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.

 ischneid 478227 wrote:

Kajon wrote:



Hehe. Well you got some points, its 40k after all. Stupid names and "kind of like magic" stuff are everywhere. I don't think it's any worse written than the other codices I've read. And didn't the webway exist even before this codex?

Of course the webway existed before the Codex. I don't have any issues with the webway. It's not in any of the points I made either I believe.

How about point 7? Or I might have misunderstood.
Anyway. It's interesting to hear a very negative opinion of the de codex. It's usually regarded as one of the best.
Maybe it's a sign that the quality of codices isn't that high.

Kajon wrote:


Of course the webway existed before the Codex. I don't have any issues with the webway. It's not in any of the points I made either I believe.

How about point 7? Or I might have misunderstood.
Anyway. It's interesting to hear a very negative opinion of the de codex. It's usually regarded as one of the best.
Maybe it's a sign that the quality of codices isn't that high.

With the amount of galactic threats lately, they'll have to line up and draw a number.

Still, we are talking worst codex mechanic/power-wise, not fluff.

 Shandara wrote:
With the amount of galactic threats lately, they'll have to line up and draw a number.

Still, we are talking worst codex mechanic/power-wise, not fluff.

Which I said is Space Wolves IMO. But I was asked about my side-remark on the Dark Eldar Codex, so I responded, sorry. I'll not discuss it further.

That said, the OP did specifically also ask for the fluff-aspect.

You could think that a codex is the worst because it is too over-powered, or too under-powered. It could have not aged well, or it could have been completely unbalanced when it was released, even though it is fair now. It could only have a few units worth taking. It could have horrible fluff.

 Shandara wrote:


Still, we are talking worst codex mechanic/power-wise, not fluff.

Ok... I shouldn't have voted for the Sisters then. I have no clue about their rules but I feel it's not really a complete codex if its just released in white dwarf. I don't even know how I should get hold of it now as I didn't bought the issues when they were released.

Poll said "codex you dislike the most" and that's definitely the Grey Knight codex for having a huge "YO IF YOU WANT CHEAP VICTORIES COME HERE BRO" label on its cover.

 Peregrine wrote:

Back in the day (apparently before this game was over-run with kids. Get of my lawn!) Dark Angels used to be unique.

Key point: used to be.

Now they aren't unique, and "give them more unique stuff" isn't a design concept. To do that you'd have to re-write the whole codex to the point that it isn't DA anymore, so why not just start over from scratch without all the DA baggage? Or just get rid of them entirely, since it's not like the game needs another new marine codex, and the only reason to keep them seems to be a few DA fanboys who can't stand the thought of being in the basic marine codex.

Dude just go away please. I tried no t to respond to you and Kaldor earlier but really The last DA codex was bad as was the old Chaos codex. Your are using an argument that basically boils down to I don't like them so they shouldn't exist. No Codex should be cut that is simply the whining of people who hate insert codex here and having a reason to whine about it.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
With the amount of galactic threats lately, they'll have to line up and draw a number.

Still, we are talking worst codex mechanic/power-wise, not fluff.

Which I said is Space Wolves IMO. But I was asked about my side-remark on the Dark Eldar Codex, so I responded, sorry. I'll not discuss it further.

That said, the OP did specifically also ask for the fluff-aspect.

You could think that a codex is the worst because it is too over-powered, or too under-powered. It could have not aged well, or it could have been completely unbalanced when it was released, even though it is fair now. It could only have a few units worth taking. It could have horrible fluff.

To be fair, I said that you could use whatever criteria you wanted when declaring which codex you think is the worst. For some people, it could be the most under-powered codex. For others, it could be the most over-powered. It could have nothing to do with power level, but the internal balance of the codex being bad, or general flaws with the design philosophy. I wasn't saying I wanted you to take all of those things into account (I don't really care what criteria you use), I was just listing possible reasons why one might dislike a codex.

Well, I voted for CSM, especially when you compare it with the former one.
Other candidates are DA and SoB.

I voted for GK's, since not only did it suffer a massive fluff rape, but it also pretty much completely invalidated my entire Daemon army...

