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.

 Arth-Rytis wrote:
Hopefully all of these low end armies are among the first to receive a new codex in 8th edition.

Orks got the first codex in 7th edition, that didn't work for us either.

That was also our first codex update since 2008 (4th Edition).

The very worst in my opinion must be the poor ork codex. Then come the CSM and the dark eldars. Tournamentwise i doubt of IG being a monster but it's an actually decent army!

Tyranids, Orks, CSM and an honorable mention to Sisters of Battle.

Because of the allies matrix, no IoM army is really completely busted, but the fact that they couldn't even be arsed to write in any anti air into the sisters codex when they finally did the codex outside of a white dwarf just shows how wildly outdated it is.

Some few parts of the CSM books work with Daemon allies... but Orks and Tyranids are just a mess. Mostly, it's just not fun playing such out of date armies when everyone else gets a bunch of formations and cool new toys. It's like a kid with a kickboard scooter trying to hang out with all the kids with Hoverboards. He was dope in 2007, but now he just feels like the poor kid.

"Because of the allies matrix, no IoM army is really completely busted"

This is completely false, Taking units from an outside codex does NOT make a given codex good.

Martel732 wrote:
"Because of the allies matrix, no IoM army is really completely busted"

This is completely false, Taking units from an outside codex does NOT make a given codex good.

It does, actually. The fact that you can take units from outside codex is a rule that specifically helps that codex. Tyranids for example has no options for buffing their units through allies. That makes them worse than if they did have that option.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's plainly wrong. I would have *loved* it if every codex instead was balanced around itself and we removed all allying, since I play mostly mono-Skitarii, but saying that the arguably most powerful rule in the game - the one that allows you to ally in things like special characters that can buff your troops from almost any army - doesn't make your codex stronger, is simply wrong.

It's not plainly wrong. C:SM being good does not make C:BA good. There is no list that includes BA that can't be made better by completely replacing them all with vanilla marines. In a way, it actually makes C:BA the weakest of the lot since it is completely surpassed in every way by C:SM.

And in 7th, anyone can ally with anyone in unbound.

Its not making that army stronger, its either cherry picking the strong elements from other armies or combining things in ways that werent intended, both of which can make an individual *army list* strong, but dont make the faction strong, particularly for people trying to play a coherent background adherent force.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not plainly wrong. C:SM being good does not make C:BA good. There is no list that includes BA that can't be made better by completely replacing them all with vanilla marines. In a way, it actually makes C:BA the weakest of the lot since it is completely surpassed in every way by C:SM.

And in 7th, anyone can ally with anyone in unbound.

Unbound has nothing to do with allying.

You can make a bound army where anything allies with anything, just buy it all in proper formations/detachments, but both in a bound and unbound army you still have to abide by the rules for their ally standing. You can't have Dante lead a unit of Tyranids just because your army is Unbound, and that's the big difference between Battle Brothers and the others.

 Purifier wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not plainly wrong. C:SM being good does not make C:BA good. There is no list that includes BA that can't be made better by completely replacing them all with vanilla marines. In a way, it actually makes C:BA the weakest of the lot since it is completely surpassed in every way by C:SM.

And in 7th, anyone can ally with anyone in unbound.

Unbound has nothing to do with allying.

You can make a bound army where anything allies with anything, just buy it all in proper formations/detachments, but both in a bound and unbound army you still have to abide by the rules for their ally standing. You can't have Dante lead a unit of Tyranids just because your army is Unbound, and that's the big difference between Battle Brothers and the others.

But having Dante lead doesn't do anything. Tigirius is always better. That's the ultimate point. The Battle Brother thing only matters for superfriends, as you can't embark on transports anymore. BA only contribute priests to Wolfstars, but that's an advantage for C:SW, not an advantage for C:BA. Allying Battle Bros into a BA list is pointless, as you might as well play that allied faction instead and dump BA.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Pretty bad Poll...GK are clearly the worst army in the game.

Clearly. I mean those Dreadknights are just worthless. (But still better than anything in C:BA, C:Orks, or C:CSM)

They pretty much are worthless. They can't even take a single round of shooting in most cases.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Pretty bad Poll...GK are clearly the worst army in the game.

