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.

Best codex of 6th edition? Maybe.
Best codex ever seen? No
It's hard to say this is a great codex when three days after its release it got FAQed. Most of the points where were they had to re-write entries. Things that could have been avoided if the codex went through some kind quality control. There are still more parts that will need to be FAQed, and I wouldn't be surprised if that happened soon.

My friend and I have spent a couple of days going over the codex and seeing what other people have said. To a certain extent, we feel strange because we wonder are we looking at the same codex. Everybody has glowed about the codex, but we find just meh. There are good things but standard codex marines are better. The Dark Angels tactical squad start out cheaper; however, that's where things end. To build a Dark Angels unit to the exact same build of a codex marine tactical squad, a player will generally spend the exact same amount of points. Codex marines get vet sergeants for free. Dark Angels have to pay 10 points to get one. Codex marines get flamers for free. Dark Angels do not.

I've said this in my tread and other places too. I find Azrael meh. A player only unlocks Deathwing Terminators, not Knights, and Ravenwing Attack squadron, not Black Knights, as troop choices. That's only if he's in the Primary detachment. The rule also stats that they are troop choices instead of their usual FO category. Seems cool, but the way I'm interperting it right now is that the rule does two things. First and most importantly, it moves Ravenwing and Deathwing from Elites and Fast Attack to Troops. That means they cannot be taken as Elites or Fast Attack. If a player fills the four troop slots with tactical squads, then they will not be able to take Ravenwing or Deathwing. This leads to the second point. That is a very exspensive army. Taking just Azrael, a Deathwing squad (no upgrades), and a full Ravenwing squad (no upgrades) comes to 691 points. For a 1500 point game that is a quarter of your army. It may just be me, but I don't see the greatness.

Again I found the codex to be lukewarm, and I think it will continue to be lukewarm throughout 6th edition. I may have had too high of an expectation for this codex. Given the last three codices that Dark Angels have had, I may have been expecting something that would truly set them apart. Instead, I just have the sinking feeling that this Dark Angel codex will suffer the same fate as the previous ones. It will turn out to be as vanilla or more vanilla than the regular codex space marines, and I will wonder why do Dark Angels even need their own separate codex.

i think the DE book was the best so far. its one of few books where the rules for units is actually well presented in the fluff, and vice versa. the codex itself also has many diffirent builds and options, plus many very stong units but nothing super overpowered or broken.

have only paged through the DA book, but i like the initial appearance, and back when i started thinking of doing a marine army i was attracted to the deathwing. it looks like they got a nice solid buff to make them competetive again.

 DarthSpader wrote:
i think the DE book was the best so far. its one of few books where the rules for units is actually well presented in the fluff, and vice versa. the codex itself also has many diffirent builds and options, plus many very stong units but nothing super overpowered or broken.

It was the nail in the coffin for Tyranids in 5th edition though.

I'd have to agree with those who say that Codex: Orks remains the Paragon among Codices. Two editions later and still kicking butt without ever being OP (a small spat with Nob Bikers notwithstanding). AND it's fluffy!


Green iz best!

Bkiker - 6 troops slots, and ~700 points is half a 1500 point army, not a quarter.

They are a very, very good codex, which doesnt invalidate prior army builds unlike other codex updates, I just wish the editing had been better.

J Vetock should have been given a codex WAY before now if this it he quality he can produce

@nosferatu1001
The fact that ~700 points is half of 1500 doesn't help improve Azrael. As I showed in my post, the build I made with no upgrades came to 691 points. That makes half of a 1500 point army consist of 14 models. I don't see that as very cost effective. Yes, you have 6 troop slots, but if you try to fill them all with Ravenwing and Deathwing, your points will burn up very quickly.
If by very, very good you mean balanced, then I will agree, but I feel they are almost too balanced. They're balanced to the point of being a flat line, which is why I'm saying it's "meh". Here's a thought me and my friend had last night that I wonder anyone else have thought about: the future. Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out? Given GW's past history, the later codices will see more and more flare and to some extent over the top-ness. I believe this codex will remain a flat line throughout 6th edition: never really being bad, but never really being great ether.
You're point about the editing and Vetock's level of quality I hardly support. I really wonder if this codex even saw an editor or some kind of quality control, or was it just rushed out to sale new models? Giving a rookie Dark Angels makes me feel that GW still doesn't really know what to do with Dark Angels or doesn't care. This dig's up the old feeling that I've always had about Dark Angels: why even give them their own codex.

 bkiker wrote:
Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out?

