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.

 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.

This. A thousand times this.

I want to feel like each unit in my list/army, regardless of what it its, can perform it's given function in a fun and meaningful way, and likewise for my opponent. For a codex that can do this, there is seldom a sense of "every time it's my turn, I do nothing," which can come up when a 'weaker' codex goes up against a 'stronger' codex.

Well as a tau player myself I would like to see a few changes to happen like more choices in HQ' elites, troops, fast attack and heavy support.

So agreed with Ovion on

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 would like to see options for differnet suits to be equipped like xv-9s, xv25s and would be cool for an xv88 .

Make ethereals useful because I love playing fluff armies, improve the kroot and vespid because I start with tau because they were like The Federation in star trek and the republic in star wars but I also want to beable to run pure tau armies, give army wide special rules like over armies have and bring points in line with all over codexes.

Siphen wrote:
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?

first fallacy. the link between "broken" and "unfluffy". that somehow, an underpowered army is "more" fluffy than an overpowered one. rats arse. 5th ed. mechanised guard, spamming valkyries and veterans. *shrug* Call them Harakoni Warhawks, Elysians or Cadian Airborne. they're as fluffy as anything else out there. there is no link between the supposed "fluffiness" of something, and its power level. an underpowered army is simply underpowered. and nothing more. you are not a better human being for using it. you get no moral victory, nor do you get a fluff badge. you get an underpowered army. knock that chip off your shoulder, it doesnt deserve to be there.
Secondly, if more stuff is worth taking, you get more viable builds, instead of being forced to fall into the monobuild that is tau 6th ed, relying on crisis suits, hammerheads, and minimising your troops. i want to play mech heavy, grunt heavy, suit heavy, auxiliary heavy and not feel like i am being punished for my choice in fielding what i think is "cool". i want to have an army that plays on the same levels as every one else. marines had their TH/SS terminator deathstar in their day. GKs had their draigowing and purifier deathstar in their day. why should i be denied mine? if all the other boys in the playground get cool toys, then dammit, i want mine too.

as an ammendum, whats "fluffy" changes over time. Do a search into the dim history of the internet, and look at 3rd ed tau buiilds. No fish in sight. tau in third were a gunline army. designed to kill the rhino rush before it arrived. 4th invalidated the "fluffy" third ed army, and brought out the "fluffy" mech tau army that replaced it and spammed devilfish and hammerheads and abused the IC rules for your suits.

second fallacy. that winning with an underpowered army makes you a better player. it means you got lucky. or the other guy played worse than you. personally, having an underpowered army does not make me feel good. or superior. i am not an intrinsically better human being for using it. it means i have an uphill battle against everything. with nothing to show for it. all it gets you is dejection, and demoralisation.

pushing out the power curve is a good thing. pulling things back to 0 is a common kneejerk reaction amonst 40k players, and its bad for the game.

Deadnight wrote:

Siphen wrote:
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?

first fallacy. the link between "broken" and "unfluffy". that somehow, an underpowered army is "more" fluffy than an overpowered one. rats arse. 5th ed. mechanised guard, spamming valkyries and veterans. *shrug* Call them Harakoni Warhawks, Elysians or Cadian Airborne. they're as fluffy as anything else out there. there is no link between the supposed "fluffiness" of something, and its power level. an underpowered army is simply underpowered. and nothing more. you are not a better human being for using it. you get no moral victory, nor do you get a fluff badge. you get an underpowered army. knock that chip off your shoulder, it doesnt deserve to be there.
Secondly, if more stuff is worth taking, you get more viable builds, instead of being forced to fall into the monobuild that is tau 6th ed, relying on crisis suits, hammerheads, and minimising your troops. i want to play mech heavy, grunt heavy, suit heavy, auxiliary heavy and not feel like i am being punished for my choice in fielding what i think is "cool". i want to have an army that plays on the same levels as every one else. marines had their TH/SS terminator deathstar in their day. GKs had their draigowing and purifier deathstar in their day. why should i be denied mine? if all the other boys in the playground get cool toys, then dammit, i want mine too.

as an ammendum, whats "fluffy" changes over time. Do a search into the dim history of the internet, and look at 3rd ed tau buiilds. No fish in sight. tau in third were a gunline army. designed to kill the rhino rush before it arrived. 4th invalidated the "fluffy" third ed army, and brought out the "fluffy" mech tau army that replaced it and spammed devilfish and hammerheads and abused the IC rules for your suits.

second fallacy. that winning with an underpowered army makes you a better player. it means you got lucky. or the other guy played worse than you. personally, having an underpowered army does not make me feel good. or superior. i am not an intrinsically better human being for using it. it means i have an uphill battle against everything. with nothing to show for it. all it gets you is dejection, and demoralisation.

pushing out the power curve is a good thing. pulling things back to 0 is a common kneejerk reaction amonst 40k players, and its bad for the game.

