventual Tau update and I was pretty surprised with his wishlist. He hoped for 8 point, BS 4 Fire Warriors. He wants cheaper railguns with a jotww effect. He went on and on, basically saying that he wanted the "new" Tau book to utterly crush the competition. Now...without comment on the Tau or any of his examples...what do you think about this? Would you actually want your army to be updated and be completely broken?

Personally, I love playing an under-powered codex. I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken

What are your thoughts?

He sounds young. 12? 13?

I want each codex to be competitive and to have the ability to make "fluffy lists", too. No codex should become an "I Win" button though. That would be boring.

Siphen wrote:


Personally, I love playing an under-powered codex. I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken

This. What happens when you beat a video game on normal difficulty? You try Hard/Hardcore/Insanity mode to challenge yourself or change servers if you're playing online. I feel that this is the most honest approach for 40k as well. (On top of just finding cool looking models to paint!) I'm currently (read: slowly) painting a C:SM Bike Army as it will hopefully be very challenging to play. If it becomes even more challenging in the face of newer codexes - more power to me - I can keep playing and experimenting with it instead of growing bored and eying off another codex.
And the major selling point for me? C:SM has OPTIONS. I can run bikes as troops, tactical squads or scouts. Several decent options in Elites, Fast Attack AND Heavy Support so I can keep building and not be locked into playing just the same list every week just to try for a 'win.'

Dear GW,
More challenge and OPTIONS please...

 Peregrine wrote:
Winning is fun. Enough said.

1: If you want, I can code a quick java app that says "You win." every time you hit enter.
2: Never play dwarf fortress as you cannot "win". The game actually defines "fun" as when things go terribly wrong.

As for me wanting an update for my codex (Eldar), yes. I very desperately want an update so I can avoid using bike-spam and/or Eldrad and still be effective. Do I want the update to turn my army into a cheese shop? No. I chose Eldar for their aesthetics and fluff. If i wanted to win, I would have gone with SM or Necron and only used lists I found online and were used in tournaments (successfully).

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Eh, it does get kind of annoying when I do bring my Necrons out. I've been with Necrons since their debut in 1997, but I still get people muttering about power players and codex jumpers.

Admittedly, they usually stop when I start deploying metal Warriors, but the initial burst is still... frustrating.

Ugh, those are almost as bad as the actual power players and codex jumpers...

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
When their 3rd Edition codex came out, weren't they considered very powerful then?

Necrons were very strong when their book first came out. And while no one I personally know played them, there were quite a few in the shops. I didn't really make it out to tournaments at the time since I was..12? But even going into 4th edition their ability to gauss down vehicles and constantly get back up with the monoliths own ability to be so difficult to destroy really made them frustrating. But they were still a rare army in 4th, and in 5th once they lost the ability to easily gauss down vehicles they became almost none existent. However at the last tournament I went to, 24 tables, at one point 18 of them had a necron player on them. While everyone I play with regularly knows they are my (now secondary) army, that I have played for a long time. It sucks to bring them out and have someone think I am a codex jumper. I still remember discovering necrons. I didn't even have a white dwarf to play with, just metal models, and rumors of "they get back up after being killed" so me and my friends came up with our own rules.

@Miko, thanks for the sig comment. I am quite fond of it myself. It is awesome seeing another necron player with the old metal models. Unfortunately for me due to an incident with my aunt the only original necrons i still have is my Lord, some of those huge scarabs (I use em for objectives now) and one destroyer. If I saw you set them down across the table from me I would get serious nostalgia.

Why does it bother you that people codex jump? Or that people lump you into that category? A lot of us get bored of armies rather quickly, and end up buying a new one each year or so to keep ourselves busy. If I buy the newest shiniest thing, whats the problem with that?

Hanith wrote:
1: If you want, I can code a quick java app that says "You win." every time you hit enter.

Oh FFS, do I really need to define "winning" to include "against an opponent" so you don't nitpick like that?

2: Never play dwarf fortress as you cannot "win". The game actually defines "fun" as when things go terribly wrong.

