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.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

However the distance works out, you just run the Spider first too see how far forward your Wraiths can move and still be in range of the buff...

This. I assume the Spyder needs to be in unit coherency to give them RP, not like a 6" range?

It's got a 12" range.

 Shadelkan wrote:
With the release of the Necron Codex, every Warhammer 40k army now has an up-to-date codex. While certain armies still do not have a physical codex (See: Sisters of Battle), they are all still up to 7th ed standards and terminologies. We all knew this would happen, and we're now here.

What are your thoughts on the current state of affairs of Warhammer 40k, in terms of power levels, meta, and fluff? What about the Warhammer 40k hobby in general? Do you think GW will start releasing codices again during this edition? Any questions you'd that you'd like to have the answers?

My take on this.

I would argue not all armies are in fact up to 7E standards and terminologies. 7E books are as different from 6E books as they were from 5E books. 6E books (IIRC aside from the Tempestus book) lack formations, have a different balance curve, different design philosophy (particularly wargear/relics/FoC swaps), on top of a notably different format for how the books are laid out.

That said, they're all in the "hardcover" era where critical glaring things that didn't exist in 5E are now covered.

With regards to power level meta, I think we have major problems. Looking at just the codex books, we still very much have some clear "overpowered" and a couple "underpowered" books. For a time several 6E books were big on the power scale, and Eldar notably on top along with Imperial Knights, and then in the latter part of 6E and the first few 7E books things began to be toned down. Until Necrons, which have every appearance of being the new overpowered army out of all proportion with the other 7E books.

Additionally, we have several issues with army construction. First is the idea of "detachments". The concept of any structure or limitations has gone out the window when you can take as many FoC's as you like. Secondly, Formations add on to that, and have increasingly absurd and overpowered capabilities, without really any limitations or additional cost beyond simply taking "X" models as specificed in the formation. Formations likewise are very unevenly distributed, with Tyranids and Necrons having lots of extremely powerful capabilities they pay no points for, and other armies having few formations at all that have significantly less powerful capabilities or no formations at all.

TL;DR 40k is a mess, there's a pretty clear differentiation between 6E and 7E books and it's hard to say everything is up to date now, there are still very clearly "top" armies and "bottom" armies, army construction has run amok, Formations are a huge problem, and the previous late 6E/early 7E trend of toning down power has been reversed hard by Necrons.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

However the distance works out, you just run the Spider first too see how far forward your Wraiths can move and still be in range of the buff...

This. I assume the Spyder needs to be in unit coherency to give them RP, not like a 6" range?

It's got a 12" range.

So is the only point of unit coherency for this formation to make Look Out Sir rolls? Or does it not even join the unit?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

However the distance works out, you just run the Spider first too see how far forward your Wraiths can move and still be in range of the buff...

This. I assume the Spyder needs to be in unit coherency to give them RP, not like a 6" range?

It's got a 12" range.

So is the only point of unit coherency for this formation to make Look Out Sir rolls? Or does it not even join the unit?

It's a formation, not a unit. And it can't LoS.

With all the codex's a edition apart the state of the game is still a mess. Everybody knows who are the powerful codex and the weak ones are. You would think after 7 editions that GW would figure out how to balance the game.

 Chute82 wrote:
With all the codex's a edition apart the state of the game is still a mess. Everybody knows who are the powerful codex and the weak ones are. You would think after 7 editions that GW would figure out how to balance the game.

The 7th ed stuff is still largely balanced (even if Crons are a bit ahead of the others, as a codex they have more durability than offensive bite I feel. I say as a codex because anyone monkey can spam an unbound Wraith army, and even if it's a little harder to kill than it use to be doesn't mean it's unstoppable. It'll just change the meta and we'll see things like more poisoned weapons and S10 things entering the meta if they get out of control).

