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.

Not by tournament success, but by playability, fun factor, or just rule of cool?

I'd have to say for fun and cool:

1. Sisters
2. DG
3. Dark Eldar
4. Nids
5. Orks (Beautiful new models)
6. Tau
7. Space Marines (All flavors)
8. GSC
9. Necrons
10. Eldar/Harlies
11. Admech
12. Knights
13. Custodes (Garbage release, 1 new unit, codex was invalid a week after launch)
14. 1kS/GK - No new units, codex was basically garbage and invalid on day 1 due to need to FAQ


I really think GW was just cashing it in after the GSC/Custodes. Granted Custodes were hot tatas after 9th launch, but it was still a mess to play, and the lists were basically a mix of the most broken things. And while you were playing them, you knew there was a nerf clock hanging just overhead, counting down. GSC could have been SO much fun, but they really did them dirty. Orks were a fun release, but never really became anywhere near strong. Too bad.

S tier:
A tier:
B tier: GSC
C tier: Knights, Craftworlds
D tier:
F tier: Rest

So many errata issued it is shameful, imagine buying a physical codex in 2022. The amount of extra rules to learn is large and we'll probably get 10th before long with more rules to learn. Codex Necrons would have been a C if not for the errata and the continued lack of care when it comes to internal balance. Deathmarks being terrible for 3 more months when they didn't get a pts cut in Nachmund should have been a surprise to nobody. Doomsday Arks get a buff, the inferior Canoptek Doomstalker is snubbed, what a surprise, it's Ogryn getting nerfed all over again.

Armour of Contempt should be burned, at this point it'd make more sense to errata away the increased AP stats since 8th instead of letting AoC persist. Even if you increased the AP of the weapons that actually need AP you'd still have the issue of AP creep affecting every non-AoC faction. Flayed Ones, Kabalite Warriors and Ork Boyz should not have AP.

Taking into account fun factor and rule of cool:

1) Orks
2) Drukhari
3) Tyranids
4) Adepta Sororitas
5) Space Wolves
6) Astra Militarum
7) Necrons
8) Aeldari (both Craftworlds and Harlequins)
9) Gen Cults

All the other armies I put at the same level, except for Tau, Custodes, Knights, Daemons who are at the bottom: there's nothing I can save from those factions.

 Blackie wrote:
Taking into account fun factor and rule of cool:

1) Orks
2) Drukhari
3) Tyranids
4) Adepta Sororitas
5) Space Wolves
6) Astra Militarum
7) Necrons
8) Aeldari (both Craftworlds and Harlequins)
9) Gen Cults

All the other armies I put at the same level, except for Tau, Custodes, Knights, Daemons who are at the bottom: there's nothing I can save from those factions.

I find the ork codex to be un-fun. Orks will always be cool, but the 9e codex is not, particularly.

The ork codex is a disfunctional pile of garbage rules stapled onto either uneffective or overly effective profiles, solely depending on armies of reknown.

So i do wonder, as an ork player, how anyone can be considering them even in the top ten. Particulary because the mechanics behind some of those things are decidedly unfun.

Then there's the fact of Custodes, Tau, Dark Eldar and Ad Mech.. These codices were broken on release and by virtue of that not fun to play against or with even.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Taking into account fun factor and rule of cool:

1) Orks
2) Drukhari
3) Tyranids
4) Adepta Sororitas
5) Space Wolves
6) Astra Militarum
7) Necrons
8) Aeldari (both Craftworlds and Harlequins)
9) Gen Cults

All the other armies I put at the same level, except for Tau, Custodes, Knights, Daemons who are at the bottom: there's nothing I can save from those factions.

I find the ork codex to be un-fun. Orks will always be cool, but the 9e codex is not, particularly.

I like it, I think it's hand down the best codex we had since 4th edition, which was released in 2008. Both internally and externally. But as I clarified I didn't take into account how the army performs at top tables, only rule of cool and fun factor.