In trying to point out a fallacy that was not presented you are creating a strawman argument. Never was broken presented as non-fluffy or underpowered as fluffy. The TS merely points out that there is an advantage to a weaker codex in that since it does not matter if you power build or not it is weak, then you there is no point to not really going for the super fluffy armies.

None of the Tau builds you have listed were ever "fluffy". They were just the best builds for the time. It also looks like you have not updated your Tau playbook for 6th, as what you describe as a 6e Tau mono build is not really good any more. Yes, you can have a "power build" that is a "fluffy build" GK and IG being prime examples.

All I would really like to see for Tau, is suits either go to T5, FNP, or EW so they are not so easy to ID; and for FW,Vespid, and Kroot to either get a slight stat bump in what they are supposed to be good at or point reduction to bring them more in line with other codex. Getting a Kroot special HQ that unlocked Kroot Merc armies would be fun, also require bringing over some of the Forgeworld Kroot units. I don't want to see a Necron level fluff change or GK level power leap.

Siphen wrote: Would you actually want your army to be updated and be completely broken?

No.

The best way to increase your challenge level is to increase your handicap (as player skill has a pretty low ceiling, and its ability to affect the game almost always filtered through random events). If my codex became overpowered, it would be harder to do this. Beating GK with GK is just a test of who was luckier. Beating GK with eldar right now would mean that either the eldar player was REALLY lucky, or there were some serious skills there.

As such, I don't want my codex to be blatantly Wardized. What I want, more than anything, actually, is for my codex to be internally balanced well. I want the number of auto-include units kept to a minimum, along with the number of things that you can't ever really consider worth taking. It's one of the things I like about the guard codex. There are really only two auto-includes (vendetta and CCS), while there are only a handful of never-takes (penal legionnaires, armored sentinels, banewolves, and a couple of the russ variants). That's perhaps a half dozen wonky units in a codex that has nearly 50 options once you include all the vehicle variants. That's not too shabby.

The only thing, powerwise, that I'd be concerned about is this:

Peregrine wrote: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.

Because this is one of the unfortunate truths of the game.

I think that there are a LOT of uncreative people who are only capable of seeing one or two builds in a list regardless of how powerful the codex is. The older a codex gets, the more people get fooled into this untruth. Of course, the reason for it is that it is EASIER to get fooled into this as a codex starts becoming non-congruous with the rules edition that it is a part of.

Plus, there are design mistakes that do tend to get hammered out over time. For example, when Ap3 weapons started coming out, they were generally way overpriced (cf. vespid and hot-shot lasguns), but as the game develops, the developers think and rethink about things. Generally this makes codices better.

Anyways, if all you want is for your codex to be more powerful so that you can win more games, then save us all the hassle of trying to win at all costs and just start bringing loaded dice already. It will do you a lot better than hoping for an overpowered codex, which will drag everyone else along as collateral damage to your personal fantasy of miniature gaming glory.

All I want is a codex that is internally consistent, and is congruous with the spirit of the rules edition I'm playing in.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.

Good point. Not all casual players are nice friendly guys, but by definition, all competitive players are playing to win. I play for the social interaction and fun of the game. Playing against someone who endlessly spams boring, flavorless units isn't my thing. That being said, the game is multifaceted and caters to a wide variety of play styles. Basically, to each their own.

I've said it before and I will mention it here again. I thought the last Dark Eldar release was just about spot on. Really good fluffy codex with enough good stuff that made them a decent army without people screaming blue murder all over the shop.

I rarely play competitively so my feelings on this may differ to some. Pick your units well and perform well as a general and you can beat most things out there.

I'm also a Tau player and if GW repeated the same kind of formula I'd be a happy bunny. Decent stuff that gives you a good few options and some lovely new models to boot.

