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.

Zweischneid wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Either way, returning to the point, Nids are better than DE and about even with non-daemon-fighting GK, IMHO.

Ok, possible. But the DE-Codex is weaksauce incarnate anyways, and another pointless product of GW's most inept Codex-writer.

Jack-o-Black-holes-in-a-box still make my cry at what 40K has come to these days..

But the "common" or "majority" opinion here appears to be that DE are "well balanced" (which is largely Kelly-fan-wänk, not to mention desperate self-aggrandisation of Dark Eldar players who enjoy deluding themselves to be some kind of "better/advanced/more skilled" breed of 40K players) and GKs to be fairly powerful.

Right, let's try this again. What is it, in your opinion, that you find to be weak about the DE codex? Is it points cost? Or do you find they lack killer units? Or is it based on observational evidence of DE players in your area?

htj wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Either way, returning to the point, Nids are better than DE and about even with non-daemon-fighting GK, IMHO.

Ok, possible. But the DE-Codex is weaksauce incarnate anyways, and another pointless product of GW's most inept Codex-writer.

Jack-o-Black-holes-in-a-box still make my cry at what 40K has come to these days..

But the "common" or "majority" opinion here appears to be that DE are "well balanced" (which is largely Kelly-fan-wänk, not to mention desperate self-aggrandisation of Dark Eldar players who enjoy deluding themselves to be some kind of "better/advanced/more skilled" breed of 40K players) and GKs to be fairly powerful.

Right, let's try this again. What is it, in your opinion, that you find to be weak about the DE codex? Is it points cost? Or do you find they lack killer units? Or is it based on observational evidence of DE players in your area?

In this thread in particular, I am deducing from previous posts

im2randomghgh wrote:
Either way, returning to the point, Nids are better than DE and about even with non-daemon-fighting GK, IMHO.

DE, in this opinion, apparently rank behind Tyranids and Grey Knights in the 5th Edition books. Now, unless you consider IG, SW, BA and Marines to be weaker books than both Tyranids and DE (something I at least haven't heard so far), than DE must clearly be the tail light of the bunch.

In game experience, they tend to struggle alot with target saturation, lots of infantry and/or massive use of template weapons (again, given equal levels of skill on both sides of the table) and are overtly reliant on Raider/Venom-spam and on-trick-ponies like Vect himself. The more singular, potentially synergetic/supportive unit choices are often considered overpriced.

Personally, I would put vanilla Marines behind DE. DE, like Eldar, are highly specialised and fragile, but I think that they can strike a brutal killing blow when played well. The SMs, in my opinion, suffer from jack of all trades, master of none syndrome. They're by no means bad, but when played against a more specialised army such as BA, SW, IG or even DE, they aren't the best by a long shot. As to the one trick pony thing, that's a fair assessment, but wouldn't you say that's the case of some of the other armies you mentioned? The same lists and builds do seem to be the ones that come up all the time.

How do you think they stack up against the 4th ed books, including those written just prior to 5th?

htj wrote:
How do you think they stack up against the 4th ed books, including those written just prior to 5th?

Dunno. I don't think I ever played one of the newer books under 4th Edition rules. Vice-versa, most 4th Edition Codexes have to be a bit more creative vs. tanks and AV (and to a lesser degree negating the increasingly common FnP) as the were less prominent/reliable in a 4th edition environment.


But interesting that you rank Space Marines below Nids and DE. So would you say Space Marines is the weakest 5th Edition book? Or is there one that is even weaker?

Currently, the ranking I get from this board would go abit like this:

1...?
2...?
3...?
4...Grey Knights
5...Tyranids
6...Dark Eldar
7...Space Marines

Imperial Guard, Space Wolves and Blood Angels thus the top-3 guys?

I don't personally like ranking things, but given the options I would say that I feel that C:SM is the weakest of all the books written during 5th. I feel Eldar and Orks stand up well, despite being released under 4th rules.

Just for argument:

1-3 Space Puppies, IG, BA
4-6 Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, Space Marines,
7-9 Orcs, Nids, Eldar
10-12 Black Templar, Dark Angels, Tau,
13-15 Chaos SM , ChaosDemons, WH
16 NEcrons

htj wrote:I don't personally like ranking things, but given the options I would say that I feel that C:SM is the weakest of all the books written during 5th. I feel Eldar and Orks stand up well, despite being released under 4th rules.

Maybe. But without some sort of ranking, arguments like this always tend to go in circles over "X is not OP because you can beat it with Y", and "Y is not OP because you can beat it with Z".. .ultimately confusing a question of "un-balance" with a question of outright "un-kill-ability" which, thankfully, does not yet exist in 40K.

To gain a fair assessment of relative balance of Codexes (overall; rather than specific units) with respect to other Codexes on the assumption of equally skilled players, rankings seem to be the way to go.