You should really ask the Chaos Space Marine players about this !

@AtoMakl
Ha. I liked how one person put it. You can't make Chaos players happy unless their codex is 1000 page tome that has every snowflake option and rule. I personally like the Chaos codex. Of course this is the first Chaos codex I've ever own, so I came to it with no expectations and no previous history.

 bkiker wrote:
@nosferatu1001
The fact that ~700 points is half of 1500 doesn't help improve Azrael. As I showed in my post, the build I made with no upgrades came to 691 points. That makes half of a 1500 point army consist of 14 models. I don't see that as very cost effective. Yes, you have 6 troop slots, but if you try to fill them all with Ravenwing and Deathwing, your points will burn up very quickly.
If by very, very good you mean balanced, then I will agree, but I feel they are almost too balanced. They're balanced to the point of being a flat line, which is why I'm saying it's "meh". Here's a thought me and my friend had last night that I wonder anyone else have thought about: the future. Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out? Given GW's past history, the later codices will see more and more flare and to some extent over the top-ness. I believe this codex will remain a flat line throughout 6th edition: never really being bad, but never really being great ether.
You're point about the editing and Vetock's level of quality I hardly support. I really wonder if this codex even saw an editor or some kind of quality control, or was it just rushed out to sale new models? Giving a rookie Dark Angels makes me feel that GW still doesn't really know what to do with Dark Angels or doesn't care. This dig's up the old feeling that I've always had about Dark Angels: why even give them their own codex.

I think they only seem so meh because of what we're used to seeing from 5th edition, where we got IG, Wolves, and Grey Knights, and everything trying to constantly top each other. I think the Chaos book, and DE in 5th, are a much better comparison for what we're likely to see with future codexes. Things becoming more balanced internally, so that there are no (or very few, *cough*Helldrake*cough*) stand-out no brainers in the book. So while we'll be stuck with some OP things from 5th until they get redone, everything is going to start converging more on this flat line that you see with the DA.

And as for Vetock being a rookie, he isn't. He's done several WHFB army books, and had a hand in the 6th ed main rulebook, I believe. He wasn't the problem, the problem was a lack of good editing and absolutely no QA from GW, but that's a matter for another thread.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 bkiker wrote:
@nosferatu1001
The fact that ~700 points is half of 1500 doesn't help improve Azrael. As I showed in my post, the build I made with no upgrades came to 691 points. That makes half of a 1500 point army consist of 14 models. I don't see that as very cost effective. Yes, you have 6 troop slots, but if you try to fill them all with Ravenwing and Deathwing, your points will burn up very quickly.
If by very, very good you mean balanced, then I will agree, but I feel they are almost too balanced. They're balanced to the point of being a flat line, which is why I'm saying it's "meh". Here's a thought me and my friend had last night that I wonder anyone else have thought about: the future. Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out? Given GW's past history, the later codices will see more and more flare and to some extent over the top-ness. I believe this codex will remain a flat line throughout 6th edition: never really being bad, but never really being great ether.
You're point about the editing and Vetock's level of quality I hardly support. I really wonder if this codex even saw an editor or some kind of quality control, or was it just rushed out to sale new models? Giving a rookie Dark Angels makes me feel that GW still doesn't really know what to do with Dark Angels or doesn't care. This dig's up the old feeling that I've always had about Dark Angels: why even give them their own codex.

I think they only seem so meh because of what we're used to seeing from 5th edition, where we got IG, Wolves, and Grey Knights, and everything trying to constantly top each other. I think the Chaos book, and DE in 5th, are a much better comparison for what we're likely to see with future codexes. Things becoming more balanced internally, so that there are no (or very few, *cough*Helldrake*cough*) stand-out no brainers in the book. So while we'll be stuck with some OP things from 5th until they get redone, everything is going to start converging more on this flat line that you see with the DA.

And as for Vetock being a rookie, he isn't. He's done several WHFB army books, and had a hand in the 6th ed main rulebook, I believe. He wasn't the problem, the problem was a lack of good editing and absolutely no QA from GW, but that's a matter for another thread.