The new edition kind of stung a bit for DE as it made Webway Portals totally useless and I like variety in the types of lists you can build and the styles of play a codex has to offer. A ball dropped by GW on that imo but otherwise very happy with that release.

Puretide1 wrote:Well as a tau player myself I would like to see a few changes to happen like more choices in HQ' elites, troops, fast attack and heavy support.

So agreed with Ovion on

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 would like to see options for differnet suits to be equipped like xv-9s, xv25s and would be cool for an xv88 .

Make ethereals useful because I love playing fluff armies, improve the kroot and vespid because I start with tau because they were like The Federation in star trek and the republic in star wars but I also want to beable to run pure tau armies, give army wide special rules like over armies have and bring points in line with all over codexes.

I think ethereals should be like either Haemonculi or ecclesiarchy priests, boosting units they join for free.

I.E. 1-6 Ethereals, boost the BS of the unit they join by 1

 beezley1981 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.

Good point. Not all casual players are nice friendly guys, but by definition, all competitive players are playing to win. I play for the social interaction and fun of the game. Playing against someone who endlessly spams boring, flavorless units isn't my thing. That being said, the game is multifaceted and caters to a wide variety of play styles. Basically, to each their own.

I wouldn't even say all competitive players are playing to win. Most of the people that I know who play competitively just want a challenging game, win or lose.

As someone who played one of the worst armies (pure Grey Knights under the old DH codex) who suddenly found his army is now top tier and vilified by some in the online community, I can definitely say that I would not want my armies broken. I'm a casual player and prefer to have a good time playing with my friends. I have yet to even field any purifiers or Draigo in my lists. But how does one define a "broken" codex? Are GK only broken because of Draigo and/or purifiers?

We all want to see cool new stuff when our favorite army gets a new codex. But I don't think we'll ever see all codexes balanced against each other until that magical day when GW grows a brain and realizes they should just redo all of the codexes within the space of a single year.

 Eidolon wrote:
I wouldn't even say all competitive players are playing to win. Most of the people that I know who play competitively just want a challenging game, win or lose.

Agreed. There is a difference between a competitive player who wants the game to be fun and challenging for all involved, and a win-at-all-costs player who couldn't care less about the hobby in general on account of only having any fun when they're wiping the board clean with little-to-no effort required.

Deadnight wrote:second fallacy. that winning with an underpowered army makes you a better player. it means you got lucky. or the other guy played worse than you.

Not sure you noticed, but when the other player is worse, that generally means you are better

But go on believing that playing with a broken army versus a weak one and just rolling lots of dice to see if you win makes you a better player, or at least that is what you seem to be implying since the opposite is apparently a fallacy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
As someone who played one of the worst armies (pure Grey Knights under the old DH codex) who suddenly found his army is now top tier and vilified by some in the online community, I can definitely say that I would not want my armies broken. I'm a casual player and prefer to have a good time playing with my friends. I have yet to even field any purifiers or Draigo in my lists. But how does one define a "broken" codex? Are GK only broken because of Draigo and/or purifiers?

We all want to see cool new stuff when our favorite army gets a new codex. But I don't think we'll ever see all codexes balanced against each other until that magical day when GW grows a brain and realizes they should just redo all of the codexes within the space of a single year.

If GW was serious about inter-codex balance, they'd be willing to use FAQs to reattack point cost for certain units (obvious example: Vendetta). They're not.

On topic, I concur with folks who want the codex to be relevantly powerful without being the new Grey Knights or Vampire Counts, and who want the Codex to be internally balanced. I don't like that in the Tau Codex I feel compelled to ignore fast attack and heavy support options, and feel as if I need to look into ForgeWorld to obtain models around which I can build a relevant army.

And in that regard, I agree. Tau need a new codex badly. Not because their codex is weak, but because their codex is crummy. While the push for more content for more content's sake is a bad one in my mind, tau really do need more content.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
As someone who played one of the worst armies (pure Grey Knights under the old DH codex) who suddenly found his army is now top tier and vilified by some in the online community, I can definitely say that I would not want my armies broken. I'm a casual player and prefer to have a good time playing with my friends. I have yet to even field any purifiers or Draigo in my lists. But how does one define a "broken" codex? Are GK only broken because of Draigo and/or purifiers?

