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.

Just wanted to start a topic for this because I feel like I'm taking crazy pills but am I the only one who is noticing the differences between the first few codex books and the later ones?

The first few were basically copy/paste jobs of the Index but it feels like from Imperial Guard onward they had a lot more thought and work put into them even if they didn't alway hit the mark with some things (we can't all be Tyranids).

But no one seems to acknowledge the shift. The reasons as to why are obvious since they're rushing the books out to get everyone updated to 8th and later books have longer to be tweaked to fit player feedback whereas books like the Marines codex was likely already printed at the launch of 8th.

Likewise, no one seems to be acknowledging that the current pace of codex releases is an anomoly because of the major edition change and after all is said and done books will go back to getting updated every 4-5 years.

Same goes for Chapter Approved. It gets a lot of flack for missing the mark on the only content that mattered to a lot of people (points changes) but at the same time they forget that that a worldwide release of a book means that the wroters started work on it maybe a month after 8th had been released and needed to be finished before 8th was even 5 months old. It was probably only released at all to set the precedent of annual CA books and get people settled into 8th proper.

I feel like in the rush to get 8th Ed going a lot of people are losing perspective on how young 8th Edition is because GW have had a R A P I D release cycle for it. By comparison at this point previously (say they shift between 5th and 6th edition since the 7th Ed book was more of an update to 6th Ed) we had only gotten the THIRD codex of 6th Edition.

To go into more detail 6th Edition was released in June 2012, the FIRST Codex for 6th Edition was Codex: Chaos Marines released in October 2012. Thats FOUR MONTHS after the edition change (and people were still unhappy with it). The following codexes were Dark Angels in January 2013 and the Daemons in March 2013.

I feel like I'm ranting at this point but I feel like the super fast release schedule is leading to a skewed perspective about how GW has handled 8th. I also feel that a lot of people have unrealistic expectations on the designers considering how much work they must be doing to get everything pushed out in time. It's not like it's a team of 100 people all proof reading and double checking each others work. It's like 10 nerds in a basement. The fact that most of the issues are RAW vs RAI mistakes is pretty impressive.

/rant

Look up confirmation bias.

GW has never acknowledged when they change direction. A big part of it too is almost all of the 40K designers seem to be Imperial players so what is lacking from the old days is a passionate person on the design team who wants a certain faction to really capture what it's supposed to be. It is hard to be passionate about something you don't play and do not really follow. Now Eldar have always been fairly high-tier despite since Phil Kelly stop being on the actual rules team not having somebody passionate about them, but I feel things like that are why you have phoned in codexes like adeptus mechanicus and grey Knights and then really good codexes like Imperial Guard and tyranids. If nobody on the design team is really passionate about admech, you won't see much effort put into them and that's exactly what we see.

They did the same thing in Age of Sigmar before they hired a separate design team. The early books were very lackluster then they decided to do a 180 and switch Direction but never actually go back and properly adjust the prior books, just giving them some things in generals handbook 2017 which in some cases worked and in some cases were not enough. But it was never once actually acknowledge that hey we decided to shift the direction we were going Midway through

But thats my point. You called AdMech and GK "phoned in" when they were two of the first books and under the heaviest time constraints. You can't put a lot of passion and polish it into something great when you only have a few months to work on it.

 Sim-Life wrote:
But thats my point. You called AdMech and GK "phoned in" when they were two of the first books and under the heaviest time constraints. You can't put a lot of passion and polish it into something great when you only have a few months to work on it.

Then why are guard and tyranids really good codexes when they were not much later? I feel it has nothing to do with the time constraint and everything to do with them actually caring about what they are writing versus just trying to get it done so they can move on to more exciting projects

 Sim-Life wrote:
Just wanted to start a topic for this because I feel like I'm taking crazy pills but am I the only one who is noticing the differences between the first few codex books and the later ones?

The first few were basically copy/paste jobs of the Index but it feels like from Imperial Guard onward they had a lot more thought and work put into them even if they didn't alway hit the mark with some things (we can't all be Tyranids).

But no one seems to acknowledge the shift. The reasons as to why are obvious since they're rushing the books out to get everyone updated to 8th and later books have longer to be tweaked to fit player feedback whereas books like the Marines codex was likely already printed at the launch of 8th.