 Blackie wrote:
I like it, I think it's hand down the best codex we had since 4th edition, which was released in 2008. Both internally and externally. But as I clarified I didn't take into account how the army performs at top tables, only rule of cool and fun factor.

Well, to be fair, the bar wasn't too high to be the best codex since 4th

Yes, I fully agree with with Not Online about how the codex has been a terrible mess that somehow works by accident, but then again it's not like orks have ever been in a better position either.

With the recent round of buffs and un-nerfs (assuming free kustom jobs stay), the army is in a better spot than it ever has been and both the bloodaxe and kult of speed supplements are fun to play.

Even if I dislike the kill rig, the beast snagga wave was a great addition to orks, AOBR 2.0 finally gave use plastic koptas and the MA warboss, new Thrakka is one of the best models ever made, and we got the Speed Freek wave and the mek wave before that. There is little left to be desired on the model side.

Honestly, if I didn't read any other codices like DG, GSC or Tau, I'd totally share Blackies opinion - it's the best and most fun way to play orks ever since I started the game more than a decade ago.

In comparison to other, well written, codices which were not written without any passion though? Yeah, it's not going to win any rankings.

I'd like to pick the GSC up, as an actual good exemple for a codex. Shame it is written for a unfun edition but that is neither here nor there.

Between the big known and the small self made cults there isn't an immense powergap, the units internally are mostly well balanced (shame for the abberrants but can't win on all fronts). mechanically it is challanging and interesting to pilot aswell as play against.
The army lists are also highly customizable and can build a wide slew of archetypes which work on a decentish level on the board, whilest not being skew.

The only real gripe i have with it is the cookie cutter HQ and Mini Charachters, i'd love for atleast the magos and primus being more customizable to fit in better as generalist HQ in more specialised archtypes (f.e. the option for a bike, or autogun )

Difficult to put them in order.

Necrons: Seemed like a good book after a very poor 8th edition. Unfortunately issues quickly manifested. The dynasties lacked obvious character and Command Protocols were too fiddly to ever reliably make work - unless you brought half a dozen overcosted characters. And lots of other things would clearly be overcosted in light of..

Marines: Well, its a book. The reign of Marines was dull to me and this did little to change anything. I don't think I ever seriously contemplated collecting a Marine army. Ditto for all the Marine variants.

Death Guard. Probably the best codex. Not entirely sure why, but it seemed to combine fluff, crunch and whimsy. Despite a seemingly tiny pool of datasheets, there were so many armies you could build even if the competitiveness of some of them was lacking/inferior.

DE. I didn't like this book and still don't. Crunch was amazing - clearly 11/10 compared to everything that had been released before. But it seems to really lack that fluff & whimsy element. Unless you really go hard on something (i.e. my mass foot wyches etc) it feels like every list ends up turning into the same thing. The various cults and kabals are cut and change as mathematical power dictates. That certain units should be scary in combat is reasonable - but that scariness is just "I get so many high AP attacks for how few points?", which is all a bit soulless. I don't want to return to an age where half the book is weak and the other half unplayably awful - but still. I just want vampire bdsm elves in spaaace to feel a bit more... like vampire bdsm elves in spaaace.

Ad Mech. Didn't feel it at all. The first book of 9th which I genuinely found far too confusing and just not very fun as a result. Might have worked in a computer game, but stacking half a dozen buffs and having to remember them in game isn't fun. A handful of busted units made for a brokenly powerful book - that promptly fell over when they got nerfed (and the bunch of the book that sucks continues to suck a year on despite them being rolled back.)

Sisters: If this had been the first Sisters book it would have been great. But it was something of a sidegrade/change on the book released before (which, imo, was clearly written when they were thinking of 9th's rules.) So I'm afraid I think its just okay.

