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.

I was recently talking with a friend about the eventual Tau update and I was pretty surprised with his wishlist. He hoped for 8 point, BS 4 Fire Warriors. He wants cheaper railguns with a jotww effect. He went on and on, basically saying that he wanted the "new" Tau book to utterly crush the competition. Now...without comment on the Tau or any of his examples...what do you think about this? Would you actually want your army to be updated and be completely broken?

Personally, I love playing an under-powered codex. I get to pick my army based completely on the fluff and the models AND I get satisfaction from winning without needing any fancy, broken

What are your thoughts?

Everyone wants a powerhouse army, well most do. I play for the fun of it. Started with Nids, got bored, then Dark Eldar, like em but meh. THen got Sisters of battle, I freaking love playing them. not the fluff i was wanting in the WD, but the books, Also because i have never ran into anyone else who has played them, even at tournies(Smaller ones mind you) and I play orks, those are a lot of fun as well with great fluff. I refuse to play Grey Knights or necrons because while i would have fun winning, its cheese. Orbital strike every turn or flyer spam from 'crons. i play for fun and love playing opponents like that as well.So i dont want another powerhouse codex to come out. just baanced(hard feat)

Winning is fun. Enough said.

What I think everyone wants is a strong book with lots of cool stuff that makes you feel powerful, without actually being more powerful than everyone else.

Could also look at it in a way of people see that there is always lots of ballence issues, and would just rather it ballenced in there faver :(
GW sorta trained people that way with there game.
Peregrine is right, if your losing all the time for being a avg player with a crappy army, not matter how much you like them it probably grates agenst you.

Also, to be a bit more serious, a powerful army has a lot more room for creativity. If your average power level is high you can afford to bring some of those less than optimal units if you want to use the cool model or whatever. If you have a weak army then you're forced into a single list if you want to have any chance of winning, and taking anything less than the best of your codex quickly drops your chances of success to nothing.

I disagree with wanting an army to be broken. I think everyone wants a competitive army, but being able to casually smash 90% of the competition gets boring. Most everyone I know how plays competitively has 1 or 2 lists they bust out for tournaments, and 4-5 others they use in casual play. In 5th I would bust out my mech coteaz army to crush people, and play foot wolves, jumpers, or nids when I wanted a more challenging game.

A good analogy of this was my high school days playing xbox live a lot. I got very good at halo 3 and cod4. I havent owned an xbox for almost 4 years, dont play regularly, and still rack up a 3:1 kd spread when I do play. 4v4 games where I was half my teams kills and a 10th of our deaths were not uncommon. The issue became, if i was not playing competitive people, the game simply got boring. I could go play on much lower ranked accounts against scrubs, and casually handle 2-3 other players at a time.

I think most people want to compete, and nobody likes always having to fight an uphill battle. But for a real competitive player, having serious advantages against the competition gets dull fast.

I by no means want a "broken" codex. I would like to have a relatively competitive codex with good fluff, lots of options for the units (so you can keep mixing it up and keep the game different and fun), and where all the units are decent enough to see table time. (once again so you don't get stuck with just one thing that works) That sounds like a perfect codex for me.

When Eldar come around, I'd personally like them to be top teir. I don't want them to be the new cheese on the block. But I want to know that I can look at a Grey Knight army, or Necron Air Force, and not groan in dismay. It's been a while since they had a book that was more then a 1 trick wonder. They're due.

I would not say I wanted a broken codex either. Playing IG is a lot of fun, I wish less IG players spammed vendettas, but I can see why.

What I would like to see is the codex stay relatively the same, add around 5 more super fluffy units that are not unbelievably awful, slightly boost the price of the vendetta and chimera, and give us back lumbering behemoth and I will be more than happy.

What I like is being able to field a fluffy army that can still hold its own against those that are extra sharp cheddar.

In an ideal world, all the codexes would be perfectly balanced, but that is never going to happen.

As a tau player myself, I would hate to have the next cheesy codex, as I enjoy the challenge of the game. I would like a more powerful codex but nothing as powerful as Grey knights or Cron air.

The worst thing about getting a 'broken' codex is that, all of a sudden, you have to deal with peoples bad attitude. If they loose they'll whine and bitch about your "broken" codex - if they win they'll berate you for loosing with a "broken" codex *facepalm*

This happened to me with my old PAGK's when the new GK codex came out and relegated them back to the shelf.
Here's to hoping that tau don't get wardified in january :(

 taudau wrote:
The worst thing about getting a 'broken' codex is that, all of a sudden, you have to deal with peoples bad attitude. If they loose they'll whine and bitch about your "broken" codex - if they win they'll berate you for loosing with a "broken" codex *facepalm*

This happened to me with my old PAGK's when the new GK codex came out and relegated them back to the shelf.
Here's to hoping that tau don't get wardified in january :(

Why care? A good half this community are selfish whiners who feel they are smarter than most other people and entitled to win. I have played for over 10 years, I have seen armies go from great to gak and back to great again. Most whining also comes from poor tactical planning, like the dark eldar player who decided that advancing full speed at my mech coteaz army was smart, and then whined when he got shot off the board in 2 turns. If someone is not playing for the fun of the game itself, than I would not worry about what they have to say.