We all want to see cool new stuff when our favorite army gets a new codex. But I don't think we'll ever see all codexes balanced against each other until that magical day when GW grows a brain and realizes they should just redo all of the codexes within the space of a single year.

Its worth remembering that a good 75% of stuff whined about on the internet is not all that amazing. Draigo alone does not make a list unbalanced, nor does the inclusion of purifiers. Lists that go heavy on draigo/paladins or purifiers are often spoiler armies, and rely on good match ups to win.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Deadnight wrote:second fallacy. that winning with an underpowered army makes you a better player. it means you got lucky. or the other guy played worse than you.

Not sure you noticed, but when the other player is worse, that generally means you are better

But go on believing that playing with a broken army versus a weak one and just rolling lots of dice to see if you win makes you a better player, or at least that is what you seem to be implying since the opposite is apparently a fallacy.

I have to disagree, somewhat, with both of you on this. I think winning with a worse army does not mean being a better player, as there are a great deal of other variables to be considered, although often times it would imply that.

I like things well balanced if possible. Sure strong units are fun but that should be seen in their points costs too. Usually I choose some units in the "oooh, that sounds/looks cool" manner and start building around them no matter how useless (or overpowered) they are. The main point still is that if a game is won without the other side even having a chance it isn't really fun. I have propably more losses than victories but almost all of them have been fun anyway.

I don't want my codex to be broken either. In 40K I play IG, but I really wish that the units would be priced more reasonably. The Vendetta(!), Manticore and Hydra are undercosted, while the techpriest, primaris psyker and armoured sentinels are extremely overpriced points wise.
I want the game to be as equal as possible, so I try to field the middle of the road units that fits my playstyle and work well together to create a coherent army. I want as many units in the codex as possible to be viable, something that I really hopes that the next IG codex will improve on, especiall with the infantry.

Eidolon wrote:

Tannhauser42 wrote:... who suddenly found his army is now top tier and vilified by some in the online community

Its worth remembering that a good 75% of stuff whined about on the internet is not all that amazing.

Sure, but you're completely missing his point. He wasn't complaining that he went from an okay army to an overpowered one. As such, the actual quality level of GK is irrelevant.

The point he was making is that he was going along fine with his army, and then, playing the same army, he was suddenly villified. It's the change from odd curiosity to eye rolling by other people that is creating the problem. You can argue that people shouldn't be rolling their eyes at GK, but still, this misses the point. The fact is that they DO roll their eyes.

And by continuing to play your army, you are now "one of those people", even if, in fact, you are not. It's the fact that a change in the codex means a change in the way that real people are actually treating you that is what you've actually got to focus on, here. You can't change the reasoning for another person's behavior, you can only change your own behavior. In this case, coming out with a codex that is too good may mean that, practically speaking, in order to have the respect of other people, you've got to switch to a different army.

Of course, the opposite is also true with underbalanced codices. You get a lot of crap for showing up with "weak" armies from "nonviable" codices, and so a perfect world would have perfect game balance. That said, getting a codex that is imbalanced by being overpowered isn't any more pleasant to withstand than getting a codex that is imbalanced by being underpowered.

So long as human beings are both social and empathic, you are going to care about what other people think of you, regardless of the reasoning behind their opinions. Having people think less of you (or worse), takes a real emotional toll. Why someone would, on purpose, want to take that risk just so that they can win a few more glorified board games is beyond me.

I guess thats true about missing the point, I should probably be getting to bed sometime soon.

As far as people complaining about someone running the newest best codex, feth em. Thats it, feth em. I used to get bent out of shape about people complaining about the armies that I ran, even when they were bad. But after a certain point, you either dont care and dont play against those people. Or, if its in a tournament setting, troll a whiner into oblivion. I honestly believe that, if you have the time and money to play plastic man dollies, there isnt a whole lot you should complain about.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
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.

Agreed.

I mean, c'mon. How do you think us Tyranid players feel being such a middle-class codex? Have you read our fluff?

Too bad their models are so freaking sweet I can't help but love playing them anyway.

But in all honesty, all I'm looking for in a new codex is to have a cohesive mixture of units, both new and old, that give some new spice and variety to how my army is played. I could really care less if my army had a boost to it to make it better.

If my army is more fun to play with in the event of a new codex, that's the biggest boost for me I could get.

Makumba wrote:

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 ?

No, that's not what I said at all.