GK & TSons. Didn't really think about either of these. GK's brief moment of power reminded me all too well of why I hated the faction. Tsons seemed to have lots of abilities, most of which they never actually used. Always struggling the line where mass psychic can feel brokenly overpowered or a bit rubbish depending on dice.

Orks. Lots written already. I think its an interesting but clearly flawed book. Which makes it better to my mind than many of the ones above. About a third of the codex was unplayable and remains so. Another chunk was very good and then got nerfed. Now its been un-nerfed. Clan character is sort of there - but power is all over the place.

Custodes. Boring. Broken. The faction does nothing for me so its hard to give it a fair review.

GSC. I don't think this was a good book. I feel it gets props for being a 2022 book which wasn't broken reset the meta powerful. But I just don't think the various elements add up to anything of interest. Cult creeds are not specific enough. You are again stuck with going "I'll do something different... uh, take 3 units of Abberants? Wait that obviously sucks and isn't fun anyway." You basically have "guys in trucks, guys not in trucks" and that's not enough for me.

Tau: This was genuinely a good book. There's a slight negative that like DE everything is made FUN(tm) just tuned to 11 - and I think that did bias me. Unlike DE though, I do think there are sufficiently different units in the Tau range that you can push a few different build archetypes (even if competitively things start to drop off now following various nerfs.) Septs could still do with a bit more character and distinction - but arguably there is sufficient variety here that you aren't stuck with a single cookie cutter and doing anything else feels obviously wrong.

Eldar. 20 years ago me would have loved this book. Today I feel it was all a bit boring. Its a shame to say, but Eldar just seem to have become the preferred faction of Tryhards (perhaps they have been since 2nd) - and so while there is, theoretically, a huge range of build options in this book, I've not really seen it in the wild. Harlequins were a "we made everything 12/10 can called it good" - which wasn't interesting at all. Hail of Doom should not have been printed. (Tbh I think all custom traits were arguably a mistake, as its yet more options almost invariably picked for power rather than character - but there we go.)

Tyranids. GW somehow released a 13/10 book. Lots of stuff here is good - as so much of the Tyranid range had been rubbish for ages. The style of play Tyranids had been pushed into for the last year was powerful but not very fluffy or fun. The various fleet traits are reasonably thought through - and offer the potential for divergent builds (even if the competitive scene tends to focus on Leviathan goodstuff.) Unfortunately being brokenly powerful kind of sucks the fun out of it for me.

Knights: Are boring as an army and shouldn't really be in 40k imo if they are just going to be like this. Books are not brokenly powerful, which I think is a plus. I guess I do kind of like what they did with Chaos Knights at an aesthetic level - with some interesting options.

CSM. I like it. Perhaps a bit early to say on the crunch side but it does feel like there are multiple different archetypes you could build for. (infantry, vehicles, daemon engines, shooting, assault, all one specific mono god etc). Wide variety of interesting legion rules.

----
So summing up. DG is probably the best book of 9th edition, even if its power level receded relatively quickly before Dark Eldar. Tau, CSM and Tyranids would also count as good books, marred a bit by two of them being obviously overpowered.

Fair enough assessment Tyel on the GSC, however , is that due to the book being badly designed or just in a really unfortunate Powerspike forcing it into specific builds?

Further, i heavily disagree on your assessment on Nids and DE aswell as CSM.
Nids and DE are fundamentally unfun due to their power issues.
And the CSM book is for already established players honestly more of a kick in the stomach due to severe cuts, once again one might add, in customizability something you incidentally also critisised implicitly (i assume here) for DE.

I'm baffled to see DE ranked highly.

It's a dismal, low-effort codex with a pitiful selection of bare-bones characters, negligible customisation, and full of tired, stock rules.

Literally the only thing in its favour was "Big numbers, much good!" Because being dull as dishwater is apparently excused if you do ell at tournaments.