But precisely for that reason, I tend to exclude 4th Edition (or older). Whatever merits or flaws they have in the current 5th environment would be unanticipated at the time of their writing.

Phototoxin also rates Nids quite below all other 5th Edition books. This, IMO, seemd to be a general consensus and the basis for my remark to that regard in my original, much critizised post here.

Thus my assessment of the Nid-Codex relative to the other 5th Edition books wasn't quite so off as some people claimed it was (and subsequently put it above DE and Space Marines).

Zweischneid wrote:

htj wrote:I don't personally like ranking things, but given the options I would say that I feel that C:SM is the weakest of all the books written during 5th. I feel Eldar and Orks stand up well, despite being released under 4th rules.

Maybe. But without some sort of ranking, arguments like this always tend to go in circles over "X is not OP because you can beat it with Y", and "Y is not OP because you can beat it with Z".. .ultimately confusing a question of "un-balance" with a question of outright "un-kill-ability" which, thankfully, does not yet exist in 40K.

To gain a fair assessment of relative balance of Codexes (overall; rather than specific units) with respect to other Codexes on the assumption of equally skilled players, rankings seem to be the way to go.

That's a reasonable argument. What, then, are we basing the rankings on? Universal ability of a Codex or a particularly powerful list that does the rounds? How many other Codices it can comfortably built without trouble? With what build? Tournament success? There are very few Codices that I would consider inherently 'bad' and viewing them in a void of 'equally skilled' players doesn't work for me, as it is not how the game is played. Some people will excell with one playstyle, others with another. Some will be able to turn any army into a game winner. There are people out there who can table all comers with the Necron Codex. Some of them are on this very forum.

Whilst it's undoubtably true that there are Codices which will can offer one or more super-builds that can be extremely competitive, generally it all comes down to how you use them on the tabletop. This is why I don't like ranking systems. It smacks too much of saying 'oh, well, of course he won, he's got a better Codex.' Just my stance on the matter.

It also depends on points - IG at high poitns = leafblower. Tau at low points = made of win for example.

So you are saying there is no imbalance in 40K books?

I was simply working on the (perhaps false) assumption that some books are indeed stronger than others, and by consequence, that it is the sign of a good Codex writer to hit the "middle" more often than not and the sign of a bad Codex writer if the outcomes are highly divergent (as I claimed they are in the cases of Nids & IG, as well as to a slightly lesser degree with DE & SW). Again, knowing the current ruleset is crucial here, as you cannot judge the quality of a Codex or Codex writer on how his book works under a set of rules he didn't know when he was writing the book.

And yes, player skill is important. Perhaps more important than Codex balance. Tiger Woods will easily beat me in Golf even if he plays with a rusty crowbar and I use the newest, finest set of golf-clubs the market currently has on offer.

But that doesn't mean quality of golf-clubs is irrelevant, or that discussing the quality of golf-clubs and the ability of their producers/designers would be an entirely irrelevant topic that isn't discussed frequently and enthusiastically by golf players. Conversely, in assuming "equally-skilled" golf players (which is of course an abstraction), one would expect the player with the new clubs to fare better on average than the player with the rusty crowbar.

Similarly, a Golden Daemon winner will make a badly designed, badly-cast mini look far better than I could likely ever manage with the finest mini's ever produced. But, just the same, that doesn't negate discussion and talk about variance in the quality of miniatures.

Zweischneid wrote:So you are saying there is no imbalance in 40K books?

No, not at all. Merely that it isn't as profound or game changing as seems to be the popular opinion. More than once I've seen it blamed for what were tactical errors. I have even done it myself in the past, before I realised how pathetic I was being. Note, I'm not saying you do this, so please don't take offence.

Zweischneid wrote:I was simply working on the (perhaps false) assumption that some books are indeed stronger than others, and by consequence, that it is the sign of a good Codex writer to hit the "middle" more often than not and the sign of a bad Codex writer if the outcomes are highly divergent (as I claimed they are in the cases of Nids & IG, as well as to a slightly lesser degree with DE & SW). Again, knowing the current ruleset is crucial here, as you cannot judge the quality of a Codex or Codex writer on how his book works under a set of rules he didn't know when he was writing the book.

Surely this is more appararent of a bad design ethos company-wide. I'm not convinced that there is such a large divergence between Nids and IG myself, but I would say that the greater problem is having individual writers put the rules together. Fluff is probably best done individually, rules should be done by consensus. That's a good point, regarding the 4th/5th rules awareness of the writers though. I'm sure the Eldar and Ork books were written with knowledge of the final 5th ruleset.

Zweischneid wrote:And yes, player skill is important. Perhaps more important than Codex balance. Tiger Woods will easily beat me in Golf even if he plays with a rusty crowbar and I use the newest, finest set of golf-clubs the market currently has on offer.