I've played against plenty of good lists and good armies. Just because the Necron guy isn't running flyer spam doesn't mean he's a bad player or has built a bad army. I play Necrons myself, and I got bored of how easy it was to win with them without flyer spam. When I did take a pair of Doom Scythes, we called the game at the end of turn 2 because I was bored and he felt like he had no chance of winning. The only reason I did so well against the Necrons was because I tailored the feth out of my list specifically to fight against them (I'd never run massed infantry against anyone else, I'd get slaughtered! It's a specific hard counter to Necron lists!)

I like my list. My [Sisters] book is good. I have to work for my victories, but I get them. How is that not good?

Where did I say that the Sisters book is bad against normal lists? All I said was that I haven't tried playing against a specific, rather silly Grey Knight build (even the guy who made the Power Rangers only thinks of them as silly fun instead of a win button), and that no-one in my area plays a Necron Airforce. Codex: Sisters of Battle is the most powerful codex in the game for battles under 1000 points because of Celestine and cheap special weapons. They don't really start losing combat effectiveness until you hit the 1750 mark, when they might be short on Faith at a critical juncture.

barnowl wrote:
In trying to point out a fallacy that was not presented you are creating a strawman argument. Never was broken presented as non-fluffy or underpowered as fluffy. The TS merely points out that there is an advantage to a weaker codex in that since it does not matter if you power build or not it is weak, then you there is no point to not really going for the super fluffy armies.

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 seems to imply the opposite. reading this seems to imply a fluffy list doesnt have broken BLEEP in it. which i think is a fallacy. the brokeness of a list has nothing to do with its fluffiness.

barnowl wrote:
None of the Tau builds you have listed were ever "fluffy". They were just the best builds for the time. It also looks like you have not updated your Tau playbook for 6th, as what you describe as a 6e Tau mono build is not really good any more. Yes, you can have a "power build" that is a "fluffy build" GK and IG being prime examples.

which was precicely my point. the idea for whats "fluffy" changes. and if i remember rightly, when 4th dawned, and the "fish of fury" was discovered, along with Skimmers moving fast, all of a sudden, mech tau became very viable, and strangely, very fluffy, as the codex seems to imply a very heavy mechanisation of the tau (mantas carry multiple fishes, and hunter cadres are deployed in mantas was the basis of this). i saw the traditional 3rd ed build disappear overnight for a new version of what it should be.

*shrug* my point with regard to tau in sixth, sadly is the same as tau in 5th and 4th, which is a criticism levelable against most GW armies - there are very limited effective builds in the game. the 5th ed codices offered a bit more (even if they did boil down to vet/vendetta spam) - basically with the current state of play of a very old codex, there is a very limited playbook available to you. in my mind, pushing out the power curve, and making more things effecttive increases variety, which can only be a good thing. apologies if i didnt articulate this properly in my last post.

Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Not sure you noticed, but when the other player is worse, that generally means you are better

But go on believing that playing with a broken army versus a weak one and just rolling lots of dice to see if you win makes you a better player, or at least that is what you seem to be implying since the opposite is apparently a fallacy.

there is a difference between you winning a game, and the other guy losing it. the latter implies your win wasnt as a result of your own abilities.

as to the second comment bud, you're way off the mark. 40k is beer and pretzels. Im a warmachine/Infinity player first and firemost. i cant (and dont) take 40k games seriously.

No, I wouldn't really want a broken codex because
during any games in which I am winning I feel "lolwut, this is kinda boring, al i have to do is walk forward and shoot" and also kind of numb. For example, I was playing an awesome friendly guy's IG (he has sisters too) with the AOBR marines plus a scout sniper squad and just walked forward with the Termies and killed all of his guardsmen on the right hand side of the board. Even when his lord commissar made two instant death saves with double sixes from a 5+ invul, he was killed next turn.

I wouldn't really like having a broken codex, as it is I just want the old metal Valhallans and other metals to be turned into plastic model kits.

Broken? No.

Top tier in a (semi)balanced system, like that of WHFB, would be great.

As much as I love playing WH40k, when playing new opponents I'd rather play a game of WHFB because I know that no matter what army they bring skill can triumph. Look at last years grand WHFB tournament, the winning army was Brettonians whose codex is what? 10 years old now?

Deadnight wrote:40k is beer and pretzels. Im a warmachine/Infinity player first and firemost. i cant (and dont) take 40k games seriously.