Great points. I've never played WHFB, so I was unaware at his history in that. I still can't help but think that one-up-manship will creep back, but maybe I'll be wrong.

 bkiker wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 bkiker wrote:
@nosferatu1001
The fact that ~700 points is half of 1500 doesn't help improve Azrael. As I showed in my post, the build I made with no upgrades came to 691 points. That makes half of a 1500 point army consist of 14 models. I don't see that as very cost effective. Yes, you have 6 troop slots, but if you try to fill them all with Ravenwing and Deathwing, your points will burn up very quickly.
If by very, very good you mean balanced, then I will agree, but I feel they are almost too balanced. They're balanced to the point of being a flat line, which is why I'm saying it's "meh". Here's a thought me and my friend had last night that I wonder anyone else have thought about: the future. Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out? Given GW's past history, the later codices will see more and more flare and to some extent over the top-ness. I believe this codex will remain a flat line throughout 6th edition: never really being bad, but never really being great ether.
You're point about the editing and Vetock's level of quality I hardly support. I really wonder if this codex even saw an editor or some kind of quality control, or was it just rushed out to sale new models? Giving a rookie Dark Angels makes me feel that GW still doesn't really know what to do with Dark Angels or doesn't care. This dig's up the old feeling that I've always had about Dark Angels: why even give them their own codex.

I think they only seem so meh because of what we're used to seeing from 5th edition, where we got IG, Wolves, and Grey Knights, and everything trying to constantly top each other. I think the Chaos book, and DE in 5th, are a much better comparison for what we're likely to see with future codexes. Things becoming more balanced internally, so that there are no (or very few, *cough*Helldrake*cough*) stand-out no brainers in the book. So while we'll be stuck with some OP things from 5th until they get redone, everything is going to start converging more on this flat line that you see with the DA.

And as for Vetock being a rookie, he isn't. He's done several WHFB army books, and had a hand in the 6th ed main rulebook, I believe. He wasn't the problem, the problem was a lack of good editing and absolutely no QA from GW, but that's a matter for another thread.

Great points. I've never played WHFB, so I was unaware at his history in that. I still can't help but think that one-up-manship will creep back, but maybe I'll be wrong.

40k seems to be following on the same coat-tails as 8th ed Fantasy.

Basically, the nocticible power creep has been all but turned off. When you look at the supposed, (or rather net-listed), "best" & "worst" books - Ogres & Tomb Kings, there isn't really that much power seperating them overall. (Outside of one really evil Ogre magic item that has 'screw undead' written all over it!)
But thus far, Ogres/VC's/O&G's/Empire/TK's are all on a fairly even playing field, and each book is capable of multiple fun yet still decently competitive builds.

Most noticable of all, there really aren't any "I-win-buttons" in any of the new Fantasy books. (nor are there any present in the new DA's or CSM's)
This has IMHO caused the bulk of the grumbling and complaints, mainly from the very vocal minority who think GW either owes them for some percieved slight or other stupid reason or simply outright bad players who can't be bothered to properly learn their army/game itself and just want an easy 'point-and-click' option/s.



Now, here's the funny thing, thus far in terms of "who's written what" across both of the 'New Balanced Systems', we've had;
Mr.Vetock w/Dark Angels, Orcs&Gobbos & co-wrote Ogres.

Mr.Jervis Johnson co-wrote Orges with Vetock.

Mr.Cruddace w/Tomb Kings, Empire & (confirmed via WD leaks) Warriors of Chaos.

Mr.Kelly w/Vampire Counts, Chaos Marines.

We also have rumors of Mr.Vetock possibly being the man behind BOTH the forthcoming Daemons of Chaos & 40k Chaos Daemons...
Of those books, Vampires, (and I'd wager good money Warriors as well), were tonned way down while the others were generally brought up a notch or three! (Ogres gained the most for obvious reasons)

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?!

Experiment 626 wrote:

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?!

He wrote the core rules for both 40k and Fantasy though.

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?

Yet we've still got Cruddace (Imperial Guard) and Kelly (Space wolves), hmmm.

@Experiment 626
As I mentioned, I have no familiarity with fantasy. If GW is scaling back the power creep, I am more than happy to see that happen. As you pointed out, it would make for a variety of builds and fun lists.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?!