Where are all the dirty tricks? Where are the horrifying/diabolical weapons? Where is the technology "so advanced it resembles magic"? Why are the diabolical masterminds completely redundant in the armies they're supposed to be leading? Why, when they each have access to entire armouries of the best and most expensive equipment on Commorragh, are they running around with bread knives and water pistols and absolutely nothing else?


Anyway, in terms of other books:

Notwithstanding the recent nerfs, Tyranids are exactly the sort of book I would want to see. While not without issues, it's absolutely dripping with flavour and it's clear that a great deal of effort and creativity went into the rules. The main problem, of course, is power level. Due to a mix of point costs and some troublesome interactions, it was definitely too strong on release. However, I don't see this as a major problem (at least by GW standards ). You can easily increase some costs and perhaps limit some problematic interactions, without diminishing the overall flavour, feel and customisation of the book. In contrast, as soon as you start nerfing Dark Eldar, you quickly realise that pure efficiency was the only thing they had going for them - in all other regards the book is about as exciting as a bucket of wallpaper paste.

Harlequins suffered a similar issue as Nids in that they were clearly far too strong on release. But, again, there was enough to appreciate even after the nerfs. While I think they've suffered a little from being an added extra in the Eldar codex (and so only having 3 warlord traits, 3 subfactions etc.), they seem pretty reasonable in most regards. Pivotal Roles in particular are an excellent way for an army with just 4 characters to function as if it had a lot more. Dark Eldar could learn an awful lot from this sort of design, but sadly never will.

Necrons are an interesting contrast with the above in that, competitively speaking, they were pretty dismal on release. Even in terms of flavour, the extremely sparse allotment of CORE, combined with awkward subfactions, meant a lot of interactions that seemed fun or thematic didn't actually work in practise. This was gradually corrected in subsequent patches, but didn't do the initial book any favours. It also struggled a bit with a resurrection mechanic (something that's been a constant bug for Necron books in general). Oh and the artefact and warlord trait selection was pitiful (though, given the recent changes to CP, that might actually be a point in its favour ).

Ynnari... yeah. So now they're just an Eldar subfaction. Because no one would have any desire to play them with Dark Eldar or Harlequins, right? Nope, every Ynnari army now has to be at least 50% Eldar. Actually, more like 66% because most slots come in 3s. Also, their customisation has been reduced to 1 warlord trait and 1 artefact... both of which are locked to Eldar characters. It's especially sad because the base Ynnari rules seem quite reasonable, and would have been perfectly fine to build a mixed army around, without being too strong. Instead, GW just took a hatchet to the entire faction, overburdening it with unnecessary restrictions and deleting almost all the customisation options.


I guess of those 5 (I don't know the other books well enough to comment) my ranking would be:
1) Tyranids
2) Harlequins
3) Necrons
4) Dark Eldar
5) Ynnari

From my perspective as a Crusader:

Tier 1: Tau, GSC, Tyranids
Tier 2: Dark Eldar, Sisters, Aeldari
Tier 3: Admech
Tier 4: Marines, Death Watch

Those are the only dexes I can comment on as they're the only ones I own.

The Tier 1 group provides the coolest campaign infrastructure in their Crusade content. The Crusade rules of all 3 could use a sort of Rosetta Stone to harmonize the planetary characteristics. The Tau system provides the greatest diversity of planet types; each of the planet types from GSC and Nids need to be correlated against the Tau planet types so that each system allows for the generation of planets which have characteristics appropriate to each of the three factions.

(This sounds more complicated than it is- if you're a Crusade player, you probably know what I mean, and you've probably already done it; if you aren't a Crusade player, I look forward to hearing from you about how I'm playing the game wrong, Crusade should be removed, and no one plays Crusade anyways for the next 40 pages/s)

Also, the difference in fun between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is very slight.

 vipoid wrote:
Where are all the dirty tricks? Where are the horrifying/diabolical weapons? Where is the technology "so advanced it resembles magic"? Why are the diabolical masterminds completely redundant in the armies they're supposed to be leading? Why, when they each have access to entire armouries of the best and most expensive equipment on Commorragh, are they running around with bread knives and water pistols and absolutely nothing else?