And yet here you are, making long serious posts about a game you don't take seriously.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Hell no I dont want my army broken, GW glue is expensive.

This is clearly the only person who read the thread. I like this guy.

As for me personally, when I started towards the end of 5th, I had no idea that IG was the powerhouse that it was/is. I picked it because I loved the fluff involved. The store owner mentioned that i was the 6th or 7th IG player the store would have, but I don't think the meaning really sank in till I saw the army in the hands of the more veteran IG players just butchering every list they went up against. Luckily, I never really felt like playing the "leafblower style", so I never got whined at as much as others, but you'd be amazed how many people will call foot guard of all things OP. There's a thread I made shortly I after I joined this board, where a guy indirectly chewed me out for a good 15 minutes just because I had the nerve to pick IG as my army. I remember being quite upset about it. Now, I could care less, as sadly, I've had to get used to hearing it.

I know the evil things to take in an IG list, and if I wanted to, could make an absolutely evil IG list. However, those lists are absolutely no fun to play, either with or against, so I don't bring them. I'm lucky in the fact that our store has a healthy spread of players of all mindsets and skill levels, so I tend to bring more "fun" lists so everyone has a good time. If I ever get bored and want a hard fought match though, all I have to do is hit up one of the vets and I'm set.

Personally, I'd rather GW stopped the 1 codex every few months cycle, and released all the codexes at once at the start of an edition, or at least shortly after it comes out. They should only come out after heavy internal playtesting and balancing, and should be proofread by someone who actually understands how the english language works. Things like having costs line up across codexes, especially for the space marines (there is no reason for grey hunters to be cheaper than tactical marines for example) I don't care if they keep the rubric hidden, there needs to be some sort of system to keep units in check. Things like the vendetta shouldn't just pop up out of nowhere, whether unintentional or not. AKA I'd rather they all be as equal as possible. However, Hell will freeze over long before this happens, so I'll have to settle for the next best thing. Either play a strong codex and be mindful of what kind of opponents I'm playing so I'm not a jerk, and play more balanced codexes like orks, where I can go pretty nuts and not have to worry about it.

That said, I really wish some people would lose the idea that just because someone picked GK, IG, necrons, or SW means they're only doing it because they want to win. There are people who pick the armies for reasons other than having them be super face smashers. One of the GK players I know is probably the nicest guy at the store, and was a pleasure to play against even with his termie list for example.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Deadnight wrote:40k is beer and pretzels. Im a warmachine/Infinity player first and firemost. i cant (and dont) take 40k games seriously.

And yet here you are, making long serious posts about a game you don't take seriously.

this forum doesnt just exist for you, my friend. Nor does it soley exist for the hardcore elite.

i am a big fan of the 40kiverse (and tau in particular), and have been for a decade. I consider myself a wargamer as oposed to a 40k player. which implies i have an interest in all wargames, not just the ones i play. that alone gives me all the reasons i need to maintain an interest in the goings on here, or elsewhere. Who knows. a new tau codex might even persuade me to dust off my kroot, and fire warriors, and buy into the game a bit again.

Eh, it does get kind of annoying when I do bring my Necrons out. I've been with Necrons since their debut in 1997, but I still get people muttering about power players and codex jumpers.


Admittedly, they usually stop when I start deploying metal Warriors, but the initial burst is still... frustrating.

I like my nids just the way they are, rare (in my area) and under appreciated. I love smashing people who blow them off as middle to low tier, especially because they can't really complain. We really only have one cheesy unit, and he can't even be spammed. (doom in a pod)

If we became the new cheese I might shelf them and move on until they went back to just decent again.

I will say this. As a necron player since before they even had a codex I was really looking forward to the new necron book. I love the newcrons. Necrons have for a while now been a weaker army. (Despite being strong but boring in 4th and 3rd). However while the first few months were great getting to play with all the new toys. But now I have all these codex hopping power gamers jumping to play my army. I use to be the only necron player in a tournament. Now you have trouble finding a table without one.

While no player is a unique snowflake we all enjoy some individuality in our armies. So it kind of sucks having played an army that was rare to playing an army that people see so often they don't even want to play against it.

With my Sisters codex I doubt it will be an issue. The fact the army is female will probably keep a lot of people away even if the codex is considered "top tier". But for my Necrons it is too late, the damage has been done.