You are underestimating lead times. IG codex itself was pretty much printed when 8th ed was launched. Maybe thousand sons were still not printed by that time but close to top anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
But thats my point. You called AdMech and GK "phoned in" when they were two of the first books and under the heaviest time constraints. You can't put a lot of passion and polish it into something great when you only have a few months to work on it.

Codex for AM/GK were started well before 8th ed was released though. If they had less time to work on those that's major project management failure on GW's part. And physically impossible due to lead times(well maybe if they express order books paying extra and air transport them for even more expenses but that's tons of wasted money) as well.

The current last few books look pretty awesome visually. Even the posts on their website have a lot of work put into them now showing you what the old version looked like and what the new one looks like. Way more effort was put into the Tyranid, Tau and IG codex than the Marine codex. But I enjoy playing Marine sometimes even if I don't win too often.

Wayniac wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
But thats my point. You called AdMech and GK "phoned in" when they were two of the first books and under the heaviest time constraints. You can't put a lot of passion and polish it into something great when you only have a few months to work on it.

Then why are guard and tyranids really good codexes when they were not much later? I feel it has nothing to do with the time constraint and everything to do with them actually caring about what they are writing versus just trying to get it done so they can move on to more exciting projects

IG and Nids were really good starting from the Index.

Also, we know that the process they use allows for last second small changes up to 2 months prior to publication.

It's absolutely true that a lot of the early codices were obviously 100% done before 8th even launched. The Guard codex is the first one where it seems clear that they were responding to public feedback (two really notable changes are to Grinding Advance and Conscripts).

At the same time, it's hard to cut them much slack for some of the serious issues with the books they're putting out. It's one thing if there are issues that only become apparent after thousands of people have played tons of games. But what's actually happened is that codices have big issues which are immediately obvious to almost every competent player, before they even play a single game with them. It feels like these are things that should have been caught with literally any amount of playtesting (obviously there is playtesting being done, but whatever their process is for doing that and then updating the draft codex seems to be very flawed).

First, it's notable that the community has been really, really good at immediately spotting the too-good and too-bad units in each index and codex, without playing with them at all. Like, the story of this edition is about how fantastic mathhammer has been at telling you how good stuff is. It is striking that GW got prices so badly wrong on so many things that it was apparent to people who hadn't even played the game -- people were looking at Guilliman and Celestine and Razorbacks and Conscripts and Scions and Horrors from the index leaks alone! The Eldar codex slashed the price of Dark Reapers and barely touched Banshees, Scorpions, and Spiders -- everyone immediately saw the really powerful units (Shining Spears took a little while to catch on, tbf) and immediately saw that almost all of the other units were still pretty bad.

Second, the new kinds of content in the codices are likewise often really weird in ways that are immediately apparent to players. without them even having to do any testing. The best example would be the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to have in the game at all -- that's more of a design decision -- but it is so obviously the best trait for every army that has it. Other things only get used when overpowered special characters force you into another subfaction (Ultramarines and Mars). This is particularly stark for the Eldar codex. Alatoic's trait is head and shoulders above Ulthwe's, which is in turn much better than any of the other three. Eldar even get traits on their flyers, where - 1 to hit is especially valuable, and on top of that Alatoic is the only trait that actually does anything for the best Eldar flyer. Again, I'm not complaining about overall power level here; I'm pointing out that the internal balance is so badly off that everyone was able to predict that every Craftworld list would be Alatoic before they'd played a single game with the codex.

I don't feel like it's an unrealistic standard to ask that their admittedly hurried process catch huge issues that jump out to me on my first read-through of the new rules and point costs.

Honestly, the easiest fix there would be for Alaitoc to affect only models without the fly keyword (like Jormungard).

Spoletta wrote:
Honestly, the easiest fix there would be for Alaitoc to affect only models without the fly keyword (like Jormungard).

Sure, there are lots of things they could have done. I feel like Eldar are so reliant on units with Fly that that just moves everything but Dark Reapers and Rangers over to Ulthwe -- you still have the problem that Saim-Hann, Iyanden, and Biel-Tan are just extremely low-powered traits in the context of the Eldar codex (obviously Iyanden would be broken for Guard infantry, but Eldar work differently). My point is that it was obvious just from their preview articles that they should have done something other than put out Codex: Alatoic. "They're having to put these out in a hurry" doesn't come across as a convincing excuse.

