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.

There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.

Or the opposite and it's too weak? But wonder how many tournaments there even been so far.

While they don't appear Nids/Quin broken at first glance, how about we wait until they have actually had tournaments with the army before we proclaim whether or not something was a success.

The book only came out last weekend after all.

From what I have seen most of the complaints are about unit options and the fact that people have CSM armies that can’t play without amendment because their chaos lord can’t take a jump pack etc

But it think it’s too soon to say how powerful they are especially as some people might be changing up their armies with the new units so couldn’t be elbow deep in paint right now

bibotot wrote:
There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.

Being balanced is a bad thing for a future. A super powerful codex can be nerfed changed, then rises up again for months or even years. When you get a balanced book, and you have to use it for the next 2-3 years, it can get really unfun 12 months down the line, specialy if new edition pops.

That's crazy talk.

It's karol talk. To be expected from his imaginary gaming　circle

Define success. Not the word as such. But what context you’re using it in here.

A Codex being powerful/OP does not, even if it objectively is powerful/OP and not simply getting the New Hotness Boost, does not a successful Codex make.

Consider Chaos’ best regarded Codex - 3.5. That was a popular Codex for a number of reasons.

1. For those who’s main interest is a Powerful Army, it provided that.

2. Each Legion felt like a different army on the board. So it was most definitely a diverse offering.

3. Chaos was super popular as a result.

But

4. Not All The Legions Were Balanced. So, in terms of being good for the overall game? One could argue it wasn’t a success, as those interested in Powerful Armies tended to field relatively cookie cutter lists.

Please note none of this post should be taken as even suggesting anyone is doing their hobby wrong.

So….what’s the parameters here? If it’s doing well in competitive environments, is that the result of one or two super cheesy lists catching opponents with their pants down? Or has it elevated the majority of existing Chaos forces in terms of potential, resilience and damage output?

And most crucially…..sorry for the likely red rag….are long term Chaos players happy with their new Codex?/

Lots and lots of ways to define or debate success.

Some of the new units in the codex aren't even available for pre-order and there is no indication when they will be available.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's crazy talk.

Well what book is more fun to play right now. The DE codex or lets say the balanced IF or if you want to have something newer the GSC book?
in 8th the GK was super internaly balanced, so balanced it didn't even matter that much what you played with. It came out at the start of 8th and had to last the GK player till 2/3ed of 9th. What do you think the fun would be for the GK players if their codex in 8th was on pair with lets say Eldar. Would the GK player have more fun or less fun.

The so called balanced books age really bad, and if they happen to be unlucky durning an edition switch, where one of their core rules or strenghts stops to work, they become very unfun to use. The "OP" books on the other had last for months, sometimes even years and are often still okey in the next edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
It's karol talk. To be expected from his imaginary gaming　circle

yeah. I remember the 8th ed entry article for GK saying how they tried to balanced everything for them, give them baby smites etc to avoid making them to over powered, and then they started churrning out OP books. Was so fun to have a balanced book. Specialy when the only way for GW to fix stuff from a realy broken book is to put out a new codex. Which again means, that unless you are a marines player, the book you have has to last for years.

Hasn't it been out for like a week? Has anyone actually had a real chance to see what the Codex is like in a competitive environment?
Regardless competitive success is one marker for a good Codex and this one fails at the hurdle of established players having basic units invalidated.

People had been playing with the leaked version of it for over a month in my backwater part of the world. I have no doubt people playing closer to where ever the playtesters are could get their hands on the rules much sooner.

Karol wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's crazy talk.

Well what book is more fun to play right now. The DE codex or lets say the balanced IF or if you want to have something newer the GSC book?
in 8th the GK was super internaly balanced, so balanced it didn't even matter that much what you played with. It came out at the start of 8th and had to last the GK player till 2/3ed of 9th. What do you think the fun would be for the GK players if their codex in 8th was on pair with lets say Eldar. Would the GK player have more fun or less fun.