The 6th stuff isn't balanced with 7th but that's because it was written for 6th edition's rules, not 7th's. If, and I know it's a big if, all the books make it into 7th I feel we'll be seeing the best edition balance wise to date.

From my first impressions, I don't have much of a problem saying that Crons aren't just a bit ahead of the others, but completely out of whack, easily on par with some of the less well balanced 6E stuff. The formations play a big part in that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
From my first impressions, I don't have much of a problem saying that Crons aren't just a bit ahead of the others, but completely out of whack, easily on par with some of the less well balanced 6E stuff. The formations play a big part in that.

I don't feel the formations really break the game, but if there is a need to balance them out for tournaments all it would take would be restricting armies to a single formation in tournaments. That'd keep them from running more than the Reclamation Legion in a Decurion.

Well, again on a personal level I think Formations just in general break the game really.

Restricting them would help, but tournament restrictions are wildly variable from event to event, while normal play, particularly pickup games, your options are much more limited short of declining games.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, again on a personal level I think Formations just in general break the game really.

I think *some* formations are ok.

But, a lot of others seem to be along the lines of "If you take these units, that you were going to take anyway, you can have this free bonus, too.".

 vipoid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, again on a personal level I think Formations just in general break the game really.

I think *some* formations are ok.

Some aren't that bad, but largely it's the principle in general that irks me.

But, a lot of others seem to be along the lines of "If you take these units, that you were going to take anyway, you can have this free bonus, too.".

There is definitely a lot of that, or you get one's where it's "hey, you wanted to take more of these than normal? Cool, now you can with a free bonus on top".

So your applying your personal bias against formations in general to the Necron codex ?

The Necrons, as a whole, lost offensive bite and gained more potential staying power.

The Tesla Nerf weakened Necron Anti Air. Combine that with the points increase made Annhilation barges much less competitive.

Entropic Touch nerfed down to Gauss effectiveness. It may be not useless, but it is nowhere near as good.

The loss of Cryptek Wargear was a huge offensive Nerf costing Necrons ranged haywire and the ability to repeatedly deep strike around the board.

The net effect is we need to attack many more times to achieve the same results.

The old Royal Court could bring Imperial Knights to tears in a single shooting phase. Scarabs could wreck any vehicle in a single assault.
Now Necrons hurl as many dice as possible at armor and hope for 6's on the damage rolls.

NONE of the formations add offensive punch. They increase the chance of RP, or repair 1d6 warrriors, or allow re-rolls, grant some USRs.

Tournaments reward the ability to remove units quickly. Necrons did not get the ability to remove units faster, the new formations give Necrons lots of new toys to stay on the board longer.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

However the distance works out, you just run the Spider first too see how far forward your Wraiths can move and still be in range of the buff...

This. I assume the Spyder needs to be in unit coherency to give them RP, not like a 6" range?

It's got a 12" range.

So is the only point of unit coherency for this formation to make Look Out Sir rolls? Or does it not even join the unit?

It's a formation, not a unit. And it can't LoS.

Then it doesn't seem that strong. I feel like sniping the Spyder immediately reduces their effectiveness.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The Wraith formation really slows them down which helps. Plus if you kill the Spyder then they lose RP.

Honestly with the Wraith formation I'd probably run them with the Exile Beam since they're Relentless and use them that way.

It doesn't slow them down.

T1 they move 12" run d6", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", everybody's still in range.

During that turn, they take most of the firepower that's meant to stop them and laugh it off.

T2 they move 12", the Spyder moves 6" runs d6", they charge and may end up out of range of the Spyder - or not.


Either way, if the formation ends up being useless in practice (rather likely), it'll simply be skipped in favor of the numerically superior Wraiths on their own.

However the distance works out, you just run the Spider first too see how far forward your Wraiths can move and still be in range of the buff...

This. I assume the Spyder needs to be in unit coherency to give them RP, not like a 6" range?

It's got a 12" range.

So is the only point of unit coherency for this formation to make Look Out Sir rolls? Or does it not even join the unit?