Because customizability is for loyalist Astartes. Other characters are just interchangeable cookie cutter antagonists to be defeated by the glorious SPACE MARINES.

 Blackie wrote:
Taking into account fun factor and rule of cool:

1) Orks
2) Drukhari
3) Tyranids
4) Adepta Sororitas
5) Space Wolves
6) Astra Militarum
7) Necrons
8) Aeldari (both Craftworlds and Harlequins)
9) Gen Cults

All the other armies I put at the same level, except for Tau, Custodes, Knights, Daemons who are at the bottom: there's nothing I can save from those factions.

Ork codex at the top of the chain oh god, you're definitely a troll

Of the armies I have:

1) Chaos Knights
This might be the lingering effect of being my newest army, but I like the simple list building aspect while maintaining lots on the table options with Dread, unlocking additional Favor powers. Even if most games will follow down the same path. Bonus points for Chaos Undivided being good, powerful options (unlike a certain brand-new codex..., and Leadership effects while not allowing other factions complete immunity. Plus, it's fun going full Timmy every now and again.

2) Primaris Space Marines
A nice, straight forward to list build army that relies more on table stuff than weapon loadout stuff. Also, a good balance of most aspects of 40k, such as having something to do in all phases of the game. I am some kind of space marine player at heart, so I always enjoy playing some kind of marine, even against other marines. And yes, I am starting Horus Heresy.

3) Chaos Space Marines
They might move up later this year, but I'm soured on the codex not really being what I expected or wanted. Leans a little too heavy on melee and not enough on ranged (feels 80/20 when I want more of 60/40). Feels like the book is guiding my unit compositions and play style a bit more heavy-handed than other factions I have.

4) Necrons
This is an army I have honestly because of Indomitus and how quick and easy 'crons are to paint. It's still my smallest collection, and the armies I can build are very 1-dimesional (silvertide and walkers all the time). My own army feels pretty gatekeeper in my opponent has a way to deal with 60 warriors with lots of reanimation buffs, or they don't.

5) Genestealer Cults
As someone that has a difficult time moving away from playing armies like space marines, this faction was supposed to something radically different to what I usually do. I don't think I've liked a single game playing them. They're a horde army, so buckle in for a long game, which deploying twice add more time. I feel like I am wasting a lot of my opponent's time. I thought I'd be more okay with their general 'gotcha/you-can't-do-that' play style, but I feel like pulling tricks on my opponent (flavor win, I guess) just to hold on to a chance of winning. Pretty much every game has me thinking, "I should have went with Orks instead".

All I can say is I really hope they do away with yannari combining 2 armys is a mistake.

I really hate what they've done with Sisters. Thanks to BR being stupidly more effective than every other order, and their consistent core rule changes have killed all other viable choices, the whole faction is really just one order, a handful of the same units, and a smattering of great secondary objectives and that's it.

Sure, they compete as one of the best factions, but it's the same damn single list since Neph launched and there's no reason to deviate.

KurtAngle2 806056 11401232 wrote:

Ork codex at the top of the chain oh god, you're definitely a troll

I am not sure what the rule of cool is suppose to be, but I know that Blackie is somehow able to divide fun from army efficiency. So he ain't trolling with the list.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Taking into account fun factor and rule of cool:

1) Orks
2) Drukhari
3) Tyranids
4) Adepta Sororitas
5) Space Wolves
6) Astra Militarum
7) Necrons
8) Aeldari (both Craftworlds and Harlequins)
9) Gen Cults

All the other armies I put at the same level, except for Tau, Custodes, Knights, Daemons who are at the bottom: there's nothing I can save from those factions.

Ork codex at the top of the chain oh god, you're definitely a troll

Why a troll, they're my favorite army since 3rd edition, actually the main reason why I started playing 40k back then .

