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.

Arbitrary fluff? Oh give me a break. If you're going to claim that then all fluff is arbitrary.

The current Chaos Codex is an unfluffy boring mess with a hodge podge of utterly useless units and a few pure gold ones that has lead to a single list - Lash/Oblits - dominating almost everywhere.

The previous Chaos Codex was no more balanced, but at least you could do lots of things with it (and just about everything you can do now). Those claiming that the current Chaos Codex has more options or is more flexible are stupid. Pure and simple.

Oh, and one other thing:

Generic Daemons.

Go fish...

Restrictions based on fluff is as arbitrary as anything else (yes, I hated it that all of a sudden my Dark Angels couldn't ally with Imperial Agents for fluff reasons). The 40k universe is big enough to not restrict things for fluff reasons. Fortunately, GW seems to agree and a lot of those have been dropped.

And HBMC, I've stated numerous times (usually to you no less) that I don't like generic daemons. Especially when all they had to do was allow you to buy marks for Daemons and it would have solved it entirely. That being said, generic daemons doesn't mean I can't use certain models anymore. It just means that my daemonette models aren't as good as a Daemon Codex players daemonette models.

Ozymandias wrote:So how about you take your fluffy army and don't tell other players what they can and can't do? I love building fluffy armies and if I ever make a CSM or Daemons force it will be pure Slaanesh but what about a guy who wants to tell the story of a Champion of Khorne killing a Nurgle Champion and incorporating his units into his warband? Or a Slaanesh sorcerer tricking an Iron Warriors Lord into assaulting an enemy fortification? A broad codex allows the fluff bunnies to make their own armies without placing restrictions on what other people can take.

I think you missed the point there Ozy... The new C:CSM is killing the Chaos fluff. New players to the game, who hadn't read the older stuff will simply have no idea what was there. Your examples above all derive from knowledge of the background to the game, although they really don't make sense as some great dramatic story... Why would followers of Nurgle follow a Khorne Champion just because their leader was killed? And a Tzeentchian Sorcerer tricking Iron Warriors into assaulting an enemy fortification would make much more sense. That said, there's no "fluffy" objection to either of your cases as Nurgle and Khorne are not direct rivals, nor are the followers of Slaanesh and the (undivided) Iron Warriors. But again, the new C:CSM has stripped a significant chunk of that out. It's very hard to "tell stories" when whole sections of the universe the story is putatively being told in have been stripped away and lost.

Is "fluff" arbitrary? Of course, and so is literally every single aspect of a tabletop miniatures game. But the background and good sculpts, for my money, are all GW has going for them in 40k. Well, that and -for all intents and purposes- market lock-in anyway. The rules are mediocre, at best, but the background is among the most richly developed out there.

I will always build a "fluffy" army, and I'll readily recognize that what I see as "fluffy" often will not synch with what others might want to do. But at least I'll have the ability to draw upon the full history of the 40k universe to set my stories. Newcomers very often won't. And that's a shame. Losing the ability to "tell stories" with your armies and games means you see more and more spam lists. Quite simply, there are fewer and fewer reasons not to do it...

Vale,

JohnS

I don't see the big deal about them streamlining codexes and removing restrictions. Do any other codexes have these arbitrary restrictions? Are you forbidden from taking a dreadnought because you have a chaplain in your army, and chaplains detest the machine god worshiping techmarines? Are eldar forbidden to take scorpions if they use banshees as they're rival aspect shrines?

Sacred numbers?? Because Khorne is so interested in counting his followers rather than shedding blood. It was a stupid concept to begin with.

The animosities don't make sense either. Maybe they come from the dark ages of game design, but slaanesh/khorne and tzeentch/nurgle? Shouldn't Khorne hate the magic god? Slaanesh hate the ugly god?

It isn't like the new codexes forbid people from making lone-god armies (I should know...) or that you're forced into mixing and matching. They just took out needless restrictions.