It's a formation, not a unit. And it can't LoS.

Then it doesn't seem that strong. I feel like sniping the Spyder immediately reduces their effectiveness.

It also has a scarab tax. Said scarabs being more expensive than they used to, RP in the formation or not, means it isn't exactly a cheap formation.

Then it doesn't seem that strong. I feel like sniping the Spyder immediately reduces their effectiveness.

It does.

50pts for the Spyder, 60pts for a minimum sized scarab swarm, so 110pts to give Wraiths a bonus, that some tactical shooting can negate before the wraiths ever make it into combat.

 adamsouza wrote:

Then it doesn't seem that strong. I feel like sniping the Spyder immediately reduces their effectiveness.

It does.

50pts for the Spyder, 60pts for a minimum sized scarab swarm, so 110pts to give Wraiths a bonus, that some tactical shooting can negate before the wraiths ever make it into combat.

Oh come on, how many armies have the shooting necessary to kill a Spyder in one round? Even if they do it's the distraction carnifex of the codex then and made the points back by soaking all that up. What you are describing is a situation that will only happen if you're inept in your deployment.

 adamsouza wrote:
So your applying your personal bias against formations in general to the Necron codex ?

I'm saying that the Necron codex has confirmed my earlier conclusions regarding the negative aspects of formations and doubled-down on said negative aspects.

The Necrons, as a whole, lost offensive bite and gained more potential staying power.

They lost some shooting bite with certain units. They gained a ton of CC bite, and *significantly* more staying power and some drastic price drops across the board, and the latter matters far more than the nerf to a couple shooting platforms.

The Tesla Nerf weakened Necron Anti Air. Combine that with the points increase made Annhilation barges much less competitive.

Yes, Tesla is weaker. It's still very powerful however.

Likewise, AB's are more expensive, but they're hardly overcosted, and are not the sum total of Necron shooting.

Necron Nightscythes remain amongst the best and most cost effective flyers, much less transport flyers, in the game. There's certainly nothing else that packs transport capability, firepower, and AV higher than 10 in like the Nightscythe does for the same cost, much less safe transport capability for up to 15 models, or even really any two of the three except the Valkyrie (which still doesn't have the safety factor if shot down).

Entropic Touch nerfed down to Gauss effectiveness. It may be not useless, but it is nowhere near as good.

It was also absurdly overpowered (scarabs make base contact with something that has an AV, remove unit with AV) and is still *very* good considering just how many attacks they get. Even a mid-sized swarm of say six Scarabs is going to delete 95% of vehicles in the game on a charge in one round with strictly average rolls.

The loss of Cryptek Wargear was a huge offensive Nerf costing Necrons ranged haywire and the ability to repeatedly deep strike around the board.

The net effect is we need to attack many more times to achieve the same results.

The old Royal Court could bring Imperial Knights to tears in a single shooting phase. Scarabs could wreck any vehicle in a single assault.
Now Necrons hurl as many dice as possible at armor and hope for 6's on the damage rolls.

And the Necrons have been given that huge number of dice to do so. Ghost Arks get more shots at 12-24", your units stay around much longer, Tomb Blades are insanely cheap for what they offer (and particularly their upgrade options which are both so useful and cheap as to be auto-takes), Triarch Stalkers with bubble effects that improve BS and can now be taken in Squadrons, significantly more powerful (and slightly cheaper) Doomsday Arks (that don't suffer the downsides of Ordnance but get the 2d6-pick-highest-armor-pen that Ordnance gives), JSJ movement on Destroyers (on top of a 2nd wound) to hide from return fire and stay in the fight along with cheaper and more accessible Heavy Destroyers for S9 AP2 fire, etc.

NONE of the formations add offensive punch. They increase the chance of RP, or repair 1d6 warrriors, or allow re-rolls, grant some USRs.