The title and the poll don't agree. The title says "Worst Codex" so I voted for Black Templars, because it is just sad. Pretty clear hints that there won't be another one and they will be WD rolled into Vanilla Marines.

The poll says "Codex you dislike the most" and that would be Grey Knights, without question. They shouldn't be an "army" at all, aren't there like 12 of them or something? (j/k) I hate playing against them, I hate the way they look, I hate the fluff in the book.

Side note on the DA argument: I highly doubt one of the armies in Dark Vengeance is going to go away...

Sisters of Battle, the fluff, the rules, the end product is a mangled mess, but something worse lurks near by.....


"GREY KNIGHTS "

Such a foul thing named Matthew Ward was said to have been spawned from a jackal and a homeless man, before falling into a gutter and walling in it's loneliness and self pity, it saw into the higher world and vowed it's revenge upon mankind, it's said it was found in the parking space of a man in the town known as Nottingham, before the dark acolytes of GW took it into their lair. Now Matthew gets to invoke his revenge upon the upper world, and has cursed many a gamers with his most foul project.

Grey Knights, are both fluff and rules horrible.

Grey Knights

An obscure faction with ridicuous fluff and it more or less forced daemon players to quit

 beerbeard wrote:


The poll says "Codex you dislike the most" and that would be Grey Knights, without question. They shouldn't be an "army" at all, aren't there like 12 of them or something?

By that notion, the only army available in 40K should probably be Orks. Infact, not even that. 99% of 40K players meeting for a game should be forced to stare at empty tables. After all, even in the 41st Millenium the Galaxy largely is... well... empty space.

Trying to judge what "deserves" a Codex and what not by the fictional "numbers" the faction has in the fictional background is the most idiotic thing ever. Hell, if it bothers you, just flip the numbers in your homebrew-40k with Orks being a dying race of only 12 guys left and the Universe populated by Grey Knights without numbers. Who cares.

Seriously, GKs deserve a Codex because they are a rare and special thing and people like to play the rare and special thing.

Because of the bad wording, this poll is totally flawed. It seems that some vote with they dislike most and others wich they think to be the weakest codex.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
Because of the bad wording, this poll is totally flawed. It seems that some vote with they dislike most and others wich they think to be the weakest codex.

Yep

Weakest Codex: Probably Nids

Worst Codex: Space Wolves, IMO badly written and even worse than GK.

I voted SoB. It's not the power or the fluff or miniatures or internal balance.
I need not one but two WD that are close to impossible to legally acquire in some places.
Shame on you GW!

I wonder why people complaining that GK are OP vote for GK as worst codex xD

the worse codex is the one which A you have bad match up against B is one your not playing. Few people do ping sob or nids , but most the the community doesnt care if they are bad or worse , as they rarely play against them or with them .

 thenoobbomb wrote:
I wonder why people complaining that GK are OP vote for GK as worst codex xD

...because we read the poll title?

 thenoobbomb wrote:
I wonder why people complaining that GK are OP vote for GK as worst codex xD

"Worst Codex" doesn't nessesarily mean "Weakest Codex"...

A codex can be "the worst" because it is an OTT/borderline broken pile of crap that plays itself and crushes all before it. It's no fun to play against, and can almost always leave a sour taste in an opponent's mouth.
GK's are that codex for alot of people, either because it hard countered their army into the ground, (ie: Daemons & Tyranids are nearly unplayable vs the knights), or else it's just a huge uphill battle, (like those BA assault armies that had to stop assaulting), or else it just was no fun because the army gets so many cheap & effective 'no brainer' units that people are sick of playing the same builds all the fething time!

Or else, just go look at Fantasy as an example. Daemons of Chaos are still considered "the worst" army book because the army is still bording on the over powering aspect. It was the outright worst book of the previous edition because it ing destroyed the entire game!

 Zweischneid wrote:
Space Wolves easily

It's quite a feat to take an army described as aggressive, brawling hunter-types, led by monster-slaying heroes and to turn it into an army list of table-edge hogging gun-lines led by Wizard-spam.

This, I love playing wolves because I like shooty armies, but it really doesn't fit their fluff, which is a shame. Doesn't stop me wanting to field them!