Or move all the -1 to hit traits to 18". That would be also interesting. They still do what they are supposed to do (protect from long range fire), but increaes the number of counters.

 Sim-Life wrote:
But thats my point. You called AdMech and GK "phoned in" when they were two of the first books and under the heaviest time constraints. You can't put a lot of passion and polish it into something great when you only have a few months to work on it.

Many of these books were done or nearly done before 8th hit. The only books in the cycle they could have adjusted to would be even later in the cycle.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
An odd thing I did notice was the points page organization. Some of them were grouped by unit type and some were not.

The Astartes book being the first to come out was grouped, which makes me think that there were separate editors for that one and DG. And then eventually that view took over in the newer books.

Grouped
Astartes
Blood Angels
Dark Angels
Chaos Daemons
Thousand Sons


Ungrouped
Heretic Astartes
Adeptus Mechanicus
Astra Militarum
Tryanids
Craftworlds
Death Guard
Grey Knights

There aren't enough units to make grouping worthwhile in the GK codex.

GK were written before GW realized that 3+ models with less than 3 wounds who cost 10 points or more are usually not worth it. Same with 2+.

If terminators were 35 points each (with weapons), I’d still question if they’re worth taking. That 5++ is worthless, and powerfists are often more trouble than their worth. Their dps is just trash and they are not survivable at all.

There’s also a decent amount of frustration due to various TOs supposedly being involved in the design process: they *should* know better. But when Reece’s favorite army gets massive buffs, multiple viable builds and plays true to the fluff while others get a bad codex (or are still waiting for one) it seems a lot like old school designer favoritism to people.

 Sim-Life wrote:
But thats my point. You called AdMech and GK "phoned in" when they were two of the first books and under the heaviest time constraints. You can't put a lot of passion and polish it into something great when you only have a few months to work on it.

Thousand Sons was phoned in also, and that's saying it nicely.

They are pretty hit or miss right now, especially on anything that doesn't have new models. They seem to either overcompensate to make previously unappreciated models amazing or they seem to simply have no inspiration for the codex (see: Thousand Sons) and deliver something utterly banal.

Part of the problem that I've noticed, and perhaps this was around in 6th and 7th and I just didn't really notice it, is the fact that they no longer put units into codices for which they don't have models.

This means that any new units, and to a certain extent, new rules, are tied to their ability to ramp up physical production.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
There aren't enough units to make grouping worthwhile in the GK codex.

They have 32. Thousand Sons have 29. They have more than enough to do it if TS can.

You're assuming that it was worthwhile to sort the T Sons.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You're assuming that it was worthwhile to sort the T Sons.

It is nevertheless the new format, because it is easier to read.

So despite the objection it doesn't refute the premise.

 greyknight12 wrote:
There’s also a decent amount of frustration due to various TOs supposedly being involved in the design process: they *should* know better. But when Reece’s favorite army gets massive buffs, multiple viable builds and plays true to the fluff while others get a bad codex (or are still waiting for one) it seems a lot like old school designer favoritism to people.

I take umbrage with the idea of "Reece's favorite army" getting massive buffs. One specific style of Guard got a buff--and then it promptly got nerfhammered into the ground once the Codex came out.

GW has already confirmed that they use "this feels about right" for determining the points cost of a unit, instead of a hard formula.

I don't have the link on-hand, maybe someone else can provide the video.

Additionally GW simply doesn't care about their game - they don't; at least, not the people that actually make decisions. The funny part is that it doesn't matter, people are buying into the game hook, line, and sinker; despite the blatantly obvious codex imbalances, phone ins (admech is a prime example), and inability to balance the game//design a solid rules base [8th edition shooting/charging/fall-back]. Nevermind the entire Faction/Detachment system - it CLEARLY benefits Imperium/Chaos/Eldar, while punishing all of the smaller, non-imperial armies. Additionally, while I like the concept of being able to build your army, your way, the detachment system clearly ends up with just spamming the same unit (a balance problem as much as a design problem).