Except "winning" has just been redefined to "have the most awesome failure happen". That's just a different victory condition, just like a 40k "last stand" scenario where you will inevitably have all of your army killed but win by taking down at least a certain level of your opponent's force before you die.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hanith wrote:
1: If you want, I can code a quick java app that says "You win." every time you hit enter.

Oh FFS, do I really need to define "winning" to include "against an opponent" so you don't nitpick like that?

2: Never play dwarf fortress as you cannot "win". The game actually defines "fun" as when things go terribly wrong.

Except "winning" has just been redefined to "have the most awesome failure happen". That's just a different victory condition, just like a 40k "last stand" scenario where you will inevitably have all of your army killed but win by taking down at least a certain level of your opponent's force before you die.

You have clearly never played Dwarf Fortress. They say "losing is fun" for a reason. You definitely do not "win" when half your dwarves lose their minds and kill the whole city.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
You have clearly never played Dwarf Fortress. They say "losing is fun" for a reason. You definitely do not "win" when half your dwarves lose their minds and kill the whole city.

No, I haven't played it, but my point is that the game just has a different victory condition. When half your dwarves lose their minds and kill the whole city it IS a win because now you get to write your awesome story on a forum and brag about how much fun it was. A "win" is defined as suffering a sufficiently horrible ending, and you know before the game even begins that it is the only kind of "win" you should expect to have.

But really, all you're pointing out is the difference between a single-player sandbox game and a two-player game between opposing armies. It's absolutely insane to say that because you enjoy winning on one you have to hate the other.

I wouldn't want my army to be broken - either in a good way or a bad way. I just want good internal balance, a variety of builds possible that play well, and not bottom rung on the power curve (as long as there is a power curve). Mid teir is fine.

Peregrine wrote:my point is that the game just has a different victory condition. When half your dwarves lose their minds and kill the whole city it IS a win because now you get to write your awesome story on a forum and brag about how much fun it was. A "win" is defined as suffering a sufficiently horrible ending, and you know before the game even begins that it is the only kind of "win" you should expect to have.

Sure, but if you're going to use the designer's definition of winning, then the way you win a game of 40k is if you throw down well-painted models, come up with some stories, and then drink a beer afterwards.

Defining "winning" a game of 40k as being totally narrowed down in scope to simply who has the most VP at the end of any given game means that you're not actually seeing the term as broadly as GW intends. As such, you're making up your own definition of the term, which rather goes against what you are just saying now.

Tying back in with the OP, I guess I fail to see how having a brokenly overpowered codex helps achieve the purpose of the game as defined on page 8 of the rulebook. The point is "whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey". If victory in a game is irrelevant to winning, then what's the point in having something that makes you more likely to gain victory in a game?

Necrons were very strong when their book first came out. And while no one I personally know played them, there were quite a few in the shops. I didn't really make it out to tournaments at the time since I was..12? But even going into 4th edition their ability to gauss down vehicles and constantly get back up with the monoliths own ability to be so difficult to destroy really made them frustrating.

they were weak as hell . glancing was doing nothing eldar circus , nothing to gunlines in the 4th because non of them were using tanks other then speeders for AC and dreads for AC and all of those were expacted to die . they had a build in auto lose option , that got easier to get if they were taking stuff like monoliths or ctans . necron were "good" against fluff players , who though it is a good idea to run 10 man tac squads and try to hth ctans or shot their 5 anti tank weapons at a monolith . In the 4th I have not seen a necron army that would not get phased out. I mean if an infiltration build got turn 1 against them they were sometimes dead before their own phase 1.

whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey

oh when am returning from a tournament with a prize pack I enjoy the journey a lot.

Makumba wrote:

whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey

oh when am returning from a tournament with a prize pack I enjoy the journey a lot.

When you are done with the journey and are enjoying the results of the journey, that is different than enjoying the journey.

Otherwise, it would be like telling a woman in labor that she will enjoy her new baby so much that, of course, she must be enjoying the delivery.