None of the formations add offensive punch? The Deathbringer Flight, Destroyer Cult, and Judicator Battalion all seem to vastly increase firepower effectiveness through rerolls and increased ballistic skill, which very much is adding offensive punch.

Tournaments reward the ability to remove units quickly. Necrons did not get the ability to remove units faster, the new formations give Necrons lots of new toys to stay on the board longer.

More than anything, resiliency is what wins tournaments. Look at what's been on top, and its AV13 Invul save shielded Knights, FMC spam lists who's critical units are hit on 6's (on top of Jink, particularly with Nurgle daemon princes getting 2+ jink), Skimmer armies that can generate 4+ or 3+ cover saves in the open while tossing out lots of twin-linked firepower (which Necrons retain), etc. Psyker heavy armies that can bring out Invisibility and/or increase cover saves with Conceal/Shroud/etc, those kinds of armies are what wins tournaments.

If firepower were the key component, you'd see Imperial Guard taking tournament spots, but it's not and you don't. Resiliency, the ability to negate your opponent's firepower, that wins tournaments, and is borne out by tournament results. Yes a lot of these armies have lots of killy power too, but it's that resiliency that wins tournaments, not simple damage output.

It might technically be "up-to-date", but the Tempestus codex could really use some named characters, unique wargear options, extra ways to trick out the MT squads and vehicles, etc. I don't mind the limited choices in troops, vehicles or HQ, but it's still nowhere near as distinctive or interesting as it should be, or a fully fleshed out concept.

Having now seen the necron codex i would say @adamsouza has it pretty much spot on but i haven't played with or against it yet so i will leave them out of this for now.

On the actual topic

I feel that it's still split down the middle regarding 6th/7th edition codex's. 6th vs 6th is usually a fight and same with the 7th but when you cross that line I think you can see a difference. Not in all circumstance's of course but i do think that the 6th ed codex's are still slightly better. Eldar and Tau top the list but they are all good solid armies that will always' be in with a shout. The 7th ed codex's, for me, are forced down the formation route with the carrot of your old rule's back but with the stick of having to have it a certain way. You're almost always' going to take the formation/detachment. This in turn force's your army/collection down a path of their choosing based on purchase's and will no doubt leave you with some weakness or lack of unit type's or point's that the 6th codex's just don't have to worry about yet.

Yoyoyo wrote:
It might technically be "up-to-date", but the Tempestus codex could really use some named characters, unique wargear options, extra ways to trick out the MT squads and vehicles, etc. I don't mind the limited choices in troops, vehicles or HQ, but it's still nowhere near as distinctive or interesting as it should be, or a fully fleshed out concept.

Right, which is why it should never be bought and people should just buy the Imperial Guard (aka Astra Mili-whatsit) book, seeing as THAT is the entirely fleshed out book. The MT book was just the scion units and a couple of special rules plus a ton of the same art piece of scions in different colors, but the same great price.

I don't mean to be rude, but I'd really hate to see GW start redoing supplements any time soon...

Yoyoyo wrote:
It might technically be "up-to-date", but the Tempestus codex could really use some named characters, unique wargear options, extra ways to trick out the MT squads and vehicles, etc. I don't mind the limited choices in troops, vehicles or HQ, but it's still nowhere near as distinctive or interesting as it should be, or a fully fleshed out concept.

The book really doesn't function.

I always wanted a "stormtrooper" army, and GW finally came out with them in IA12 and the MT book. The IA12 DKoK list...kinda works, but it's a full list. The MT book doesn't, and doesn't even have access to everything it should (e.g. Vendettas). They should have just been a simple FoC swap in the IG (er...AM) book, as is, they rely too much on Space Marine priced T3 4+sv Ld7/8 infantry with short range S3 guns and AV11 triple digit cost transports to do all the work, and it simply doesn't function.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
In my opinion data slates do not excuse a poor codex. My main army is Tyranids and if I wanted to play a super competitive list I could, but I would have to spend hundreds on extra DLC on top of my codex in order to do so and that is upsetting to me. I think the new wave of GW is going to be all about ripping out everything that makes the codex interesting and shoving one line of rules into a $15 DLC that took them about two hours to slap together.