I think orks are still very fun to play, but I don't do events, and about the codex I don't think it's that bad, it's the layers of nerfs to orks and buffs to other armies by FAQs that made the book looking pretty bad.

But compared to something like SM they're still hands down much more fun to play, I've basically shelved my SW because the bloat is unbereable and they're terribly boring to play now, regardless of how they perform (I think pretty well). And I can understand why many power armour & bolter fans are looking forward to join 30k.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Fair enough assessment Tyel on the GSC, however , is that due to the book being badly designed or just in a really unfortunate Powerspike forcing it into specific builds?

Further, i heavily disagree on your assessment on Nids and DE aswell as CSM.
Nids and DE are fundamentally unfun due to their power issues.
And the CSM book is for already established players honestly more of a kick in the stomach due to severe cuts, once again one might add, in customizability something you incidentally also critisised implicitly (i assume here) for DE.

I don't want to turn this thread into some Dark Eldar inspired Four Yorkshireman sketch (especially as DE were the top faction for most of 2021), but as a DE player I don't really get the CSM hate on Dakka when it seems much less beyond.

Vipoid's thing (sorry to always pick on you) is that Archons/Succubi need jetbikes etc. But I don't think that would radically alter how DE play, or how their armies are built. In much the same way I don't think the character of a CSM army is dependent on whether a Lord had another 6" of move from getting a jump pack. Yes I can understand it feels bad if you had a lord+sorcerer both with jump pack, 5 Terminators all with lighting claws, 5 all with combi-plasma etc. But I don't think that will effect most players - or the longevity of the codex.

I mean lets compare HQ choices, DE have 3, all of which are kind of mediocre baseline. The Archon & Succubi can admittedly be built into combat monsters with suitable warlord traits and relics. You then have 3 special characters - Drazhar is bordering on an auto-take (although 145 points is getting up there these days), Lelith and Urien are more in the "you could, but why bother" category.

By contrast CSM have a lord. Okay, lets say he sucks (+/- with relics etc, but sure without movement bonuses he's undoubtedly slow - although if you go Red Corsairs etc, only a couple of inches slower than the DE characters above unless you get transports involved). But you don't have to take a lord. You have a Lord Discordant - who appears great. You have a MoP - who appears excellent. You have the Dark Apostle who is surely at least fine. I think even the Sorcerer is okay (sure inferior power list to the MoP but you don't have to go 100% GT winning lists all the time.) Daemon Princes seem to be dividing the playerbase but some are running them. Some people have even been messing about with the Warpsmith.

Then you have special characters. All of the CSM ones are fine at the very least fine - most are incredible. This may be a mindset thing. I can have fun imagining how you'd try to build a list to make Fabius "work". (Not at a competitive level sure - but at some level). By contrast Urien is just a Haemi+1. Its not clear he opens up any opportunities. DE by contrast lost most of their special characters in 7th edition for want of models.

CSM have lost things - but gained others. I can understand if you have your 2k list and don't want to buy any more models that sucks. But you are getting new stuff to play around with. DE by contrast have just be cut and cut for 10 years. The fact that everything was 10-20% undercosted on release (by comparison with the books at the time - its less of an issue today) made the DE codex strong. But didn't make it interesting. Unless you went all in on venom spam - or all in on say thin city wrack spam - its hard to have a DE list that looks dramatically different to everyone else. Because there just aren't options. (I'm perhaps exaggerating a bit - but not that much I feel).

By contrast if I said "build a Red Corsair army where every unit has to take the Mark of Khorne" and "build an Alpha Legion army where every unit has to take the Mark of Tzeentch" - I feel you'd come up with quite different lists. Sure - competitive viability would stand in the way of seeing such at tournament - but the options are there to have fun with.