The so called balanced books age really bad, and if they happen to be unlucky durning an edition switch, where one of their core rules or strenghts stops to work, they become very unfun to use. The "OP" books on the other had last for months, sometimes even years and are often still okey in the next edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
It's karol talk. To be expected from his imaginary gaming　circle

yeah. I remember the 8th ed entry article for GK saying how they tried to balanced everything for them, give them baby smites etc to avoid making them to over powered, and then they started churrning out OP books. Was so fun to have a balanced book. Specialy when the only way for GW to fix stuff from a realy broken book is to put out a new codex. Which again means, that unless you are a marines player, the book you have has to last for years.

the DE codex is the most boring gak i've played since i started playing 40k. I'd much rather play a balanced army than get carried by my codex

They've got supply shortages, they've removed more models (not options in this case) from sale than they've actually released. Rules wise, it's a 7/10 because of the loadout and jump pack silliness. With distribution concerns and lack of supporting releases bundled in, easily a 3/10 imo.

Karol wrote:
People had been playing with the leaked version of it for over a month in my backwater part of the world. I have no doubt people playing closer to where ever the playtesters are could get their hands on the rules much sooner.

And those people aren't going to be rocking up to big events with a Codex that hasn't been released are they Karol?
As much as I despise the competitive scene I admit it does give a rough idea of just how good or bad a Codex is.

I think Karol is just making the point that in this age of overwhelmingly power crept, rapid fire releases, having a balanced codex might as well mean having a weak codex because after 6 months of broken releases you'll be left in the dust.

Which is sorta how it was if you got a middle of the road book in the first half of 9th. The ones that aged the best are the busted ones, not the 'just good enough' ones.

Although it's not exactly a universal observation, a lot of strong books got nerfed to well below average.

Well, first of all the good stuff in w40k generaly isn't stuff which is hidden and takes years for people to find out. Although I must say that, people where I play were suprised by people going crazy over bladeguard and eradictors, when VV and MMAB were a thing. So maybe it does happen. For the regular w40k player I think it doesn't matter. It is summer right now people are playing 4-5 games a day, even if they are medium skilled players. The bad stuff out of the codex would be fished out very fast. Same with the very good stuff.

And the top tournament players , in the west, all know the playtesters or are or were playtesters and probably had and knew the rules even sooner. So they are covered. Now do I think, with my Zero expiriance in tournament play, that CSM are going to be the next tyranids or eldar etc ? No, I do not think so, and I also think that if they had to the options to do that, we would have already seen the combos and the armies. Same way we got to say void weavers day 1, DE liquifire builds, crusher stamped and then when the codex was out the warior spam list with MW etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ventus wrote:
I think Karol is just making the point that in this age of overwhelmingly power crept, rapid fire releases, having a balanced codex might as well mean having a weak codex because after 6 months of broken releases you'll be left in the dust.

Which is sorta how it was if you got a middle of the road book in the first half of 9th. The ones that aged the best are the busted ones, not the 'just good enough' ones.

Although it's not exactly a universal observation, a lot of strong books got nerfed to well below average.

Power builds are not build equal. Ad mecha got nerfed and now only the best of the bast can efficiently use the army, which probably means the avarge player is not having a fun time playing the list. Orks were whacked hard. To "balance" GK all it took was to take out the double brotherhood options and they became mid tier, in their most optimal version of the army. But stuff like DE, eldar or harlis were nerfed multiple times. And the books have so much good stuff they stay at the top. DE were even wierder, because they were clearly kept in check by ad mecha and orks, when both of those got nerfed hard, DE had a renaissance as far as wins goes. And it was with a different, then the initial nerfed list , which ment the codex had more then 1 list working out of it.
Compare it something like marines with their 9000+unit choices and it really shows how old some armies get. DG are the same. MEQ stuff in general doesn't age well in w40k. Although I base this on only 2 editions, I saw.

Karol wrote:

bibotot wrote:
There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.