Do you want your army to be broken?

yes because this means I get a good dex , which will be good for a long time .last IG dex was awesome in the 5th , is even more awesome now . Now on the other hand "balanced" codex like nids , sucks all the way . not only are they unable to keep up with the top armies , but durning edition switch they offten go down to an unplayable level when a rules change or FAQ kills their single gimik .

I wouldn't openly wish for a powerhouse army, but if my army got updated and turned out to be one, I wouldn't complain too much.

When I started Grey Knights I knew nothing of the 40k meta, and then someone told me after I had started playing with them that they were the top army. Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised.

Makumba wrote:

Do you want your army to be broken?

yes because this means I get a good dex , which will be good for a long time .last IG dex was awesome in the 5th , is even more awesome now . Now on the other hand "balanced" codex like nids , sucks all the way . not only are they unable to keep up with the top armies , but durning edition switch they offten go down to an unplayable level when a rules change or FAQ kills their single gimik .

You do realise the irony in this statement don't you? You call them balanced and then say they have only one gimick; there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

I do not want my army to be broken. I want to fight at an equal playing field. It's too easy for me to go out and do a flavour of the month army. I want to fight a game of tactics and not one where I spam the best units my codex offers.

But then again, this is how GW sells a bunch of models, so what's going to change?

 lunarman wrote:
What I think everyone wants is a strong book with lots of cool stuff that makes you feel powerful, without actually being more powerful than everyone else.

Pretty much this.

The White Dwarf Sisters list, much maligned as it is, pretty much fulfilled the latter part - Exorcists, HB Retris, Scouting Domis all make me feel powerful and awesome, while not actually breaking the game. About the only thing it's missing is the 'lots of cool stuff' part - well. We do get a lot of cool stuff. Pretty much anything in Heavy Support and Fast Attack is awesome. Unfortunately, those six units make up the majority of options in the book!

So, I don't want a "broken" book. I got that when my Necrons were finally updated, and... surprise surprise, I played them for about two months, got a game or two in with each cool new toy, and switched back to the Sisters because I was bored. I'd tried out all the new things. Some of them were crazy-powerful like Doom Scythes in 6th. Some of them were mediocre, like Triarch Praetorians. It became a game of, "if I take this or this, I win. If I take this or that, I lose."

With the Sisters, I'm basically forced to take the same army list every time (with just a little variation between Retris and Exorcists depending on if I'm fighting horde or MEq). However, that one list is much more challenging, enjoyable, and fun to play against whoever I end up facing... even if I do win most of the time. That said, I've never tried facing the power rangers (Draigo + 2 lone wolf Paladins + 2 dreadnights and a Fortress of Redemption) with them, and I've never encountered a Necron Air Force... the other Necron player in the area fields a fluffy Zahndrek list with mostly Warriors, which I gleefully slaughtered with a footslogging list (hint: taking out all my transports and exorcists made for a lovely spread of heavy bolter/flamer infantry!)

If I'm going to lose, let my army be awesome in doing so.

If I'm going to win, let my army be awesome in doing so.

If we're going to draw, let us both be awesome in doing so.

That's the paradigm I play by.

I want my Tau to be competitive, but not broken, with as many units viable as possible.

I want several special characters, several normal characters, HQ options unlocking elites / fast attack options as troops, 5+ interesting Elites choices, 2-4 Troops choices, more Fast Attack, more Heavy Support.

I want to be able to run a completely Fire Warrior or Drone army, and I want there to be interesting, colorful units.

I'm fine with Firewarriors being BS3 (though they should be 9pts with it).

As for BS, I honestly think it should be based on rank (i.e. Shas'la = BS3, Shas'ui = BS4, Shas'vre = BS5, Shas'el = BS6 and Shas'0 = BS7. Other races leaders are decent BS/WS, make the Tau have WS equal to half their BS and be done with it.)

I want a balanced book with very few/no real "must haves" that are so head and shoulders above every other option you then see them spamed ad nausium.
Of corse, I also want a book that can give a good closely fought game to any opponent, but I don't want some lame flavour of the month 'uber list that just sneezes and wins.

As a Daemon player, I'm already hated by half my local store. Last thing I want is another round of OP/broken filth that breaks another entire game!