I do agree that the new chaos marine codex is lacking in options, theme, and just plain fun. I agree that generic daemons are a horrible idea, and that the lack of legions sucks donkey balls. And I'd be all in favour of putting fluff god-based restrictions into a legion-based framework. But I just don't think that having those restrictions hang around just because - especially in a traitor-marine concept - is a big deal.

I'm going to back off on the topic of the gakky Chaos Codex. It's not what this thread is about (at least, not directly), so I'm going to drop it for now.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm going to back off on the topic of the gakky Chaos Codex. It's not what this thread is about (at least, not directly), so I'm going to drop it for now.

True enough... Although it is tangentially relevant since, at least for me, it hits home for the overall question of, "Are you looking forward to, or dreading, the next time GW 'updates' your Codex". But you're probably right. It has gone a bit off thread.

Vale,

JohnS

I, for one, am looking forward to the eventuality of a 5th ed Tau codex.

Primarily, I'm fairly sure there will be a drop in Devilfish costs (since SM and IG both got fairly good discounts in their transport costs, particularly IG). Plus, seeing as troop costs went down in IG v5, cheaper Firewarriors would be nice.

Some new Hammerhead variants would be cool. Or new varieties of seeker missiles and cheaper markerlights to use them with.

Honestly, the only downside to a new Tau codex that I can think of is the surety of a nerfed disruption pod (they'll either be 5-10 points more, or their function will be worse).

Markerlights better be cheaper though (they really can't make them much more expensive).

H.B.M.C. wrote:Does it concern you that new Codices breed a sense of dread, and that conversations are dominated about what we're going to lose and what will be nerfed. I remember when the conversations were with people looking forward to a new Codex, rather than those wishing it would take longer.

It would concern me, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's actually occurring in the manner that you so baldly state as fact, H.B.
M.C.

In fact I'd be so bold as to say that those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Of the four recent Codices I'm aware of (Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines & Imperial Guard) the only complaints I've heard are about the CSM codex, which I'll admit is a terrible product and a huge misfire. As well as you and Agammenon2 complaining about IG, but the two of you seem to complain about damn near everything GW publishes. I think negative views of the various codices are magnified here as DakkaDakka acts as something of an echo chamber, with many posters who are good at ruthlessly tuning lists for optimal efficiency in a tournament environment, which quickly leeads to complaints about only one playable list as they hit upon the combo that defeats the current uber-list/metagame. (Like the explosion of Melta guard to deal with Mech that's currently occurring.

We also don't get many posts saying xxx product is great and has loads of options as those typoe of posters get quickly derided as fan boys or refugees from USE TACTICS-land. I would say that frequently they have a point. Again, the Chaos codex is a glaring, glaring exception to the rule. That is clear unmitigated crap from start to finish and people defending it deserve any derision they get.

H.B.M.C wrote:There are exceptions, everyone wanted a new Eldar/Ork Codex, as they were armies that simply didn't work any more, and Dark Eldar players want a new Codex so they can get a half-way decent set of new models, and I suspect Necron players want the same so that they can see how GW expands the line, but everyone else is dreading their new Codex.

So everyone dreads new 'dexes except
Eldar
Orks
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Tau (mentioned later in the thread as currently having a poor codex.

Aren't those the majority of non-Marine players? That's a rather sizable chunk of exceptions being somewhere of the order of half the currently recognized races. Maybe I'm strange but if around 50% of something are exceptions I'm not sure it can truly said to be a rule.

H.B.M.C. wrote: Wolf players are scared that it'll be like the Dark Angel/Chaos Codices.

Around my gaming community most Wolf players are just happy that GW's gotten around to them after a decade in the shadows. There is some concern about nerfing but it seems offset by these Saga rumours.

H.B.M.C wrote: Tyranid players are wondering what parts of their list ('Fexes, 'Stealers or both) are about to be nerfed. I know Daemon players won't like their next revision (assuming they ever get one) as we're bound to see Special Characters removed and things like Blood Crushers get kicked to the curb.