Most of the new codexs are fairly well balanced with a few exceptions and become more balanced the more money you pay, this is a bad game design for the customer and serves only to make GW more money. In my opinion the balance is as bad as it has ever been in terms of using what models most people have been collecting for many years. In order for Tyranids to be competitive you need to buy a fortunes worth of Flyrants from the new kit that was released. I can't play with the army I have owned form 3rd anymore because more and more units are becoming obsolete in favor of newer kits.

As a tyranid player the bland and poorly done 6th edition tyranid codex, with immediate release of dataslates and then the need to use malanthropes and/or heirodules from FW (along with the IA book), Leviathan, etc is a mess and a poor state of the game. This direction has put me off 40k completely as everything is a blatant money grab with poor quality product (mostly rules with that regard but some models too). I started playing tyranids with the 4th ed dex, which cost me $25 Canadian. The current nid dex is $60, dataslates $45-50, IA whatever to use malanthropes, etc from FW who knows - probably $60+ and then Leviathan on top to get all the rules for my army is absurd even if GW did a great job with internal and external balance - which they do not. Lots of that stuff should have been in the dex to begin with and some real effort should have been put in to fix the problems with the garbage 5th edition nid dex instead of a lot of cut and paste. The state of the game is to rip off the customer for more and more money. What is next GW? Break up dexes into sections: HQ dex, troop dex, elite dex, etc but only charge $30 for each section dex to show you care about the customer.

8th edition cannot come soon enough but only if GW contract out the rules to a game company or better yet go under (I know wishful thinking) so that a game company can buy the IP and make 40K into a decent wargame.

Seven editions in and the rules are still inconsistent and unclear, no formal rules support, and the most expensive set of rules on the market.

Nope, still really bad.

 TheKbob wrote:
Seven editions in and the rules are still inconsistent and unclear, no formal rules support, and the most expensive set of rules on the market.

Nope, still really bad.

I think it's a fair argument to claim that 40k is a bad game. But to many, including myself, it is a fun game. At least to me, enjoyment gotten from playing a game outweighs the game's quality and I think that most of the people who have stuck through the last couple editions would agree.

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Seven editions in and the rules are still inconsistent and unclear, no formal rules support, and the most expensive set of rules on the market.

Nope, still really bad.

I think it's a fair argument to claim that 40k is a bad game. But to many, including myself, it is a fun game. At least to me, enjoyment gotten from playing a game outweighs the game's quality and I think that most of the people who have stuck through the last couple editions would agree.

I don't think the bad game aspect of it would be such a big deal if the game wasn't so bloody expensive.

I mean, there's not a significant amount you can do about miniatures, their prices *tend* to be indicative of their materials (although GW miniatures are very often victims of costs associated with their placement in the game...elites, troops, or whatnot), but the rules seem to get more and more expensive every few months (I wanted to say every year but even now that's an understatement). The new Necron book is the usual $50, but it seems that all this new book really did was shake up the materials a bit, which has kind of been the pathway these last few releases have been. And there's a group of people that think GW is just trying to get to this magical "all-hardback" place where they'll kick back and slow down the book release speed (after all, they shorted the 6th edition lifespan by half so it'd only make sense). But that's not how GW works. The Chaos rumors are coming already and people seem excited enough to spend $50 on a book in the hopes that it will simply make their army more effective. I think that's just a terrible system, and I think it has been having very negative impacts on the size of the 40k community as a whole.

So I could cut them slack on the game if the rules weren't turning into a DLC affair where they're trying to get more and more money for the exact same (or sometimes even less) product.