He wrote the core rules for both 40k and Fantasy though.

And we can still hear the screaming about how borked the BRB magic lores are, not to mention the Power Scroll got nerfed hard-core in the FAQ!

I've not had a chance to play as much 40k, so I'll admit I haven't yet seen too much abuse myself of any OTT silliness from the new core rules.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?

Yet we've still got Cruddace (Imperial Guard) and Kelly (Space wolves), hmmm.

And those were both 5th edition books.

The 'new age' hardcovers for both systems have really ratcheted back the amount of 'win-button'/power creep options.
Sure, CSM's have the Helldrake of epicness while DA's have T5/3++ Termies and twin-linked Plasma bikers, but those options don't really play themselves to victory the way things like Longwang spam or Pally spam or MSU mech spam did in 5th.

Both Chaos Marines and Dark Angels are capable of making some hard lists.
But there's nothing in either book that screams outright 'broken' like we've suffered in the past with IG/SW/BA/GK/'Cron fiasco.

The 'new age' hardcovers for both systems have really ratcheted back the amount of 'win-button'/power creep options.
Sure, CSM's have the Helldrake of epicness while DA's have T5/3++ Termies and twin-linked Plasma bikers, but those options don't really play themselves to victory the way things like Longwang spam or Pally spam or MSU mech spam did in 5th.

We haven't gotten a new 40K book from Cruddace either.

Both Chaos Marines and Dark Angels are capable of making some hard lists.
But there's nothing in either book that screams outright 'broken' like we've suffered in the past with IG/SW/BA/GK/'Cron fiasco.

BA were never OP/Broken at any point in the game, and it's silly to try to even insinuate that they are, or ever were on the same level as IG/SW/5th GK.

GK were clearly written with 5th in mind. This had the unfortunate side effect of their dominance toward the end of 5th edition. No one is crying that GK are Overpowered now. Except you. Because of Warp Quake.

The main reason people cry about Necrons now, is the lack of AA, and their ability to spam flyers. As more codexs get Anti-Air/Flyers, this is slowly being addressed. It's another growing pain of sixth.

 Sasori wrote:

GK were clearly written with 5th in mind..

Or, 6th was written with GKs in mind?

I love how you think the year and a half this book was on the market in 5th was undertaken with some incredible prescience and patience by Matt Ward, as though he was the pinnacle of restraint.

If anything, it's the more sensible belief that 6th contained some of the rules it did specifically in order to nerf GKs perceived excesses in 5th. After all, 6th released after the GK codex. It's not like you have any evidence at all what Matt Ward was thinking back in 2011 or that they had crystallized the 6th rules, which were probably still in the design or at LEAST playtesting stages back in 2011. Do you know the meaning of the word "work in progress?" I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

 TedNugent wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

GK were clearly written with 5th in mind..

Or, 6th was written with GKs in mind?

I love how you think the year and a half this book was on the market in 5th was undertaken with some incredible prescience and patience by Matt Ward, as though he was the pinnacle of restraint.

If anything, it's the more sensible belief that 6th contained some of the rules it did specifically in order to nerf GKs perceived excesses in 5th. After all, 6th released after the GK codex. It's not like you have any evidence at all what Matt Ward was thinking back in 2011 or that they had crystallized the 6th rules, which were probably still in the design or at LEAST playtesting stages back in 2011. Do you know the meaning of the word "work in progress?" I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

+1,000,000 This.

GK's would have been written during the earlier concepts of 6th edition, hence why you see some early indicators such as Mastery Levels for Librarians and the newer printing of Prefered Enemy.
BUT!
GK's were most certainly designed for 5th edition because by the time the codex would have gone to the printers, the studio would likely have still been upto their ears in serious playtesting of the 6th ed rules. (as most codex/army book projects require at least 12-18 months from beginings to release)
And GK's would likely have been in progress a bit earlier too, since the new codex was a pretty giant overhaul and basically turned them into a brand new army in their own right. (making it even less likely that 6th edition was as far ahead as some seem to magically think it was)

Necrons clearly showed more progrees had been made with the 6th ed rules, and were designed far more with 6th in mind that GK's were.

And yes, BA's were a serious power creep codex, since they were just 'Space Marines +1'.
Notice how the only actual vanilla armies still being played after BA's hit were Vulkan or Biker lists?! That would because SW's played the gunline better, while BA's were simply way tougher and much faster.