Well, I think the Tyranid thing is a worry about GW's pendulum of over-compensating weakening the big bugs more than is needed in the current ruleset. But the pendulum approach has been evident since at least the release of Dark Millennium for 2nd Edition and during most of that time, most players have been optimistic about new codices. I'm imagining that Nidzilla WILL be reigned in slightly now that GW has sold enough plastic 'fex kits to pay for their initial investment. I guess I'm crazy in wanting the Tyranids to play more like the hordes of bugs depicted in the fluff, especially now the metagame appears to have shifted to favour either hordes or mechanized armies. And I imagine GW will address the glaring Anti-Tank weakness Tyranids have (is there a reason Venom Cannons can't penetrate except as a hold over from second edition?). Not familiar enough with the Daemon 'dex to be able to comment (it should be part of CSM anyway, or at least should be able to field a decent approximation of itself in a revised combine chaos list whenever that happens. I think even GW must be aware of the general dissatisfaction with Chaos as it currently is and will probably go too far the other way with a plethora of different, often redundant list options available closer to the second 3rd edition codex)

H.B.M.C wrote:This is why I hate the 40K Codices and love things like Planetstrike. Planetstrike affects the way you play 40K, not how you're allowed to use your army.

I'm more the other way way. I have no particular care for Apocalypse, Planetstrike or Cities of Death as they seem more like gimmicks shoe-horned onto a framework where they're really not needed. Plus as someone who mostly plays store or pick-up games, I'm more likely to have standard 40k list available than one for those more esoteric variants. YMMV, obviously but the only supplements for 40K I've enjoyed have been codices. Mostly because I love making army lists for the different races and forces. Indeed if I didn't restrain myself I could start at least a dozen threads in army lists every day. I love list making and Apocalypse (with it's extremely dull Tau datasheet options) and it's ilk just don't inspire me the same way.

H.B.M.C wrote:I despise the Guard Codex because it is boring, bland, and changed every rule (every rule) for no apparent (or good) reason, but didn't add any flavour nor fix any problems (in some cases - Stormies and Ogryn - it made them worse). Planetstrike though opens up a whole new avenue for games, and takes us away from the monotony of Kill Points and Victory Points which, IMO, are dull and boring ways to play the game.

I'm still working through it and the changes. I knew Doctrines were disappearing and this alone meant a major overhaul to just about everything, so I have no problem with huge changes made to the list as it doesn't make swathes and swathes of models invalid. I assumed Stormies would be weakened a little as they seemed almost ubiquitous in IG listsa (a problem exacerbated by the old Grenadiers doctrine) as for the Ogryns, I'll concede your point there, but abhumnans have always been crap.

H.B.M.C wrote:This game needs to have a story behind it otherwise it risks becoming a mathhammer hell where you number-crunch your single killer build from your Codex (Lash/Oblits, Nob Bikers, Vulcan/AssTermy, Fateweaver/Bloodcrushers, MechVet/ValkVet/Executioners) and then play games to score points, where outcomes are unrealistic (ha! I killed heaps of your tiny Guard squads and beat you even though I have 1 model left!) and games are unbalanced where they should be balanced.

As you self-admittedly don't play 5th Edition, I think you overstate the case a little bit. (Again a product of the Dakka 'echo chamber' effect.) Yes there ae obvious power-builds when new 'dexes come out, but these are usually countered by a new build and that's more of a tournament thing anyway to me.

As for story, I think the fluff in the 40K5 rulebook, the SM codex and the IG codex is uniformly excellent for generating ideas for campaigns and individual skirmishes, especially the timelines and maps. I already have a story written and a campaign mapped out based on a couple of entries in those time-lines, so if you want a story, it can be done, even in the confines of math-hammered lists.

H.B.M.C wrote: less Codex redesign. Codices just piss people off.

Spoken like someone whose primary army just got a new 'dex. I'd wager that Dark Eldar, Necron and Daemonhunter players would like more Codex redesign than "every three months..."