The codices aren't really up to date. Game is clearly in a transitional phase:

Tau and Eldar codices are still overpowered comparing to the other new codices, which ( aside from CSM and perhaps DA ) are pretty well balanced against eachother infact.

If GW would update Eldar and Tau to have the same powerlevel than the rest, the game would be in the best shape balancewise than it ever has been. If they would also update CSM and DA ( and give them the same powerlevel aswell ) then that would be great.

I´m sure both will happen, but it will take a long time. It's also possible ( and likely ) GW will make mistakes while writing the new rules and once again break the balance by allowing some army/armies gamebreaking combinations that they didn´t see coming.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
With all the codex's a edition apart the state of the game is still a mess. Everybody knows who are the powerful codex and the weak ones are. You would think after 7 editions that GW would figure out how to balance the game.

The 7th ed stuff is still largely balanced (even if Crons are a bit ahead of the others, as a codex they have more durability than offensive bite I feel. I say as a codex because anyone monkey can spam an unbound Wraith army, and even if it's a little harder to kill than it use to be doesn't mean it's unstoppable. It'll just change the meta and we'll see things like more poisoned weapons and S10 things entering the meta if they get out of control).

The 6th stuff isn't balanced with 7th but that's because it was written for 6th edition's rules, not 7th's. If, and I know it's a big if, all the books make it into 7th I feel we'll be seeing the best edition balance wise to date.

Wraiths are a lot harder to kill than they used to be, and that may make them unstoppable.

Assault units have this threshold where once they can reliably get into assault they wreck face turn after turn at double (or more) the speed of shooting, with nothing that can really stop them.

Again, let's wait and see, but durability on an assault unit may very well translate into auto win.

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
With all the codex's a edition apart the state of the game is still a mess. Everybody knows who are the powerful codex and the weak ones are. You would think after 7 editions that GW would figure out how to balance the game.

The 7th ed stuff is still largely balanced (even if Crons are a bit ahead of the others, as a codex they have more durability than offensive bite I feel. I say as a codex because anyone monkey can spam an unbound Wraith army, and even if it's a little harder to kill than it use to be doesn't mean it's unstoppable. It'll just change the meta and we'll see things like more poisoned weapons and S10 things entering the meta if they get out of control).

The 6th stuff isn't balanced with 7th but that's because it was written for 6th edition's rules, not 7th's. If, and I know it's a big if, all the books make it into 7th I feel we'll be seeing the best edition balance wise to date.

Wraiths are a lot harder to kill than they used to be, and that may make them unstoppable.

Assault units have this threshold where once they can reliably get into assault they wreck face turn after turn at double (or more) the speed of shooting, with nothing that can really stop them.

Again, let's wait and see, but durability on an assault unit may very well translate into auto win.

NOTHING in this game is "unstoppable".

I'm not even sure we nesscariyl NEED codexes for 7th for all armies. the big thing missing are formations. and those are easily eneugh published outside of the 'dexes. so GW will likely go that direction

 RunicFIN wrote:
The codices aren't really up to date. Game is clearly in a transitional phase:

Tau and Eldar codices are still overpowered comparing to the other new codices, which ( aside from CSM and perhaps DA ) are pretty well balanced against eachother infact.

If GW would update Eldar and Tau to have the same powerlevel than the rest, the game would be in the best shape balancewise than it ever has been. If they would also update CSM and DA ( and give them the same powerlevel aswell ) then that would be great.

I´m sure both will happen, but it will take a long time. It's also possible ( and likely ) GW will make mistakes while writing the new rules and once again break the balance by allowing some army/armies gamebreaking combinations that they didn´t see coming.

What's that obsession with Tau and Eldar ?

Why are there so many people still stuck way back in sixth edition ?

This is seventh, and for at least a year, Imperial Knights have been dominating, and Eldar, Tau and Necrons were roughly at the same level.

It doesn't make sense to say "Tau and Eldar", it's like you think the problem is the second and third place, but not the first and fourth, because reasons.