SW's/IG/BA/GK's were the 4 biggest power creepers.

 TedNugent wrote:
If anything, it's the more sensible belief that 6th contained some of the rules it did specifically in order to nerf GKs perceived excesses in 5th. After all, 6th released after the GK codex.

It sounds sensible at first. But when you think about what specific rules hurt GK most, it stops being sensible. Because those rules are the ones that have extremely large implications for most other armies too: Change to vehicle damage mechanisms, power weapon changes, no assault out of vehicles, etc. So changes of all of them being completely re-written because of single codex doesn't sound realistic at all.

Now, there actually is a rule C:GK probably influenced: Wound allocation. GW wanted to nerf Wound allocation shenigans to oblivion. But that issue had already been noticed with Nob Bikers.

 TedNugent wrote:
It's not like you have any evidence at all what Matt Ward was thinking back in 2011 or that they had crystallized the 6th rules, which were probably still in the design or at LEAST playtesting stages back in 2011.

Some rules, like Aegis, were obviously written for 6e psychic mechanics. RAW, Aegis working didn't work in 5e at all, but it meshed perfectly with 6e mechanics. Same goes for Mastery levels and lot of other stuff. So yes, there is very strong evidence that large parts of 6e were ready in all the ways that matters for the purposes of this discussion.

Fortitude is another one: 5 points for it made no sense for 5e, but makes sense for 6e. Are you seriously arguing that vehicle damage chart change was all because of Fortitude?

 TedNugent wrote:
Do you know the meaning of the word "work in progress?"

Yes I know. It means that people have good idea about what their goals are. Or they might have all the necessary core mechanics in place, but want to concentrate on specifics. Example would be that they have already ironed out the exact process of casting psychic power, but are still discussing what specific psychic powers do.

 TedNugent wrote:
I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

Well, they probably didn't know all the rules and their exact wordings, but had chosen the main lines they were going to follow, which obviously included core Psyker mechanics (not necessarily powers though) and extremely likely included stuff like hull points, power weapon changes, existence of Flyer rules, no scoring inside transports etc.

And this is GW: They just are damn slow to take action. 90+% of the problems fixed in the first BRB FAQ were talked about widely within week of the BRB being published. It still took GW months to fix those issues via FAQ. Considering the timeframes involved and how long GW it takes for GW to take actual action, we have two scenarios:
1) Whole rulebook was hastily re-written in 9-12 months before its release, all to nerf C:GK. The changes done at this stage include (but are not limited to) power weapon changes, changes to Vehicle damage table and vehicle rules.
2) C:GK was written based on then current playtest version of 6e, which at that point already contained significant portions of the rules changes that nerfed GK in 6e. Some of the rules from that version have changed based on evidence: For example, Halberds being two-handed weapons has no in-game effect whatsoever because no model with halberd can have 2nd CCW.

Which of these scenarios sounds more sensible?

edit: Fixed typo

 bkiker wrote:

There are good things but standard codex marines are better. The Dark Angels tactical squad start out cheaper; however, that's where things end. To build a Dark Angels unit to the exact same build of a codex marine tactical squad, a player will generally spend the exact same amount of points. Codex marines get vet sergeants for free. Dark Angels have to pay 10 points to get one. Codex marines get flamers for free. Dark Angels do not.

Starting cheaper but ending up the same is in itself a huge advantage. DA tactical squads get to trim the fat that not everybody needs in order to save points. Save 10 points for having a regular sarge? That's a huge advantage, because then you save points you would be basically wasting on a 2nd attack for 1 model in a shooty squad. And if you want it, go ahead you can get it because you have the option to! Vanilla marines do not get that option. Options are good! The biggest advantage is that DA marines can get a special weapon with only 5 models, vanilla marines have to field a full 10 to get a special weapon. That's an absurd advantage over vanilla marines. If you want a 10-man squad of bolter boys alone, you are going to be able to field them way cheaper than a vanilla squad. DA has cheaper tacticals, scouts & devastators who can all get flakk missiles, which vanilla can't. DA also has cheaper whirlwinds. You can make half a list of hard-hitting elite units scoring and then fill out the rest with tons of cheap bodies. That's a pretty sweet option to have.