Cane wrote:
If anything, not having updates and new rulebooks on a consistent and timely basis is more annoying than waiting over a decade for a proper rules update like what the IG was and how DE still is. ... Who the hell wants to wait in this day and age for new stuff? If anything people dread that it takes so damn long for GW to update and introduce new rules especially in terms of FAQs that all new rulebooks inevitably need (cough IG FAQ) - they're just PDF files after all.

A much shorter way of phrasing my earlier points.

Redbeard wrote:One guiding principle for game design should be "don't take things away". Change what they cost, but don't ever take something away - that's what pisses people off.

I thinks that's fundamentally true of game design, especially in something as WYSIWYG heavy as 40K. If I go out of my way to convert up Alpha Legion cultists from my CSM army or Thunder Hammer Chaplains from my Salamanders army, then these should still be viable to be played if that army is revised, and not just as "counts as" fashion

Redbeard wrote:I think that, more than anything, the codexes need proper QA. Not "playtesting", because that implies that they're playing. QA should be methodical. It should be process-based. It should involve established baselines, and unit testing as well as playing whole games. But I'm sure that these things go against GW's business model of making new stuff good - a business model that has failed as much as it has succeeded (cases: Beasts of Nurgle, Possessed Marines, Chaos Spawn, Ork Tankbustas, Vanguard, and so on). Even if the goal was to make the new units 'better' by some amount, obviously some additional QA could have improved the odds of succeeding at this.

I agree here. If the on-line community can math hammer within a couple of weeks and see that these units are severely out of whack, then someone who's ENTIRE JOB is too make sure that armies are viable should see it earlier in the process than post-release.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Redbeard wrote:One guiding principle for game design should be "don't take things away".

When GW has overreached with armies having too much, I think this is a proper response.

But who is the arbiter of when things have been over-reached? How was SW 13th Company an over-reach? How were Chaos Cult Teminators an over-reach? If the next Eldar codex came out and there was just one generic Aspect Warrior elite entry with identical stat-lines and equipment (a la generic daemons) would you regard that as fixing an over reach? I wouldn't. I'd consider that an arbitrary restriction of choice that is entirely unnecessary.

focusedfire wrote:Or could be familiarity breeds contempt and you've just become overly familiar with said army.

I think this is true. After playing any army for a length of time there is an element of fatigue that sets in. I jump from army to army like a magpie with a cocaine habit and crazy ADHD, but I think most veterans started their second army (and we know you have one) simply because they got tired of their primary army. They tend to play the same way regardless of scenario and opponents. Guard are always stand around shooty, Orks are always charge in and choppy. Sometimes you want something different. I like shooty armies and gravitate towards them, but when I have my Tau collection at a point where I can say enough, I'm likely to start Tyranids, simply because their play style is so very different, and I'll probably flesh out the two AoBR armies to legal if dull 1500pters so I have ringer armies for introducing new players. So that'll be 4 armies I can flit between to combat fatigue.

Cheese Elemental wrote:What I'm really stunned by is the fact that GW doesn't release all five SM codicies to keep them consistent with each other. That way, BA, BT, DA, and SW players get their 3+ Storm Shields and can stop whining.

This was the only real advantage of the 3rd edition supplementary codex approach. If the core set changed, it kept everything else equal. I'd almost like to see that return as it's absurd that a Storm Shield for Da isn't the same as a Storm shield for SM amongst many, many other examples.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:stuff

Emperor's Unending Wall of Text!

chaplaingrabthar wrote:In fact I'd be so bold as to say that those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Of the four recent Codices I'm aware of (Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines & Imperial Guard) the only complaints I've heard are about the CSM codex, which I'll admit is a terrible product and a huge misfire. As well as you and Agammenon2 complaining about IG, but the two of you seem to complain about damn near everything GW publishes.

Hey, I also complain about the current IG Codex! And I'm happy with the current CSM Codex. But I guess everybody is OK with Daemons? Wierd.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:So everyone dreads new 'dexes except
Eldar
Orks
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Tau
Aren't those the majority of non-Marine players?