Chapter Approved 2017 is all you need to see to really understand the quality of the game. It didn't address anything [doubly so anything meaningful]; and straight nerfed FW units to a point where they're flat unusable - most of them weren't work taking to begin with (pre-points increase).

I don't know why I have decided to keep following 8th edition... maybe because I'm waiting for the Ork Codex to release, and I can re-evaluate then. I shouldn't care about GW/40k, but... I love the lore, and I want to play in its universe/tabletop miniature game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
There’s also a decent amount of frustration due to various TOs supposedly being involved in the design process: they *should* know better. But when Reece’s favorite army gets massive buffs, multiple viable builds and plays true to the fluff while others get a bad codex (or are still waiting for one) it seems a lot like old school designer favoritism to people.

I take umbrage with the idea of "Reece's favorite army" getting massive buffs. One specific style of Guard got a buff--and then it promptly got nerfhammered into the ground once the Codex came out.

Guard in general got buffs: leman russes were heavily buffed, and a lot of stuff in general got cheaper. Remember that when the codex came out Astra Militarum were the BEST army in the game hands down, and even once conscripts were nerfed they were still extremely good (potentially second to Eldar) and are a component of most imperial soup lists.
But even power level aside, you won’t find a thread on this forum where people agree what the “best” regiment for AM is: maybe for different unit types you’ll find a consensus but not for the army as a whole. That is what people are jealous of in the AM codex: that almost everything is viable, and you can build a fluffy list that performs true to its fluff on the tabletop.
Meanwhile GK are losing to daemons.

 greyknight12 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
There’s also a decent amount of frustration due to various TOs supposedly being involved in the design process: they *should* know better. But when Reece’s favorite army gets massive buffs, multiple viable builds and plays true to the fluff while others get a bad codex (or are still waiting for one) it seems a lot like old school designer favoritism to people.

I take umbrage with the idea of "Reece's favorite army" getting massive buffs. One specific style of Guard got a buff--and then it promptly got nerfhammered into the ground once the Codex came out.

Guard in general got buffs: leman russes were heavily buffed, and a lot of stuff in general got cheaper. Remember that when the codex came out Astra Militarum were the BEST army in the game hands down, and even once conscripts were nerfed they were still extremely good (potentially second to Eldar) and are a component of most imperial soup lists.

Imperial Soup != Guard. Let's get that fact hammered down right now. Do not come at me again with that garbage and we'll have pleasant conversations.

Yes, "a lot of stuff in general got cheaper". There's a reason why--in previous editions, we were paying Marine prices for stuff that we had no business paying those prices for.
There are certain units that are standouts in the Guard book...and then there are things that have been nerfed or just wouldn't have been touched to begin with.

The biggest issue, right now, that we're seeing is the fact that soup lists exist and are abusing the gak out of the fact that armies which are supposed to be low model count, 'elite' armies suddenly have screening units that cost them virtually nothing on the Imperial side. It would be like if Stormcast had initially been given Allies rules for Goblins: it's bananas.

But even power level aside, you won’t find a thread on this forum where people agree what the “best” regiment for AM is: maybe for different unit types you’ll find a consensus but not for the army as a whole. That is what people are jealous of in the AM codex: that almost everything is viable, and you can build a fluffy list that performs true to its fluff on the tabletop.
Meanwhile GK are losing to daemons.

And while I feel bad that GK are losing to Daemons, they haven't been in a good spot designwise for quite some time. They're "Psyker Marines--but not as good at it as Thousand Sons". They're "Daemon Killers, but only when things get really bad"--which becomes a fluff thing rather than a gameplay thing.

If nothing else, I feel like it might be time for Grey Knights to be reworked as an army and in terms of its designs...but no matter what, that's going to be pretty damaging to the fluff of the army.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
There’s also a decent amount of frustration due to various TOs supposedly being involved in the design process: they *should* know better. But when Reece’s favorite army gets massive buffs, multiple viable builds and plays true to the fluff while others get a bad codex (or are still waiting for one) it seems a lot like old school designer favoritism to people.

I take umbrage with the idea of "Reece's favorite army" getting massive buffs. One specific style of Guard got a buff--and then it promptly got nerfhammered into the ground once the Codex came out.