My ideal book would be something that isn't overpowered but is certainly a powerful threat and, preferably, with all the units in the dex being viable. I'd like to be able to play and win multiple ways with the models I find the most cool.

So, in short really, I'd like my army to be as good as it can be without provoking a groan from my opponent when I plonk my codex on the table. Good is good. Broken is most certainly not.

Still, I wouldn't mind a broken army as much as a bad one, since I can always play without using units or styles that are broken. For example, I do plan to collect Necrons at some point and although Fliers will probably not be as powerful by the time I get round to doing so, I don't plan on including any fliers at all. I may provoke a groan from my opponent when he realises he's against Necrons, but hopefully as the game progresses, both players will end up having fun.

You do realise the irony in this statement don't you? You call them balanced and then say they have only one gimick; there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

hey not my foult GW said that nids are the most balanced book they made in 5th ed and the fact that bad books have fewer ways to play , well again that is the truth.

That said, I've never tried facing the power rangers (Draigo + 2 lone wolf Paladins + 2 dreadnights and a Fortress of Redemption) with them, and I've never encountered a Necron Air Force... the other Necron player in the area fields a fluffy Zahndrek list with mostly Warriors, which I gleefully slaughtered with a footslogging list (hint: taking out all my transports and exorcists made for a lovely spread of heavy bolter/flamer infantry!)

So wait , you know that the codex is bad against normal lists , but because you hope to play against weak ones your own weak one seems good ? wouldnt it be better to just have a book that is good , then one where you have to fool yourself to make it "feel"as if it was good ?

Hahaha. Most people will spam the most boring crap in order to win at all cost. Whatever units they can exploit to the extreme in order to work the codex are the units that everyone goes with. I never, EVER run two units that are alike. I have much more fun knowing that I'm playing a fluffy, individualized army. Nor do I ever scream, throw stuff, or act like an idiot when I lose. That's the difference between "competitive" players and people who play the game for fun.

No, I don't want a broken codex.

And then let us look at 3 best codex in 5th ed . SW/IG and GK . as top tier as it was possible in 5th ed. The armies to beat. And look different builds out of every dex. GK had puri builds , draigos and henchman coteaz . SW had drop pod using armies , Razor MSU and TWC builds . IG the most boring one had footguard and mecha guard. Now lets take a look at the "balanced" dex nids/chaos/DA. DA DW or it makes no sense to use the DA dex. Chaos DP/pm/oblits everything else inferior , nids problems with dealing with transports in a transport hvy edition , lack of frags for a melee army ah and they had two armies that were very good at killing all nids released before their own dex in the form of IG and SW.
If we could make a study about it am sure that GK/SW/IG players had and are still having more fun playing w40k then chaos/nids/DAs specialy pre FAQ DAs.

I totally disagree with you makumba. If the codex is balanced, then I'd say that every unit has some purpose. Similarly, if it's a broken codex, then there are going to be one or two really powerful units that some will spam. Par example - the Necron airforce army.

Hell no I dont want my army broken, GW glue is expensive.

As a Tau player I find that a lot of other Tau players want too much out of the next update. Yeah, being on the bottom does suck, but then again you don't get looked at as TFG when you mention what army you play.

Give my units in the next codex either a reasonable points cost reduction, or improved abilities, don't try to jam in both. Give my army new units in the next codex that are fluffy, fun and effective. Don't give me a win button, but do let me mess with the win button of others (nothing I love more than blowing up deathstars and spam) and I am happy.

 beezley1981 wrote:
Hahaha. Most people will spam the most boring crap in order to win at all cost. Whatever units they can exploit to the extreme in order to work the codex are the units that everyone goes with. I never, EVER run two units that are alike. I have much more fun knowing that I'm playing a fluffy, individualized army. Nor do I ever scream, throw stuff, or act like an idiot when I lose. That's the difference between "competitive" players and people who play the game for fun.

No, I don't want a broken codex.

No, that'd be the difference between being a decent human being and not being TFG. Not all competetive players are donkeycaves and not all casual players are nice, friendly chaps.

To topics question:

No, id rather be the underdog. But not 'weak' either, that's setting yourself up for frustration.

All I really want is for the problems with my codex to be fixed and the holes plugged. Tau have already gotten a huge boost in 6th edition, and I've suddenly gone from losing most games and rejoicing at a draw (and feeling awesome at a win), to winning pretty much every game. No longer does a single mistake cost me the game.
This is partly due to my taking of Eldar allies (a farseer, prism, and 5 rangers), who fill most of the gaps in the codex (or at least my army). However because this is such a powerful combo there are a whole bunch of people using it, and suddenly I'm the bad guy for taking Taudar (even without Eldrad or broadside spam). If the new codex(s) get another huge boost, then it's going to be unpleasant playing them.