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.

So I'm beginning to see a trend where internet bloggers and commentators are rushing to declare new codexes awful and complete crap before the codex is even released, with the flood gates opening for the new DE book. The funny thing is that a lot of people have been saying that terrible codexes followed by awesome supplements that plug holes is now the norm, but I don't really remember that sentiment being voiced too often before the DE freak out currently happening online. However, these same bloggers/commentators have yet to write follow up articles to check back in with the codexes and evaluate them on the tabletop. It makes me wonder how people who actually play the three previous 7th edition codexes are dealing with the changes and whether or not things are working out from an on the ground perspective as opposed to just a bunch of internet bloggers and commentators evaluating statistics from a hypothetical point of view.

So, my question for Ork, SW, and GK players: What is your experience with the new codexes now that you've hopefully had an opportunity to play a few games with them? For Space Wolve and Orks, do you find that you need the supplement or else you're just complete garbage, or do you think that the base codexes are solid and can work on their own.

I'll go first since I play GK. Without a supplement I've had to use the base codex by itself and I'm finding that it's been a bit of a struggle for me to adjust personally. Whereas before the army was primarily played as a mid board shooty army that worked best when you were enticing your opponent to move towards you, now it feels more about deep striking and hitting the opposing player hard with an alpha strike. I lost the first few games I played but now that I'm getting the swing of where to place my DSing units and what's best to reserve and when to shunt I'm winnign more matches, however, thanks to low model count mostly, if things don't go right they tend to go very wrong, and every model lost hurts a lot. They're too situational to win reliably without an ally, but they definitely incorporate the feel of an elite, surgical force much more than they used to. They're also a lot more fun, and I think they're a better army than their previous codex when you look solely at the GK side of it. Overall, a solid addition to 7th, but if the bottom falls out from under you, you're screwed.

Thoughts?

Well, I know a big portion of the gripes with these new books is the loss of content, which isn't something a few months of time resolves. The loss of Special Characters with the respective build-types they offered has been particularly frustrating, especially since there is not a good reason for their removal in the first place! (aka GW being afraid of 3rd parties doesn't constitute a "good" reason).

From there, people are obviously going to gripe about nerfs or changes to their units that results in army restructuring, that's just how this game has always gone. I think what exacerbates this problem is the increased speed of book releases, since an army you work to build over a couple of years can be invalidated shortly thereafter. But again, that's how GW games go, so I don't think there's any big difference there. IMO it's the loss of content (special characters, moving units around through different books) that's really making the complaints fuel up much worse.

As an ork player with about 20 games in with the new book I'd say things feel about the same once I figured out how to balance my new list and tactics. The same basic orky principles are there, find the squishy gits n krump um. With the new rules and balancing of units its just about finding synergy and complimenting combinations of units. People get to worked about their codexes before they put the time in to learn how to replay them.

I find the internet commentary to be about 90% inaccurate and i question if some of the posters actually play the game or are just playing mental mathhammer.

I play orks and the new codex is awesome for me, the supplement adds some formations but i dont see how that could "make' it. just give more variety.

As a SW player, I love the variety that the new codex gives us. It's very well balanced internally, with only some of the HQs and PAWG underwhelming. Power-wise, SW are at least mid-tier, and probably the upper echelons of the mid-tier at that. Anyone saying that it was an awful release are probably just lumping them into the other 7th ed codices and trying to call it a trend.

Honestly as time goes by and more and more codex's get the seventh Ed treatment all the cries of my army sucks will calm down. I admit I was on the I hate the new Ork Dex side still not totally happy but feeling better.

Ork player here, and I never bought into al of the "sky is falling" BS. I just play what is in the dex (no supplements) and I feel fine playing, have a decent record, and have more fun no than before. So take that for what it is worth. I think the internet tends to bring out the really polarizing viewpoints and people talking in extremes. When the rubber meets the road on the table a lot of that is hogwash.

Don't really take internet chatter that seriously. I buy what I like. I play what I like. That way I have fun.