But that doesn't mean quality of golf-clubs is irrelevant, or that discussing the quality of golf-clubs and the ability of their producers/designers would be an entirely irrelevant topic that isn't discussed frequently and enthusiastically by golf players. Conversely, in assuming "equally-skilled" golf players (which is of course an abstraction), one would expect the player with the new clubs to fare better on average than the player with the rusty crowbar.

Similarly, a Golden Daemon winner will make a badly designed, badly-cast mini look far better than I could likely ever manage with the finest mini's ever produced. But, just the same, that doesn't negate discussion and talk about variance in the quality of miniatures.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not dismissing the discussion of which Codices are better at what, merely that a straight ranking system is a bit too pat. For example, DE, if played well, can outmaneuver and obliterate IG in short order, every time. If played poorly, they'll be annihiliated. I think the best we can say is that some Codices have a steeper learning curve or are more specialised. It's fair to see those that don't as better. Personally, I don't.

I'm saying that actually balance depends on the points value being played as well as the actual books. For example salamander marines struggle at 1000pts but at 2000pts I do a lot better with them.

With tau they perform better at 1000pts since they can take the stuff that matters without having to 'waste' points on the less optimal units.

Yes at 1000pts SW are probably better, but for some codices 'shift' in their 'tier' depending on the points.

Zweischneid wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Either way, returning to the point, Nids are better than DE and about even with non-daemon-fighting GK, IMHO.

Ok, possible. But the DE-Codex is weaksauce incarnate anyways, and another pointless product of GW's most inept Codex-writer.

Jack-o-Black-holes-in-a-box still make my cry at what 40K has come to these days..

But the "common" or "majority" opinion here appears to be that DE are "well balanced" (which is largely Kelly-fan-wänk, not to mention desperate self-aggrandisation of Dark Eldar players who enjoy deluding themselves to be some kind of "better/advanced/more skilled" breed of 40K players) and GKs to be fairly powerful.

...that?

So sisters then.....

SpitfireArsonist wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Something goatboy said over on Bell has me thinking.

What do you think that the (assuming there is one) new SoB codex will be like?

I hate to say it, but I had a vision of a worst-case scenario where Matt Ward has Celestine rape Slaanesh in person with a chain sword after slaughtering the Emperor's Children to the last CSM and being pregnant with the Star Child via the Emperor, before declaring Roboute Guilliman to be her spiritual liege.

Eh, shouldn't they just make a small pamphlet, and mail it to the 15 or so SoB players instead of wasting their time writing a new codex?

The fact that we are so few is a badge of pride. Let the cheesy git bandwagon jumpers go play whatever is the flavor of the month marine army...

CT GAMER wrote:

SpitfireArsonist wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Something goatboy said over on Bell has me thinking.

What do you think that the (assuming there is one) new SoB codex will be like?

I hate to say it, but I had a vision of a worst-case scenario where Matt Ward has Celestine rape Slaanesh in person with a chain sword after slaughtering the Emperor's Children to the last CSM and being pregnant with the Star Child via the Emperor, before declaring Roboute Guilliman to be her spiritual liege.

Eh, shouldn't they just make a small pamphlet, and mail it to the 15 or so SoB players instead of wasting their time writing a new codex?

The fact that we are so few is a badge of pride. Let the cheesy git bandwagon jumpers go play whatever is the flavor of the month marine army...

Yeah, I have to say, having Sisters at all is about as common as having Tau as a primary (most people use them as a secondary/tertiary just for fun).

I have to say, in my 100+ battles, maybe two or three have been against sisters.

Zweischneid wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Either way, returning to the point, Nids are better than DE and about even with non-daemon-fighting GK, IMHO.

Ok, possible. But the DE-Codex is weaksauce incarnate anyways, and another pointless product of GW's most inept Codex-writer.

Jack-o-Black-holes-in-a-box still make my cry at what 40K has come to these days..

But the "common" or "majority" opinion here appears to be that DE are "well balanced" (which is largely Kelly-fan-wänk, not to mention desperate self-aggrandisation of Dark Eldar players who enjoy deluding themselves to be some kind of "better/advanced/more skilled" breed of 40K players) and GKs to be fairly powerful.

Ahhh Zwei, its nice to see you here spitting your vitol and hate for Mr Kelly & Cruddence's writing while expelling the virtue that is Mr Ward. Please take your hate and rule's Lawyering somewhere else.


Sorry people he escaped from ' that other fourm that can't be named'. Just remember Zwei...

DE have some nasty tricks. Additionally the reason there's so few SOB players is that they are probably the people who had them in 2nd ed and then inducted a few marines in 3rd ed. It's hard to actually make a full blown SoB army due to cost and availability.

Thousand Nuns wrote:So sisters then.....

Indeed.