Clearly. I mean those Dreadknights are just worthless. (But still better than anything in C:BA, C:Orks, or C:CSM)

They pretty much are worthless. They can't even take a single round of shooting in most cases.

For real? They only die to grav... They're practically immortal to everything else!

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Pretty bad Poll...GK are clearly the worst army in the game.

Clearly. I mean those Dreadknights are just worthless. (But still better than anything in C:BA, C:Orks, or C:CSM)

They pretty much are worthless. They can't even take a single round of shooting in most cases.

That's why every GK army takes 2 or 3?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Pretty bad Poll...GK are clearly the worst army in the game.

Clearly. I mean those Dreadknights are just worthless. (But still better than anything in C:BA, C:Orks, or C:CSM)

They pretty much are worthless. They can't even take a single round of shooting in most cases.

From Tau/Eldar, maybe. T6 2+ is still pretty busted for most lists.

Look, now it has been FAQ'ed away, but just to make an example that makes it really obvious, we used to assume that Skitarii could put their guys in allied drop pods. They still could if a drop pod could ever be embarked upon, but alas. The value of Vanguard units went up by INSANE amounts just be being able to ally in drop pods.

This is a very obvious, but far from the only such effect. All IoM armies have the option to buff their units in similar ways. Some might not have a land raider but would work really well in one. Well now they can get one.

Yes, this makes the codex better.

It's absolutely true that replacing each part of the BA with one that does its job better from another codex would ultimately replace the BA codex and that isn't "making it better."

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about adding tools that makes your army better. The fact that other codex from the same faction are better in every regard does not mean that getting access to their gear doesn't up the value of your codex. Because it does.

Martel732 wrote:
as you can't embark on transports anymore

Yes you can, you just can't deploy in them. Jesus man, maybe you should go through these things a few more times before you start calling what is and isn't broken?

It doesn't. Because it's not from my codex. That's another codex being good. I suspect we're not going to agree on this.

BA have no unit with the utility of Vanguards. There is nothing you can bring in to give BA units that kind of utility. You might argue telepathy psykers, but it's dumb to cast invis on BA units when those could be TWC.

"Yes you can, you just can't deploy in them."

That's what I meant. That's the useful ability, not getting in during the battle. Because my units don't live long enough.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Pretty bad Poll...GK are clearly the worst army in the game.

Clearly. I mean those Dreadknights are just worthless. (But still better than anything in C:BA, C:Orks, or C:CSM)

They pretty much are worthless. They can't even take a single round of shooting in most cases.

From Tau/Eldar, maybe. T6 2+ is still pretty busted for most lists.

Tau eldar and space marines have no problem dropping them with a single units firepower. I am only able to win with them If I get shifting worldscape and can charge first turn with them - that only works against the same opponent once.

Martel732 wrote:
it's dumb to cast invis on BA units when those could be TWC.

It's dumb to cast a beneficial spell on your troops because you could have been playing with other troops. Ok. You just want to whine for whine's sake. Fine.

You might live vs Gladius. But you gonna lose on points so badly with GK vs Gladius. But a centstar or something like that mops them up hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
it's dumb to cast invis on BA units when those could be TWC.

It's dumb to cast a beneficial spell on your troops because you could have been playing with other troops. Ok. You just want to whine for whine's sake. Fine.

No, I legitimately think your logic is incorrect on this matter. Codex A being good does not make codex B good by association.

"I'm talking about adding tools that makes your army better."

Getting them from other codices does NOT make your codex better. It makes a given list better, but still inferior to a list comprised of codex A.

Martel732 wrote:


No, I legitimately think your logic is incorrect on this matter. Codex A being good does not make codex B good by association.

Might be because that isn't my logic. My logic is having access to Codex A's tools is a boon to codex B and obviously makes it better. It doesn't make it BETTER THAN codex A or even AS GOOD AS codex A, but it undeniably helps it out... ie, makes it better.

 Purifier wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


No, I legitimately think your logic is incorrect on this matter. Codex A being good does not make codex B good by association.

Might be because that isn't my logic. My logic is having access to Codex A's tools is a boon to codex B and obviously makes it better. It doesn't make it BETTER THAN codex A or even AS GOOD AS codex A, but it undeniably helps it out... ie, makes it better.

And that doesn't change the fact that everyone has access to everyone's tools. I can bring Eldar units in a BA list. That still doesn't make BA any good. Everyone has access to everything. So that's a wash.