I find my play experience as an Ork is based on the army I am against. So far I've had no issue against non-Nurgle chaos and other ork players.

But apparently I play more risky lists than other people I know. At the end of most games I am down to one model on the table, I have won with that. I have mostly lost though.

My Orks play pretty much as they have done since 3rd edition. I had to make some small tweaks. I've given up on Killa Kans, for instance, but nothing too radical. I really don't like the new mob rule as I frequently end up killing 3 or 4 boys (I think d3 hits would have been better... how is killing half the mob "motivatin"?). But it kind of evens out.

I'm loving the New Ork codex. It motivated to dust off my Orks and bring them back the field.

I'm having great fun with the new Ork book. I'm not a tournament player though. Really, all tournament players should just play Eldar if it's such a big deal to have the absolute best book.

It's not the power levels people are complaining about. It's the loss of units, characters and flavor.

As a Space Wolves player it sucks that Wolf Standard got the Nerf Bat, Grey Hunters losing their CCW, but other than that I am happy with the new codex. Points reduced and more options. I haven't played many games, but the ones I have played I have some wins and some close ones to winning, and two bad loses, but I'm still trying list out. Logan got the Nerf Bat too, went from HQ with hot buffs... to a lousy LoW. But those TWC deathstars!

I am greatly disappointed in the Ork codex. I don't hate it, just disappointed. As accolade said, it's largely the removal of content and playstyles, but it's also the continued pendulum and bumbling way of balance, over nerfing some units into uselessness, not fixing the units that needed to be fixed, and turning perfectly good rules into a random load of crap. With the new Mob Rule, if feel like half the time i'm fighting my own codex rather than my opponent. And screw the supplement, I should not have to pay GW twice to get a decent list.

People seem to be constantly defending the GW's schizoid rule writing as just "That's what happens". But I think that wrong. We should expect GW to actually write decent codex and not invalidate armies and collections, rather than just taking anything they shove in our face and having to adapt to their whims. Why must there be this disconnect between "playing what I want to play narratively" and "playing what I want to play tactically"

So what I'm taking away from this is that talk is talk and, for the most part, people are actually satisfied and happy with the new codexes. Obviously not 100%, but it's good to know that people are enjoying themselves in spite of all the doom and gloom out there. Also, it seems like a lot of ork players peruse dakka, lol.

In conclusion, I'm going to mark up all the talk I see recently about the 7th ed codexes being crap without their supplements as revisionist history from people wanting to put down the new DE codex before they've even had a chance to really test it out.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I am greatly disappointed in the Ork codex. I don't hate it, just disappointed. As accolade said, it's largely the removal of content and playstyles, but it's also the continued pendulum and bumbling way of balance, over nerfing some units into uselessness, not fixing the units that needed to be fixed, and turning perfectly good rules into a random load of crap.

Would you mind giving actual examples instead of generalisms?

And please don't list the loss of invulnerable saves as a playstyle that has been lost.

even with only a few games with the new SW codex, i can officially say i like it. granted I'm not a tournament goer, but its been fine, no doom and gloom here

So I havent played a game with SW without the supplement, just because it is so cool. I might not need it, but I really enjoy TWC having +1WS and bring able to bring 2-8 elites.

Had a great time with the book so far though.

Can only speak to the Ork book here, but from what I've seen, they've stayed about the same as before. The new book doesn't really seem to have changed how they function or where they sit in the "power rankings". Some actual army compositions have changed, and they have some new tricks, but they seem about the same as before.

Haven't gamed as much since SW came out so I can't say how they're doing on the table, but the SW players in my area seem fairly happy. Most of my fellow DE players seem REALLY put off by the new book, but I haven't bought it so Can't comment on that directly.

Played fair few games with my GK, the loss of mordrak was entirely expected (and the official, from studio reason for loss of char like this is "we sell models. its odd to have rules for a model we dont sell". Take that as you wish, I care not) but still a sting, however the things I liked - ability to DS 1st turn (with more risk!) but now with added psycannon toting termies instead of SB Ghost knights, is still there - if i wish it to be.