Guard in general got buffs: leman russes were heavily buffed, and a lot of stuff in general got cheaper. Remember that when the codex came out Astra Militarum were the BEST army in the game hands down, and even once conscripts were nerfed they were still extremely good (potentially second to Eldar) and are a component of most imperial soup lists.

Imperial Soup != Guard. Let's get that fact hammered down right now. Do not come at me again with that garbage and we'll have pleasant conversations.

Yes, "a lot of stuff in general got cheaper". There's a reason why--in previous editions, we were paying Marine prices for stuff that we had no business paying those prices for.
There are certain units that are standouts in the Guard book...and then there are things that have been nerfed or just wouldn't have been touched to begin with.

The biggest issue, right now, that we're seeing is the fact that soup lists exist and are abusing the gak out of the fact that armies which are supposed to be low model count, 'elite' armies suddenly have screening units that cost them virtually nothing on the Imperial side. It would be like if Stormcast had initially been given Allies rules for Goblins: it's bananas.

But even power level aside, you won’t find a thread on this forum where people agree what the “best” regiment for AM is: maybe for different unit types you’ll find a consensus but not for the army as a whole. That is what people are jealous of in the AM codex: that almost everything is viable, and you can build a fluffy list that performs true to its fluff on the tabletop.
Meanwhile GK are losing to daemons.

And while I feel bad that GK are losing to Daemons, they haven't been in a good spot designwise for quite some time. They're "Psyker Marines--but not as good at it as Thousand Sons". They're "Daemon Killers, but only when things get really bad"--which becomes a fluff thing rather than a gameplay thing.

If nothing else, I feel like it might be time for Grey Knights to be reworked as an army and in terms of its designs...but no matter what, that's going to be pretty damaging to the fluff of the army.

Maybe like what SM, SW and CSM got in 7th, give GK a supplement book or campaign book? maybe called "The 3rd Brotherhood"? give them some more shining toys?

fe40k wrote:
GW has already confirmed that they use "this feels about right" for determining the points cost of a unit, instead of a hard formula.

I hate to break it to you, but that is how it will be for many things. You simply can't account for every scenario.

A Demolisher cannon in the AM book is 40 points on something that has BS4. It's basically two lascannons. Now without assuming a price increase for BS3 that makes the Vindicator chassis 85 points. A predator chassis is 90. And still people don't feel hugely compelled to take Vindicators. Yet if you drop the price much more people might start spamming T8 as much as they can. At 125 it's about right and people need to get over their mental block with random shot weapons.

Additionally GW simply doesn't care about their game - they don't; at least, not the people that actually make decisions. The funny part is that it doesn't matter, people are buying into the game hook, line, and sinker; despite the blatantly obvious codex imbalances, phone ins (admech is a prime example), and inability to balance the game//design a solid rules base [8th edition shooting/charging/fall-back]. Nevermind the entire Faction/Detachment system - it CLEARLY benefits Imperium/Chaos/Eldar, while punishing all of the smaller, non-imperial armies. Additionally, while I like the concept of being able to build your army, your way, the detachment system clearly ends up with just spamming the same unit (a balance problem as much as a design problem).

Someone that spams the same unit too much loses. The LVO winning list had a lot of Dark Reapers, but that isn't why he won.
You say AdMech is bad, but the paradigm supports Imperium of which they are a part. They got a bunch of point adjustments in CA btw. Ad Mech has been winning local tournaments here pretty handily.

I like how you can put words in their mouth though.

Chapter Approved 2017 is all you need to see to really understand the quality of the game. It didn't address anything [doubly so anything meaningful]; and straight nerfed FW units to a point where they're flat unusable - most of them weren't work taking to begin with (pre-points increase).

It came four months into a radically new edition. Some things went down. Lots of beastly titanic level units went up. You'll survive.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It came four months into a radically new edition. Some things went down. Lots of beastly titanic level units went up. You'll survive.

Just because you survive GW's blatant cash grab drive doesn't mean it's good. It showed GW's motivations. Nothing about balance. They upped prices of models you didn't even SEE let alone that were dominating tournaments 300%.