bkiker wrote:
I've said this in my tread and other places too. I find Azrael meh. A player only unlocks Deathwing Terminators, not Knights, and Ravenwing Attack squadron, not Black Knights, as troop choices. That's only if he's in the Primary detachment. The rule also stats that they are troop choices instead of their usual FO category. Seems cool, but the way I'm interperting it right now is that the rule does two things. First and most importantly, it moves Ravenwing and Deathwing from Elites and Fast Attack to Troops. That means they cannot be taken as Elites or Fast Attack. If a player fills the four troop slots with tactical squads, then they will not be able to take Ravenwing or Deathwing. This leads to the second point. That is a very exspensive army. Taking just Azrael, a Deathwing squad (no upgrades), and a full Ravenwing squad (no upgrades) comes to 691 points. For a 1500 point game that is a quarter of your army. It may just be me, but I don't see the greatness.

Azrael can make almost an entire army scoring. He confers a 4++ save to everybody he joins, including allies. He can pick his warlord trait. He has awesome wargear. He gives the entire army LD 10. He got +1 WS, stronger rules and he's cheaper than the last codex. What's not to like about him?

You say that by not keeping DW/RW as Elite/FA, you are stopping people from getting them. But then you say getting them as troops means you don't have enough points leftover. You've made half of a 1500 point army using 1 HQ and 2 troops slots. Are you saying that another HQ, 4 more troops slots and 3 elite/3 FA/3 heavy are not enough for you to finish the other half? Not to mention that DA can get units that don't use up slots such as a techmarine & 3 types of command squads in addition to dedicated transports. Just how is that not enough room for 700 points?

Luide wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
If anything, it's the more sensible belief that 6th contained some of the rules it did specifically in order to nerf GKs perceived excesses in 5th. After all, 6th released after the GK codex.

It sounds sensible at first. But when you think about what specific rules hurt GK most, it stops being sensible. Because those rules are the ones that have extremely large implications for most other armies too: Change to vehicle damage mechanisms, power weapon changes, no assault out of vehicles, etc. So changes of all of them being completely re-written because of single codex doesn't sound realistic at all.

Now, there actually is a rule C:GK probably influenced: Wound allocation. GW wanted to nerf Wound allocation shenigans to oblivion. But that issue had already been noticed with Nob Bikers.

 TedNugent wrote:
It's not like you have any evidence at all what Matt Ward was thinking back in 2011 or that they had crystallized the 6th rules, which were probably still in the design or at LEAST playtesting stages back in 2011.

Some rules, like Aegis, were obviously written for 6e psychic mechanics. RAW, Aegis working didn't work in 5e at all, but it meshed perfectly with 6e mechanics. Same goes for Mastery levels and lot of other stuff. So yes, there is very strong evidence that large parts of 6e were ready in all the ways that matters for the purposes of this discussion.

Fortitude is another one: 5 points for it made no sense for 5e, but makes sense for 6e. Are you seriously arguing that vehicle damage chart change was all because of Fortitude?

 TedNugent wrote:
Do you know the meaning of the word "work in progress?"

Yes I know. It means that people have good idea about what their goals are. Or they might have all the necessary core mechanics in place, but want to concentrate on specifics. Example would be that they have already ironed out the exact process of casting psychic power, but are still discussing what specific psychic powers do.

 TedNugent wrote:
I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

Well, they probably didn't know all the rules and their exact wordings, but had chosen the main lines they were going to follow, which obviously included core Psyker mechanics (not necessarily powers though) and extremely likely included stuff like hull points, power weapon changes, existence of Flyer rules, no scoring inside transports etc.

And this is GW: They just are damn slow to take action. 90+% of the problems fixed in the first BRB were talked about widely within week of the BRB being published. It still took GW months to fix those issues via FAQ. Considering the timeframes involved and how long GW it takes for GW to take actual action, we have two scenarios:
1) Whole rulebook was hastily re-written in 9-12 months before its release, all to nerf C:GK. The changes done at this stage include (but are not limited to) power weapon changes, changes to Vehicle damage table and vehicle rules.
2) C:GK was written based on then current playtest version of 6e, which at that point already contained significant portions of the rules changes that nerfed GK in 6e. Some of the rules from that version have changed based on evidence: For example, Halberds being two-handed weapons has no in-game effect whatsoever because no model with halberd can have 2nd CCW.