I have one aly in my vindicare had to remain. Again, entirely expected that this would be cut.

I hated the old book from the concept - its called GK but half the book ISNT GK, and it sat VERY uneasily together (really, you can take daemonhosts in a GK army? what?) but loved it from the variety of actual-GK armies i could build. You can still get close to most, just havingt o take one unit of PAGK or Termies to fill the one troops.

Overall its great fun. No flavour loss, and massive more fun to be had frmo actually playing the game.

I gave up on my orks, I may give them another shot at a later date but they were pretty terrible and having to randomize is a chore.

I love the internal balance of Codex: Orks. I've found that special detachments and supplements are there to replace the "wacky lists" you could make with SC's. I don't have right million Battlewagons or MANz, so the supplement isn't exactly for me, but I love that I can take buggies, Tankbustas , big guns, etc without worrying that I'm gimping my list.

The complainers are almost universally the ones who spammed the best models from the last codex, and got summarily screwed by the nerf-that-buff-everything-else strategy.

SW book is great honestly. Very well balanced, no unit is way too overpowered over the rest. There are multiple viable builds with it and that is great. I hate mono or dual build codex.

The supplement adds some flavor but is not required to perform well.

Honestly the SW is probably the best/most balanced release so far since the codex went hardback.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I am greatly disappointed in the Ork codex. I don't hate it, just disappointed. As accolade said, it's largely the removal of content and playstyles, but it's also the continued pendulum and bumbling way of balance, over nerfing some units into uselessness, not fixing the units that needed to be fixed, and turning perfectly good rules into a random load of crap.

Would you mind giving actual examples instead of generalisms?

And please don't list the loss of invulnerable saves as a playstyle that has been lost.

Content and playstyles removed:
The lost of Wazdakka and Old Zogwart (while not the most popular, still provided interesting mechanics, and I'll miss turning HQs into squigs)
Biker boy mobz (although still playable via unbound, the lost of objective secured makes it uncompetitive)
Kan wall (Kans got horribly nerfed, which they didn't need since they're already got hosed with only 2 HP, and while dreads got buffed they're still not useful on their own)
Battlewagon konvoy (the 20 point jump and still having to pay for the mandatory weapons. But the nerf to the deff rolla is just unforgivable)

And I don't consider cyborks a playstyle, but I would say it was kinda important to have around. I liked my nobs having a save against krak missiles

the_scotsman wrote:
The complainers are almost universally the ones who spammed the best models

No, please, tell me again why my enjoyment isn't valid and how anyone who isn't enjoying their new dex is simply a "complainer". I don't recall generalizing about anyone enjoying their new dex.

JuniorRS13 wrote:
even with only a few games with the new SW codex, i can officially say i like it. granted I'm not a tournament goer, but its been fine, no doom and gloom here

I placed 6th in a local tournament with my Wolves, although if I had only a couple more VPs in my last game (I had some bad luck), I would have tied for third. Oh, and my wins were 2 Tau players (one running Triptide Farsight Enclaves who I nearly tabled) and a warrior wall Necron list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The complainers are almost universally the ones who spammed the best models

No, please, tell me again why my enjoyment isn't valid and how anyone who isn't enjoying their new dex is simply a "complainer". I don't recall generalizing about anyone enjoying their new dex.

I play Crabz, trust me he isn't the spammy sort. Pretty much any Ork player's in it for the fun.

Enjoying my new GK codex greatly

Does it help that I'm an Eldar player and going to add Dark Eldar to my list BECAUSE of the new Codex? No doom or gloom when I'm seeing it for the first time. Just units to avoid and some that are really really enticing, same as any codex.

I'm not having the same experience at all.
Skimming through a new codex and seeing that it is different does not equate with it being rubbish.
Actually playing and trying new strategies and tactics, I'm finding them to work just fine. They are just set up to alter the different units used in order to "convince" you to buy more models.
Its a matter of the skill level of the players and a (un) willingness to adapt.