Martel732 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


No, I legitimately think your logic is incorrect on this matter. Codex A being good does not make codex B good by association.

Might be because that isn't my logic. My logic is having access to Codex A's tools is a boon to codex B and obviously makes it better. It doesn't make it BETTER THAN codex A or even AS GOOD AS codex A, but it undeniably helps it out... ie, makes it better.

And that doesn't change the fact that everyone has access to everyone's tools. I can bring Eldar units in a BA list. That still doesn't make BA any good. Everyone has access to everything. So that's a wash.

I may get tired of Martel's constant whining, but this is one point that I can get behind.

Martel732 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


No, I legitimately think your logic is incorrect on this matter. Codex A being good does not make codex B good by association.

Might be because that isn't my logic. My logic is having access to Codex A's tools is a boon to codex B and obviously makes it better. It doesn't make it BETTER THAN codex A or even AS GOOD AS codex A, but it undeniably helps it out... ie, makes it better.

And that doesn't change the fact that everyone has access to everyone's tools. I can bring Eldar units in a BA list. That still doesn't make BA any good. Everyone has access to everything. So that's a wash.

Pretty sure Eldar units can't support BA units as they aren't sitting at the 'cool' table (I.e. IoM).
Other IoM units CAN however support others, such as AM priests which can buff ANY IoM unit. Farseers however, can only support Eldar (all flavours) units

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


No, I legitimately think your logic is incorrect on this matter. Codex A being good does not make codex B good by association.

Might be because that isn't my logic. My logic is having access to Codex A's tools is a boon to codex B and obviously makes it better. It doesn't make it BETTER THAN codex A or even AS GOOD AS codex A, but it undeniably helps it out... ie, makes it better.

And that doesn't change the fact that everyone has access to everyone's tools. I can bring Eldar units in a BA list. That still doesn't make BA any good. Everyone has access to everything. So that's a wash.

I may get tired of Martel's constant whining, but this is one point that I can get behind.

I didn't even start this thread. I'm just giving the straight dope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SGTPozy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


No, I legitimately think your logic is incorrect on this matter. Codex A being good does not make codex B good by association.

Might be because that isn't my logic. My logic is having access to Codex A's tools is a boon to codex B and obviously makes it better. It doesn't make it BETTER THAN codex A or even AS GOOD AS codex A, but it undeniably helps it out... ie, makes it better.

And that doesn't change the fact that everyone has access to everyone's tools. I can bring Eldar units in a BA list. That still doesn't make BA any good. Everyone has access to everything. So that's a wash.

Pretty sure Eldar units can't support BA units as they aren't sitting at the 'cool' table (I.e. IoM).
Other IoM units CAN however support others, such as AM priests which can buff ANY IoM unit. Farseers however, can only support Eldar (all flavours) units

I don't need support on BA units when I can support the Eldar units and turn my enemies into fried husks. BA units aren't worth supporting in the first place and that's the real crux of the problem. IoM is incredibly overrated in any context outside superfriends and Wolfstars.

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


No, I legitimately think your logic is incorrect on this matter. Codex A being good does not make codex B good by association.

Might be because that isn't my logic. My logic is having access to Codex A's tools is a boon to codex B and obviously makes it better. It doesn't make it BETTER THAN codex A or even AS GOOD AS codex A, but it undeniably helps it out... ie, makes it better.

And that doesn't change the fact that everyone has access to everyone's tools. I can bring Eldar units in a BA list. That still doesn't make BA any good. Everyone has access to everything. So that's a wash.

I may get tired of Martel's constant whining, but this is one point that I can get behind.

I didn't even start this thread. I'm just giving the straight dope.

We know... You don't start threads, you just derail threads with your BA talk


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But you CAN support your units, thus making them better

We didn't start the fire

Everything I'm saying about BA, you can replace with any poor IoM codex. Really this started from appeal to the allies matrix as justification for codex ranking.

Like CSM!

O wait.

 Selym wrote:
Like CSM!

O wait.

Does KDK make this a good codex? Does chaos demons make this a good codex? No.

I'm agreeing with you...

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Like CSM!

O wait.

Does KDK make this a good codex? Does chaos demons make this a good codex? No.

They lack the buffs the IoM has though...