Otherwise, it would be like telling a woman in labor that she will enjoy her new baby so much that, of course, she must be enjoying the delivery.

but they are under drugs , they dont feel a thing , much less understand stuff your telling them . I dont understand the example . the end is the only thing that matters. Lets say you master paint an army , converted it to look awesome . then go to GD or some other even and the dudes at the airport stop the army , or it gets lost . the fact that it was "cool" to make/paint the army doesnt matter when it didnt achive its goal .Which is wining stuff.

same with gaming . you make an army , get owned , owned and owned again . there is no fun in this , even if it is with friends , because even if you are playing just to socialise and if that is suppose to be the fun part , then there is still the matter of wasted money and time on the army/codex/terrain which could be used much better for stuff at home or helping your family or saving up when it is not so good anymore and you dont have money to spend on hobbies.

Makumba wrote:
same with gaming . you make an army , get owned , owned and owned again . there is no fun in this , even if it is with friends , because even if you are playing just to socialise and if that is suppose to be the fun part , then there is still the matter of wasted money and time on the army/codex/terrain which could be used much better for stuff at home or helping your family or saving up when it is not so good anymore and you dont have money to spend on hobbies.

I'm glad we'll never play each other. What an absolutely terrible attitude.

Also - if your family needs help, you should be helping them, whether you're 'good at your hobbies' or not. So that's two terrible attitudes in one post.

Go you!

Not to mention the completely ridiculous statement that all women giving birth are drugged up to their eyeballs.

I'll start by stating I'm almost certainly never going to carry my own child because of a handful of reasons. That said, if I was, I would definitely be going for a completely lucid delivery. Yes, it'd hurt. Probably a lot. But guess what? It's totally worth it. I'd want to be able to recognise the fact I'd done it straight away. I'd like the first cuddle. I certainly wouldn't want to cheapen the miracle by saying, "I don't care about the baby, just block off my nervous system and let me sleep through it".

The only time any of the women I know would actually want to be drugged up during childbirth would be if something went wrong and it was necessary.

Similarly, I can't understand the idea that you can only have fun if you're crushing your opponent's forces beneath your bootheel. I have three armies. One is Shadowforge miniatures using Elysian rules because both are awesome. One is Necrons because I started out with them and have about two thousand points of classic metal miniatures, plus another 1500 points of new stuff that was too cool to pass up. And the last is Sisters, because they are also awesome, if a little manly in the sculpts.

Which armies do I enjoy playing with? It sure as heck isn't the boring-arse "I march or teleport across the board and slaughter everything without much real resistance" Necrons.

Makumba wrote:
but they are under drugs , they dont feel a thing , much less understand stuff your telling them . I dont understand the example . the end is the only thing that matters. Lets say you master paint an army , converted it to look awesome . then go to GD or some other even and the dudes at the airport stop the army , or it gets lost . the fact that it was "cool" to make/paint the army doesnt matter when it didnt achive its goal .Which is wining stuff.

same with gaming . you make an army , get owned , owned and owned again . there is no fun in this , even if it is with friends , because even if you are playing just to socialise and if that is suppose to be the fun part , then there is still the matter of wasted money and time on the army/codex/terrain which could be used much better for stuff at home or helping your family or saving up when it is not so good anymore and you dont have money to spend on hobbies.

Dude, what in God-Emperor's name are you talking about? If someone has master painted an army and converted it up to look awesome, then the time and effort required for that alone would indicate that the modelling side of the hobby is just as, if not more so, important to that particular hobbyist than the gaming side of it - they've already accomplished their goals by having an awesomely converted and painted army. In the next example, if doing the hobby is their way of socialising and that's how they enjoy it, it's not wasted time and money because it's achieving its end in that particular hobbyist's life - to socialise and have fun. As for the rest of what you said about women in labour and "staying home" instead of hobbying... yeah I'm not getting into that, let's just say you're in need of some serious perspective, not in 40K, but in general.

This thread is wobbling on the rails!

All I want is a more interesting Dark Angels Codex, something that actually makes us a divergent Space Marine Codex and for it not to be full of holes or mistakes.

The new DA will hopefully be like that as from what I hear we are actually Plasma specialists and we'll have inner circle units to fit to our fluff, as well as options to balance the game as it stands (Flakk etc).

I don't really care about new units, I just want something that works, is themed/fluffy and at least on par with most codex's.