Eldar are OK, except that you can't make a Biel-Tan force at all. Orks & DE should be scared of any changes, because their current Codices are quite good right now, so they're going to be nerfed like IG was. Necrons *should* be scared because most of the tricks & gimmicks that rely on tied to WBB are going to go the way of the dodo. Tau should do OK because they're on an upswing. So I count that is 1 Neutral, 3 Dreading, and 1 Hopeful.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:Well, I think the Tyranid thing is a worry about GW's pendulum of over-compensating weakening the big bugs more than is needed in the current ruleset.

I'm imagining that Nidzilla WILL be reigned in slightly

If, by "reined in slightly", you mean "take a nerf bat up the ass, sideways", I'd completely agree.

If you look at what happened to the Wraithlord, I think you have a good idea of how hard GW is going to come down on the Fexes. WLs weakened due to BRB vehicle buffs, went up in cost, lost out on options, and gained a penalty rule (Wraithsight). So I think it's fair to conclude that Fexes will be nerfed pretty brutally. At a minimum, Nid players can kiss their Elite Fexes goodbye, along with Dakkafex builds, in general.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I think even GW must be aware of the general dissatisfaction with Chaos as it currently is and will probably go too far the other way with a plethora of different, often redundant list options available closer to the second 3rd edition codex)

GW is equally aware that CSM are playing well, sells well, and a lot of new players jumped in. A little whining against a net sales increase is a net sales increase, and GW will take that choice every time.

GW might do a Chaos Legions book a la the Chaos Daemons book, with focused lists for each of the 4 Ruinous Powers. But that Legions book likely won't see updates for a 6 to 10 years at a stretch, being treated like the BA & SW Codices.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I assumed Stormies would be weakened a little as they seemed almost ubiquitous in IG listsa (a problem exacerbated by the old Grenadiers doctrine) as for the Ogryns, I'll concede your point there, but abhumnans have always been crap.

Storms were taken because they were the only small points Troops available, due to the Platoon / AF choices each being ~200 pts. Now that there are Veterans as cheap Troops, Storms as Troops are redundant.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Redbeard wrote:One guiding principle for game design should be "don't take things away".

When GW has overreached with armies having too much, I think this is a proper response.

But who is the arbiter of when things have been over-reached? How was SW 13th Company an over-reach? How were Chaos Cult Teminators an over-reach?

If the next Eldar codex came out and there was just one generic Aspect Warrior elite entry with identical stat-lines and equipment (a la generic daemons) would you regard that as fixing an over reach?

GW decides, of course. When nobody can understand what's going on, that's overreaching. Doctrines, Legions, Nid Mutations are all good examples of overreaching. 13th Co was a splinter, like Kroot and the CJ Harlie lists. 4 flavors of Cult Termies on top of Legion lists with extra entries for each makes for just way too much going on in a single Codex.

What you're saying is that *ALL* CSM entries would go away in favor of a CSM Tactical squad without any Marks or other options, but then we'd have a Codex split with Eldar first, and then Biel-Tan a year later. Actually, I would be quite happy with a dedicated Biel-Tan Codex, especially if I get super-chromey rules in there. Please feel free to suggest that to GW. If GW is going to do a variant Eldar Codex, I'd far rather see Biel-Tan than Comorragh get the book. Biel-Tan can only go up in power. DE can only go down in power.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:when I have my Tau collection at a point where I can say enough, I'm likely to start Tyranids, simply because their play style is so very different, and I'll probably flesh out the two AoBR armies to legal if dull 1500pters so I have ringer armies for introducing new players. So that'll be 4 armies I can flit between to combat fatigue.

Actually, you should do that, and that's what GW wants. At that point, with a new Codex for each of your armies, you'll have new stuff all the time, so no complaining.

chaplaingrabthar wrote: it's absurd that a Storm Shield for Da isn't the same as a Storm shield for SM amongst many, many other examples.