300%. That's huge. That's IG guardsmen going to 12pts per model. That's such a huge price buff that nothing in the game warrants. It would be such a bonker level of brokeness both alaitoc and ynnead dark reapers pale in comparison. If that was justified EVERY SINGLE army list at top-10 of tournaments would have had at least 2 of those.

It wasn't that good. It wasn't even good model to begin with. Nobody took those in tournaments. If anything it deserved price DECREASE rather than increase.

But GW doesn't care about quality of rules or balance. The CA2017 changes were just for sake of making more money at the expense of balance. And that's the problem. Nobody can seriously expect GW to actually aim for trying to balance so if you play 40k you do it knowing GW is doing it's best to not make it balanced.

People still believe that GW don't want 40k to be balanced huh? Mad.

If GW were solely interested in money at the expense of balance all forge world stuff would be better than everything else. We would also see those armies/models that are most profitable to produce (Primaris spring to mind) be far better than their counterparts. Unless I've missed something Primaris aren't considered OP or even particularly good? How about the custard cremes? Are they wrecking face at tournaments?

Have any of you played starcraft, league of legends or dota? All of these games are what's considered perfectly imbalanced. The games have regular updates and patches that change which unit/champions are best in different circumstances. They add new units and the like that are typically too powerful. So the meta shifts to focus on these newly powerful units and how to counter them specifically. Sooner or later the game is patched again and different units are now best so the meta shifts again. It's what keeps competitive games like that interesting. I think it's obvious that GW is trying to emulate this model at the moment.

This is the most balanced version of 40k I've ever played. Ever. I played in 2nd edition. Apart from a few outlying units the game is incredibly well balanced at the moment. It doesn't matter too much anyway because, as above, GW will eventually 'patch' the game via the big FAQ and CA that will hopefully shake things up again.

I have to be honest I really like what they're doing at the moment. The game feels fresh, dynamic and interesting. We get releases quickly and all the time. Things that are too powerful are fixed pretty quick. Things that aren't as competitive are generally fixed too.

40k will never be truly balanced. There's too many variables and people are too willing to take skew lists. If you want true balance I suggest you play chess.

Accept it. We are the donkeys and GW holds the carrot on a stick. And i for one am a happy donkey as long as i feel i can almost get that tasty, tasty vegetable...
Puns aside, the above nails it. They can't push out fixes to perfectly balance things, there's too many variables. And if they miraculously did, it'd take maybe half a year before people yell how GW don't care because everything is stale.
Not saying they're spot on, but they put more effort into balance and fixes than ever.

tneva82 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It came four months into a radically new edition. Some things went down. Lots of beastly titanic level units went up. You'll survive.

Just because you survive GW's blatant cash grab drive doesn't mean it's good. It showed GW's motivations. Nothing about balance. They upped prices of models you didn't even SEE let alone that were dominating tournaments 300%.

300%. That's huge. That's IG guardsmen going to 12pts per model. That's such a huge price buff that nothing in the game warrants. It would be such a bonker level of brokeness both alaitoc and ynnead dark reapers pale in comparison. If that was justified EVERY SINGLE army list at top-10 of tournaments would have had at least 2 of those.

It wasn't that good. It wasn't even good model to begin with. Nobody took those in tournaments. If anything it deserved price DECREASE rather than increase.

But GW doesn't care about quality of rules or balance. The CA2017 changes were just for sake of making more money at the expense of balance. And that's the problem. Nobody can seriously expect GW to actually aim for trying to balance so if you play 40k you do it knowing GW is doing it's best to not make it balanced.

If we didn't see those models why do you care? I presume you've never tried to take on a T9 2+ tank. It's not as easy as the math looks.

And, yes, it warranted it. You can make all the silly strawman comparisons you want.

If the point changes were for the sake of making money why did they drop points on units that haven't been in stock for ages? Your head is so far up that you've come out the other side.

EDIT: And just because you like to roll out the Sokar nerf as your little shock and awe statistic.

BS2
T9
W40
3+ / 5++ / 4+ VOID
Transport 50 models; including bikes and centurions
-1 to be hit
MINUS 12" to any ranged weapon trying to hit it
PotMS
VOID covers EVERYTHING within 8" of this model.

If you think this thing has any business being 651 points you have no credibility.