For now, I hope that they end up something like this:

http://commissar.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=Ally&action=display&thread=10614

A lot of variety, even if it means that a lot of new units don't get models, at least that leaves conversion potential.

Melissia wrote:

Thousand Nuns wrote:So sisters then.....

Indeed.


For now, I hope that they end up something like this:

http://commissar.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=Ally&action=display&thread=10614

A lot of variety, even if it means that a lot of new units don't get models, at least that leaves conversion potential.

Very nice codex i have to say, keeping the independent flavour of sisters from guard and marines, the power stake is an evocative image i can see a canoness standing over a heretic and finishing with a two handed thrust, masterwork bolt pistols are cool too. A unit of priests charging around with eviscerators would be a fun addition.

I agree they may well go down the pure ecclesiarchy route. I for one will miss the inquisitors if they do, personally i've always biased towards them, though i suppose it would distance the codex from the GK. I like the idea of smaller sects/cults (Hospitalier?) in the book as it would flesh out the fluff and the list as well. It will be interesting to see how they are differentiated from the other imperial books.

Thousand Nuns wrote:I agree they may well go down the pure ecclesiarchy route. I for one will miss the inquisitors if they do, personally i've always biased towards them, though i suppose it would distance the codex from the GK. I like the idea of smaller sects/cults (Hospitalier?) in the book as it would flesh out the fluff and the list as well. It will be interesting to see how they are differentiated from the other imperial books.

I would expect to see more inquisitors than what are represented in the GK codex. Sisters have always been more closely aligned with the inquisition than even the Grey Knights... hopefully they will get some "slay the witch" toys. I love all the crazy old implements - stakes, crossbows, etc.

I'd love to see more rules for Blanks, and maybe even something that would let us approximate the Sisters of Silence.

Xarian wrote:

Thousand Nuns wrote:I agree they may well go down the pure ecclesiarchy route. I for one will miss the inquisitors if they do, personally i've always biased towards them, though i suppose it would distance the codex from the GK. I like the idea of smaller sects/cults (Hospitalier?) in the book as it would flesh out the fluff and the list as well. It will be interesting to see how they are differentiated from the other imperial books.

I would expect to see more inquisitors than what are represented in the GK codex. Sisters have always been more closely aligned with the inquisition than even the Grey Knights... hopefully they will get some "slay the witch" toys. I love all the crazy old implements - stakes, crossbows, etc.

I'd love to see more rules for Blanks, and maybe even something that would let us approximate the Sisters of Silence.

Not a bad shout on blanks you could make up a few alternative henchmen for the inquisitors with blanks offering some protection from psykers and/or dispruting the casting of nearby psykers. Though if the Inquisitors are left in the assassins will be as well so the culexus maybe the only inclusion of a blank/pariah.

Xarian wrote:Sisters have always been more closely aligned with the inquisition than even the Grey Knights

No they haven't.

The Sisters of Battle have always only been tangentially related to the Inquisition. From Rogue Trader, to second edition where their fluff got its only real expansion, even in the third edition codex witch hunters, their loyalty is to the Church, not to the Inquisition. Their goals often coincide with the Inquisition, and so they fight alongside them-- but their duties are to the church as its militant arm and protector.

@ Melissia, nice codex, very well (and thoroughly) done too. I think you should have added the Mortifex Priests xinfinity.

Thousand Nuns wrote:So sisters then.....

I love all this SoB discussion don't you?

I had a brilliant idea for a themed SoB army lat night because of elections. Quebec themed sisters of battle. No I'm not French-Canadian or a separatist, I just like the place I live and their Fleur de Lis Sort of inspired me. Though I need a better name than Les Soeurs du Battaile.

Portaljacker wrote:

Thousand Nuns wrote:So sisters then.....

I love all this SoB discussion don't you?

I had a brilliant idea for a themed SoB army lat night because of elections. Quebec themed sisters of battle. No I'm not French-Canadian or a separatist, I just like the place I live and their Fleur de Lis Sort of inspired me. Though I need a better name than Les Soeurs du Battaile.

Les Femme-Chevaliers de L'Empereur?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quebecois unite!

Hopefully we can get an Exterminatus on the block tonight.

Portaljacker wrote:Hopefully we can get an Exterminatus on the block tonight.

Made my day .

Semi-unrelated, I voted for Ignatieff.

Same, Liberals actually seem to have a plan for net neutrality and copyright reform, unlike anyone else! Also, Bloc only has 2 seats, they'll be dead soon enough.

I really want to do my plan for the SoB Quebec theme. Even though I haven't even done my first army.

I just got the Eisenhorn Omnibus, will I get any lengthly parts of him working with the SoB?

Can't say much about Canada, however, if Quebec is angling for freedom from Maple Tyranny, look to the League for aid. Those oaths sworn in the past still have weight in some places in the present.