How so? Only the BA have the Baal Pred variant. Only the Space Wolves will have the +1 Lightning Claws. So the UM have the +1 Storm Shield. Minor variations here serve only to better (artificially & semi-arbitrarily) distinguish the character of each SM variant.

JohnHwangDD wrote:But I guess everybody is OK with Daemons?

Not everybody...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:stuff

Emperor's Unending Wall of Text!

A long thought out post, deserves a long thought out response.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hey, I also complain about the current IG Codex! And I'm happy with the current CSM Codex. But I guess everybody is OK with Daemons? Wierd.

Well, seeing as you do appear to be happy with the CSM codex, I'm not sure I should take your views on the IG seriously :-) As for Daemons, I'm not okay with the generic abominations in the CSM 'dex and I'm completely unfamiliar with the Daemon 'dex, so I can't comment on it one way or another.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Eldar are OK, except that you can't make a Biel-Tan force at all.

And Chaos are okay, you just can't make a Night Lords, Iron Warriors, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, World Eaters, Emperor's Children, Word Bearers or Alpha Legion force at all. If you're expression of regret regarding Biel-Tann is accurate, how the hell can you be happy with the CSM codex?

JohnHwangDD wrote: Orks & DE should be scared of any changes, because their current Codices are quite good right now, so they're going to be nerfed like IG was. Necrons *should* be scared because most of the tricks & gimmicks that rely on tied to WBB are going to go the way of the dodo. Tau should do OK because they're on an upswing. So I count that is 1 Neutral, 3 Dreading, and 1 Hopeful.

This basically just seems to say change is bad. I'm a little surprised. I'm also amused by your opinion that Necrons should be scared of changes as I'm pretty damn sure most Necron players would love a change to how the army plays in 5th Edition.

Also Imperial Guard was not nerfed by the new codex. IG drop spam was, but there are several viable builds that are as effective, if not more so that now exist. IG might have moved sideways on the totem pole, or maybe even climbed a couple of rungs (in my opinion anyway) but I don't think you can characterize it as nerfed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW is equally aware that CSM are playing well, sells well, and a lot of new players jumped in. A little whining against a net sales increase is a net sales increase, and GW will take that choice every time.

I think that the current Internet back draft could be classified as more than a little whining. GW does tend to respond to the on-line community when it becomes absolutely deafening and unified. Not alwyas, but that's more the norm. I also think that losing the huge gobbets of negativity that the phrase Codex: Chaos Space Marines brings up might be worth it in overall model sales. I'm thinking that if a lot of the different options were codex legal, people would buy models for them, which would be another sales gain.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:If the next Eldar codex came out and there was just one generic Aspect Warrior elite entry with identical stat-lines and equipment (a la generic daemons) would you regard that as fixing an over reach?

What you're saying is that *ALL* CSM entries would go away in favor of a CSM Tactical squad without any Marks or other options, but then we'd have a Codex split with Eldar first, and then Biel-Tan a year later.

No, I'm saying what I said in the parts that quoted. I'm not seeing how my comparison isn't valid. Different daemons were a core part of Chaos since RT as were different Eldar Aspect Warriors part of Eldar. If one can go away, then so can the other. It's not the same as the CSM comparison you bring up. And with GW's history there would be no guarantee of another Biel-Tan codex a year later, you might be stuck with Aspects as crappy guardians in mesh armour drag fo a DE like decade.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote: it's absurd that a Storm Shield for Da isn't the same as a Storm shield for SM amongst many, many other examples.

How so? Only the BA have the Baal Pred variant. Only the Space Wolves will have the +1 Lightning Claws. So the UM have the +1 Storm Shield. Minor variations here serve only to better (artificially & semi-arbitrarily) distinguish the character of each SM variant.

IT shouldn't be arbitrary. Also a Baal Predator is not the same as a regular Predator and Wolf Claws are not the same as Lightning Claws they are variants with different names. Stuff like Psychic Hoods, Storm Shields etc. are supposed o representing the SAME thing in each codex and so should have the SAME rules. What's wrong with a little consistency.?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:A long thought out post, deserves a long thought out response.