I ended up voting Black Templars, a close second would be Tau. The Codex just show too much of their age, and really need an update to not ignore all the parts that show old rules. However I still like the Fluff for both of these. Not sure who I dislike fluff wise the most, I am not a huge fan of the newest Dark Eldar or Necron iterations.

 Ailaros wrote:
Likewise, I also voted eldar.

Game-wise, take a regular codex and then increase the points cost of everything by a third (or more). Furthermore, because they're an older codex, they don't have the most possible options out there. Also, even at the best of times, eldar armies have suffered from integration problems (oh, so that was my one good CC unit and now it's dead?), which is sort of overlookable when the codex is new and powerful, but not at this age.

Fluff-wise, a lot of new stuff has been written since eldar came out. In a way, some of the better fluff for eldar comes from necron, or dark eldar. You know, not from the eldar codex itself. Plus, emo-elves haven't aged gracefully. It would be nice if they had a reason for living, rather than just a reason for not dying.

If they took the Eldar lore away from their current reason for progressing their doomed race, I would like it a lot worse. They are a tragic hero- esk race. They should be exactly how they are and I think their fluff has aged fine. *shrug* Than again, I am someone who doesn't have much issues playing them with great effect or using their Codex once you learn where things are.

Edit: I don't like how the Space Wolves play on the field at all either. Also I think I basically already had this thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/456716.page

I casted my vote in with the sob

bt & eldar have it kinda rough, tau & chaos could use some help, but other than that, what the heck? necrons and grey knights could use a nerf and still be op!

 Zweischneid wrote:

 beerbeard wrote:


The poll says "Codex you dislike the most" and that would be Grey Knights, without question. They shouldn't be an "army" at all, aren't there like 12 of them or something?

By that notion, the only army available in 40K should probably be Orks. Infact, not even that. 99% of 40K players meeting for a game should be forced to stare at empty tables. After all, even in the 41st Millenium the Galaxy largely is... well... empty space.

Trying to judge what "deserves" a Codex and what not by the fictional "numbers" the faction has in the fictional background is the most idiotic thing ever. Hell, if it bothers you, just flip the numbers in your homebrew-40k with Orks being a dying race of only 12 guys left and the Universe populated by Grey Knights without numbers. Who cares.

Seriously, GKs deserve a Codex because they are a rare and special thing and people like to play the rare and special thing.

New to the internet? Do you know what j/k means?

 captain collius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Back in the day (apparently before this game was over-run with kids. Get of my lawn!) Dark Angels used to be unique.

Key point: used to be.

Now they aren't unique, and "give them more unique stuff" isn't a design concept. To do that you'd have to re-write the whole codex to the point that it isn't DA anymore, so why not just start over from scratch without all the DA baggage? Or just get rid of them entirely, since it's not like the game needs another new marine codex, and the only reason to keep them seems to be a few DA fanboys who can't stand the thought of being in the basic marine codex.

Dude just go away please. I tried no t to respond to you and Kaldor earlier but really The last DA codex was bad as was the old Chaos codex. Your are using an argument that basically boils down to I don't like them so they shouldn't exist. No Codex should be cut that is simply the whining of people who hate insert codex here and having a reason to whine about it.

If you think that's the case, you haven't fully explored the argument.

Dark Angels have no core, key concept for them to be structured around that in turn justifies a whole codex. They're like Salamanders, Imperial Fists, White Scars or Ravenguard; They're different, but not different enough.

You could make them more different, but IMO the Salamanders deserve that treatment more the Dark Angels. I think creating reasons to make yet another Marine army is generally a bad idea.

 beerbeard wrote:


New to the internet? Do you know what j/k means?

It means you wrote Harry Potter?

Seriously, that is why I started the last line with seriously. Shows you when it starts being seriously serious again.

Tyranids.

For the simple reason that the others at least have hope through allies. They got stuffed, royally.

Cheesiness: GK
Competitivness: Tyranid

Worst Codex: Dark Angels - They really deserve none. Even Templars (I play and love them) which differ more could easly brought back into Codex Space Marines.

Same for Grey Knights (to Codex Inquistion) they jump pumped them to much.


Weakest Codex: Templars or Sisters, although I have no problems with my Templars, but I have much easier games with Tyranids.