Being balanced is a bad thing for a future. A super powerful codex can be nerfed changed, then rises up again for months or even years. When you get a balanced book, and you have to use it for the next 2-3 years, it can get really unfun 12 months down the line, specialy if new edition pops.

This 100%. Having a balanced, well-written book is actually bad with how GW does things now. You can't trust that the next codexes will be as balanced, so balanced will mean weak when GW decides to make the next codex stupid OP.

bibotot wrote:
There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.

Well, in a lot of places this coming weekend will be the first time it's going to be legal for tournament play.

That being said, this seems to be in line with the Knight Codexes and appears to be pretty balanced. It has a long of strong options, but nothing oppressive (maybe Just Abbadon) at least of right now.

 Sasori wrote:

bibotot wrote:
There has been a lack of complaining about them being OP or sweeping the tournaments like Aeldari, Tyranids, Tau, and Custodes before the nerfs. I guess that's an indication that this is a well-balanced Codex.

Well, in a lot of places this coming weekend will be the first time it's going to be legal for tournament play.

That being said, this seems to be in line with the Knight Codexes and appears to be pretty balanced. It has a long of strong options, but nothing oppressive (maybe Just Abbadon) at least of right now.

Honestly I disagree it has a lot of strong options. There's a few standout things sure (Black Rune being generic to take on Possessed or Terminators comes to mind) but in terms of power it's going to lack.

How does one even define "success" in this edition? If it gets within 10% of 50/50 W/L? If it places top 3rd, but not convincingly? If it doesn't have any glaring errors or day 1 patches?

Lets not set the bar too high, GW might trip over it.

Dudeface wrote:
They've got supply shortages, they've removed more models (not options in this case) from sale than they've actually released. Rules wise, it's a 7/10 because of the loadout and jump pack silliness. With distribution concerns and lack of supporting releases bundled in, easily a 3/10 imo.

Yup, agreed. The loss of options is egregious.

I think if the people like to play with the codex, specialy after a few new ones have came out, then the book is a succes. GK were , for a short time, popular. They are no longer popular. The DE book is popular multiple months after the book being out, there for the book is a success.

The worse books are those that never really took of. Some of the marine supplements, the gsc book, 1ksons to a degree. Those don't have to be weak or bad build books, the ideas behind them may even have been interested, but the way they were put down was bad.

And then there is the special case of DG, which to me, someone looking at them from the outside, has all the hallmarks of 8th ed GK. Including the meme like, new FAQ, new DG nerfs, each time, all the time.
No idea what DG did to the design team to deserv this fate.

Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.

I think OP means it isn't mechanically broken to the point of being unuseable or meta defininingly overpowered.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.

I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.

That's a low bar given that you can't play CSM in 9th without it.

 alextroy wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Can you define "bona fides success" as the intended meaning of that term is critical to answering the question.

I would say a codex is a “bonus Fidel’s success” if it is both a codex people want to play and other people want to play against.

I guess Sisters, Necrons, AdMech, Tyranids and Grey Knights were all failures then since none of them made me want to play the game again.

A good codex falls within the trifecta:

Balance
Fun
Representative of the faction.

It is fair to say the new CSM codex failed to be representative of chaos space marines.

It's also fair to say that due to the recent halfing of CP a lot of the balance mechanics around HQ and upgrades / are completely out of whack. So no, balance wise i think this codex already got a nerfbat to the knee before the party even started. Fun fact, due to a still existing double shoot stratagem we also got the prohibition to specialise legionaires with 2 of the same Heavy /special weapon.

fun: Oh boi, between inability of representing chaos marines as a whole (no custom traits), outright brainmelting datasheets (cultist mob, Mere mortals), the further existence of a double shoot and Votwl Stratagem (no matter how you slice it, those ARE unfun for your opponent and you)...


So no, this codex is bad.

From the game's perspective I think this codex is good, really good. All codexes should be similar in power, and a large portion of 9th codex is already there.

If it represents CSM well enough I don't know though, I'm not an expert for that faction.