But then how would John 'win' the argument against you? He has to belittle you and then dismiss your arguments as trivial because he is incapable of forming counter-points of his own.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:If you're expression of regret regarding Biel-Tann is accurate, how the hell can you be happy with the CSM codex?

Because, according to John, all those various army options made things too restrictive and confined, whereas the current Codex, which has no options at all, is more flexible. I don't exactly know how he makes that connection, but I'd advise not thinking about it to much. You might go crosseyed.

For me, the bottom line is this:

Ever since 2nd edition went away, as H.B.M.C. has pointed out, most new Codex releases are largely viewed with dread and not anticipation.

The release of the first few 3rd edition Codices are actually what made me leave the game until the release of 4th edition!

GW really should address this, and I think they've begun to.

Time will tell if they continue to head in the right direction.

Or not.

I was, actually, really looking forwards to the new IG codex. Missing units returned, Primaris Psykers returned, better Commissar rules, new advisers, MASSIVE RETURN OF FLUFF.

And then I actually read the Codex, and died a little inside, for I knew there would be a massive rush to build to this overpowered codex.

*MY* dread is that, for some reason, GW thinks that every Codex must be more powerful than the last, in order to move more product.

Very CCG-minded of them.

--B.

"Ambivalence"

I think that sums up my perspective. I only play Tyranids, so I guess that may influence things.

But I doubt it.

Agree to this: Chaos were pretty much the worst written codex i've ever seen. Wording it differently would have made all the difference in the world, but SOMEONE was too stupid to realise how. And then theres the lash prince issue, the codex may be well balanced, but this one unit entry seems to be just so damn awesome compared to the rest that everyone feels compelled to use it.

Other than that, all i can say is that this "dreadfull feeling" people are getting is simply caus people didnt collect their armies properly, if you realise that you have just about exactly 1500 pts of tyranids, and most of those points are bound to a number of 5-6 fexes and 1-2 tyrants, then youre playing an army based on ONE(1) design and principle. And if the core ruleset behind that design and principle is so much as tweaked, then your army will fall over on itself.
Other examples would be armies that heavily depend on supplementary rules, such as doctrines, whom were guaranteed to change from codex to codex, marine armies that used certain rules to give all of their tactical squads Apothecaries or armies that are designed fit smugly into tournament rules (you wanna play 1500 point tournaments, so you buy 1500 points of units, simple)
When a codex changes then a codex changes, it has some good changes, and other bad changes, just keep in mind that most people overlook the good stuff and obsess on the bad stuff, "the old good will be made bad and the old bad stuff will be good" is just people beign overly dramatic

On the imperial guard codex: They were pretty okay beforehand, but they needed that litle scooch before they could really square up against the new edition codexes, with the changes made in this codex the imperial army can face orks/marines and the rest at very even odds. All we need now is for the rest of the codexes to arrive.

I wouldn't worry about Lash too much. You can bet GW will simply remove the option entirely in the next version of the Codex.

Before I answer, let me state that I'm a Necron-only player.

I look forward to a new codex release with immense anticipation!

Probably not for what you expect, though.

I play in a vacuum. There's a group of 6-7 of us who play regularly against each other. Most of us have a single army, but some have 2-3 they switch around. We play a mixture of "tournaments" and team-Apocalypse games. Now, we just finished a tournament.. And I came in second, almost tied with the first place.. Which was Dark Eldar. So yeah, I don't look forward to a new codex because Necrons are "weak" or anything like that, because in our circle, they aren't. We had to modify PO for team-Apocalypse games, as otherwise it would be nigh unplayable, but even that is no big deal. No, my problem is my total lack of options. There's one basic list I can field, with minor variations here and there. That gets boring quick, for me and my opponents. So yes, I look forward to a codex that will allow me to create more than one army list.