=====
This is getting too long - but I think my issue with DE is just that the range is too small. And its the same for GSC. They just need more units.
But the thing is DG hardly have that many units - but the codex really left you feeling you could run any of them and therefore create different armies. (Powerwise this obviously didn't last).
So for example, the Ork book clearly has problems - but the Ork range is big. If you get 4-5 players all with big Ork Collections, and told them to make 4-5 very different armies, sort of matching to Goffs/Snakebites/Evil Sunz/Bad Moonz etc, you could do so. You can't do that with DE. There's no obvious way a Black Heart list varies from an Obsidian Rose list. All you can do is spam a unit (and even that's not really doable with the rule of 3 and now slot limitations brought in by the CP reduction).

Tyel wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Fair enough assessment Tyel on the GSC, however , is that due to the book being badly designed or just in a really unfortunate Powerspike forcing it into specific builds?

Further, i heavily disagree on your assessment on Nids and DE aswell as CSM.
Nids and DE are fundamentally unfun due to their power issues.
And the CSM book is for already established players honestly more of a kick in the stomach due to severe cuts, once again one might add, in customizability something you incidentally also critisised implicitly (i assume here) for DE.

I don't want to turn this thread into some Dark Eldar inspired Four Yorkshireman sketch (especially as DE were the top faction for most of 2021), but as a DE player I don't really get the CSM hate on Dakka when it seems much less beyond.

Vipoid's thing (sorry to always pick on you) is that Archons/Succubi need jetbikes etc. But I don't think that would radically alter how DE play, or how their armies are built. In much the same way I don't think the character of a CSM army is dependent on whether a Lord had another 6" of move from getting a jump pack. Yes I can understand it feels bad if you had a lord+sorcerer both with jump pack, 5 Terminators all with lighting claws, 5 all with combi-plasma etc. But I don't think that will effect most players - or the longevity of the codex.

I know a few players that outright just stopped playing CSM in 40k just as i know a few DE players that got fed up with the removal of options and in some cases just outright sold the army.

I mean lets compare HQ choices, DE have 3, all of which are kind of mediocre baseline. The Archon & Succubi can admittedly be built into combat monsters with suitable warlord traits and relics. You then have 3 special characters - Drazhar is bordering on an auto-take (although 145 points is getting up there these days), Lelith and Urien are more in the "you could, but why bother" category.

By contrast CSM have a lord. Okay, lets say he sucks (+/- with relics etc, but sure without movement bonuses he's undoubtedly slow - although if you go Red Corsairs etc, only a couple of inches slower than the DE characters above unless you get transports involved). But you don't have to take a lord. You have a Lord Discordant - who appears great. You have a MoP - who appears excellent. You have the Dark Apostle who is surely at least fine. I think even the Sorcerer is okay (sure inferior power list to the MoP but you don't have to go 100% GT winning lists all the time.) Daemon Princes seem to be dividing the playerbase but some are running them. Some people have even been messing about with the Warpsmith.

The lord is dead without the movement of the jumppack. Simple as, he is also the most Core HQ of the army for most themes and archetypes. His relics and traits cost far too much CP aswell considering CSM have been and still are a faction that seems to be designed to constantly require multiple HQ's.
The lord discordant for players that don't intend to run Daemonengine style lists is just a miss option for anyone not interested in his esthtetique or theme.
The MoP is again bound to a specific theme, the fact that he blows out the Sorcerer these days that much (and yes he makes the sorcerer obsolete) is further not something good for the codex.
Same with the DP, he falls in the similar vein as the Lord as a supposed Core HQ but is daemonic in nature so a lot of players will avoid him.
Power is also not the qualifier alone here.
Oh and as an aside, CSM transports, unlike DE transports, suck.

Then you have special characters. All of the CSM ones are fine at the very least fine - most are incredible. This may be a mindset thing. I can have fun imagining how you'd try to build a list to make Fabius "work". (Not at a competitive level sure - but at some level). By contrast Urien is just a Haemi+1. Its not clear he opens up any opportunities. DE by contrast lost most of their special characters in 7th edition for want of models.