Which of these scenarios sounds more sensible?

Very well said!

I just want to add one point to this

I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

Cruddace outright stated in an interview that releases are at the whims of sales. He said the reason for the release schedule, was because if they released too much in one year, that the shareholders would expect this kind of return every year, hence the "Waiting" for 6th and the CSM.

Divination is broken i should know i play 3 rune priests in my SW army
10 Devastators 4xPC is total win

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Divination is broken i should know i play 3 rune priests in my SW army
10 Devastators 4xPC is total win

Prescience does not work on Blast Weapons though unless I am missing somthing.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Divination is broken i should know i play 3 rune priests in my SW army
10 Devastators 4xPC is total win

Prescience does not work on Blast Weapons though unless I am missing somthing.

Yes, the text on page 33 which talks about rerolls to hit.

I think it's pretty good, but needed someone with a brain to edit it.

The book itself isn't OP, but unfortunately anyone that is battle brothers with guard can be very powerful now.

The DA's main weakness is flyers, but IG can sure help there.. and Azrael gets a lot of mileage out of his 4++ in a big blob.

 bkiker wrote:
@AtoMakl
Ha. I liked how one person put it. You can't make Chaos players happy unless their codex is 1000 page tome that has every snowflake option and rule. I personally like the Chaos codex. Of course this is the first Chaos codex I've ever own, so I came to it with no expectations and no previous history.

Heh, go look at "slaves to darkness" and "The Lost and the Damned" books.

They had a d1000 mutation chart.

And it was great - Orks also had the Kustomising tables halicon days

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Divination is broken i should know i play 3 rune priests in my SW army
10 Devastators 4xPC is total win

Prescience does not work on Blast Weapons though unless I am missing somthing.

Yes, the text on page 33 which talks about rerolls to hit.

Also, page 37 Gets Hot rerolls. All win.

 Mr Morden wrote:
And it was great - Orks also had the Kustomising tables halicon days

Also everything could be kombi, Kombi lascannon, kombi autocannon..


You could have an autocannon, with lascannon, with missle launcher if you rolled right. Best Dakka Ever

Ah but I also recall you could have a Stealth Avatar to fitght them

My brother used to run with Orks and he had mere units with as much firepower as present armies

I love the Dark Angel army. But this new 6th ed DA codex is really getting on my nerves. Here's why.

1. Price: This is the most expensive codex for me. $59.50CAD is nothing to be sneezed it. Blood Angels codex was only $34.50CAD. I know this new codex is hardcover and full colour and all that and I would have agreed on the price to be fair. EXCEPT for the points I will make below.
2. Spelling mistakes: I can't believe how many spelling mistakes I found in this codex! For a gaming company selling their models through storytelling and English as its orginal language the spelling mistakes really undermine the quality of the product.
3. Rules mistakes: if spelling errors is not enough. The amount of rule errors really hamper the enjoyment of playing the game unforgiving (pun intended). Does Belial have iron halo? Does Darkshroud have sleath? I paid good money for a quality book. Now I have to trout around an 'FAQ' with so many small annoyances.
4. Fluff: At first I praised Vetock for a codex well written. until last week I reopened my old 2nd ed Angels of Death codex and re-read the fluff about the Dark Angels and guess what I found? The fluff is a direct copy from the old codex! Granted its not copy/paste, but the similiarity will surly get your ass in trouble if you are in college. The paragrahs and sentance structre are the same, just a random word change here and there. So now again I paied 59.50CAD only to found out half the fluff I already bought 15 yrs ago. I won't be frustrated if Vertock rewrite the same story himself and not copy from an older codex.


In summary, this codex is my worst codex becuase for its high prices I got a lot of spelling mistakes to hamper my reading enjoyment, lots of rules misakes which hamper my playing enjoyment. and found it half the fluff I have already read WORD FOR WORD in an older book. Thank you for reading my rant which for some reason I feel the need to express. Thank god I didn't buy the Collector's edition otherwise I would be so mad and write to GW itself.

please don't flame me if I offened you in some way. I love DA and had been collecting for some time. I really wished the DA codex didn't have so many book mistakes. The rules are acturally quite nice and balanced in my opinion.