I've been a Tau player since they came out in 01'. They are the only army I have ever played and I know them backwards and forwards. I do not want a broken codex as I enjoy playing top tier armies all the time and for the most part holding my own. I play for only for fun on occasion as I have other hobbies as well. If tau could get a slight points decrease across the board, BS4 Suits, and a few new tau units(not vespid or kroot) and a nice transport/gunship I'd be fine w/ that.

 Tauownz wrote:
I've been a Tau player since they came out in 01'. They are the only army I have ever played and I know them backwards and forwards. I do not want a broken codex as I enjoy playing top tier armies all the time and for the most part holding my own. I play for only for fun on occasion as I have other hobbies as well. If tau could get a slight points decrease across the board, BS4 Suits, and a few new tau units(not vespid or kroot) and a nice transport/gunship I'd be fine w/ that.

I would love to start Tau but I want new battle-suits. Not a fan of the blocky look

 UMGuy wrote:
I would not say I wanted a broken codex either. Playing IG is a lot of fun, I wish less IG players spammed vendettas, but I can see why.

What I would like to see is the codex stay relatively the same, add around 5 more super fluffy units that are not unbelievably awful, slightly boost the price of the vendetta and chimera, and give us back lumbering behemoth and I will be more than happy.

What I like is being able to field a fluffy army that can still hold its own against those that are extra sharp cheddar.

I mostly agree with this. I just want it to stay competetive, with what I like to take. I don't use vets, storm troopers or flyers, just regular dudes and tanks. That being said, I wouldn't like the price of a chimera for a regular INF squad to go up. But if lumbering behemoth came back I would be very happy. Otherwise I just want the basic trooper to stay reasonably priced for what they are, so I can continue to mount (mostly) suicidal infantry wave Banzi charges when the mood takes me.

I don't want anything over powered, just reasonable.

I'd prefer to have a codex with loads of cool and varied interesting units, special rules and equipment, rather than having an overly powerful codex. The satisfaction got from using a well themed army to fight a close battle, regardless of the result, is much greater for me than using potentially unfluffy units to achieve a much easier victory. I believe the reason people play any sort of game is to challenge themselves, as success is much more rewarding.

 Banzaimash wrote:
The satisfaction got from using a well themed army to fight a close battle, regardless of the result, is much greater for me than using potentially unfluffy units to achieve a much easier victory.

Here-here! Like that is exactly the way I feel on the matter! Satisfaction from a well themed army and a hard fought battle is what is important to me for 40k games.

 Banzaimash wrote:
I'd prefer to have a codex with loads of cool and varied interesting units, special rules and equipment, rather than having an overly powerful codex. The satisfaction got from using a well themed army to fight a close battle, regardless of the result, is much greater for me than using potentially unfluffy units to achieve a much easier victory. I believe the reason people play any sort of game is to challenge themselves, as success is much more rewarding.

but everything which can be legaly taken from a codex or FW book is automaticly fluffy . If it wasnt fluffy then it wouldnt be in those books in the first place.

Makumba wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I'd prefer to have a codex with loads of cool and varied interesting units, special rules and equipment, rather than having an overly powerful codex. The satisfaction got from using a well themed army to fight a close battle, regardless of the result, is much greater for me than using potentially unfluffy units to achieve a much easier victory. I believe the reason people play any sort of game is to challenge themselves, as success is much more rewarding.

but everything which can be legaly taken from a codex or FW book is automaticly fluffy . If it wasnt fluffy then it wouldnt be in those books in the first place.

Currently in a Chaos Space Marine army I can take a Slaanesh Daemon Prince as my warlord and spam Plague Guard as troops. Super fluffy isn't it? /end sarcasm

Next point Makumba please?

Makumba wrote:
but everything which can be legaly taken from a codex or FW book is automaticly fluffy . If it wasnt fluffy then it wouldnt be in those books in the first place.

On an individual level, perhaps. But not in various and certain combinations, including the type that can be spammed into waac lists. Eamples;

- a msu Black Templars army, with Initiate-only bolter squads in razorbacks, vanilla termies, no crusader tanks, no chaplains
- gunline Orkz (nuff said)