A lot of players don't want anything to do with special charachters. So them being good or bad is pretty inconsequential, especially if the army is well designed and has options enough to bypass the specials and their role for themes.

CSM have lost things - but gained others. I can understand if you have your 2k list and don't want to buy any more models that sucks. But you are getting new stuff to play around with. DE by contrast have just be cut and cut for 10 years. The fact that everything was 10-20% undercosted on release (by comparison with the books at the time - its less of an issue today) made the DE codex strong. But didn't make it interesting. Unless you went all in on venom spam - or all in on say thin city wrack spam - its hard to have a DE list that looks dramatically different to everyone else. Because there just aren't options. (I'm perhaps exaggerating a bit - but not that much I feel).

Oh it's fine because it happens to that faction? We should just roll over? News flash, it ain't FINE, regardless of faction, it wasn't for orks, it wasn't for DE and it certainly wasn't for CSM, since the 4th edition shitfest. So no, just because codex CSM gets a bunch of new stuff (yay a book for legionaires and some new cultists, which gw turned around and baseline made impossible to center an army around because feth mortal chaos follower fans i guess) and then instantly turns around and ruins established collections because some players had the audacity to specialise squads for a job is outright brainmelting.
The cutting of options in essence on HQ has killed of atleast 3 Legion archetype typical leades, in a faction centered around its leaders and ambitions.
There are not even customisable traits.
and the doctrine equivalent is just that a stolen and somehow -1 mechanic of loyalist marines.

By contrast if I said "build a Red Corsair army where every unit has to take the Mark of Khorne" and "build an Alpha Legion army where every unit has to take the Mark of Tzeentch" - I feel you'd come up with quite different lists. Sure - competitive viability would stand in the way of seeing such at tournament - but the options are there to have fun with.

Wow, we gained marks back again, marks which btw AL, NL and IW armies often don't want to pick. A mechanic we had even through the cursed 4th edition shitshow until 8th in which a mark was just a glorified enabler for abusive stratagem bs? (which are btw still around and part of the reason why legionaires are now 1 of x not double upgrades)
And that somehow absolves this codex from removed cultmarines entries, removed HQ customisation, removed specialisation customisation on a unit that chronically struggles to see the field of battle because it is too unspecialised and expensive to field often, another imbalance between 2 psy tables making once again one type of psyker completely obsolete, removed specialisation on another unit that constantly struggled to see the table due to a lack of specialisation, did the same to one of the few units to see the table, removed mutilators wholesale, etc. and is now in essence once again playing combohammer by stacking BS ontop of one another or abbadon?
That isn't a good codex design because i can say with a high certainity that the builds will become very cookie cutter just because of the above soon.

Oh lol, GW actually removed cult entries. I actually suggested that as an option a while back because Alpha Legion was better at fielding the cult units than the legions that spawned them.

It could work if TS/EC/WE/DG patrol detachments cost 0 CP if your WL was a CSM. All people would need is an appropriate HQ to lead their cult marines. It would be impossible to take more than 2 flavours of cult marines but I don't think that'd be terrible. I am guessing taking a TS patrol breaks doctrines and costs 2CP.

I don't know if the rumour section has had a thread about GW letting go of external playtesters, I think it's time for the community to step in and make some major alterations to the game.

 Blackie wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Taking into account fun factor and rule of cool:

1) Orks
2) Drukhari
3) Tyranids
4) Adepta Sororitas
5) Space Wolves
6) Astra Militarum
7) Necrons
8) Aeldari (both Craftworlds and Harlequins)
9) Gen Cults

All the other armies I put at the same level, except for Tau, Custodes, Knights, Daemons who are at the bottom: there's nothing I can save from those factions.

Ork codex at the top of the chain oh god, you're definitely a troll

Why a troll, they're my favorite army since 3rd edition, actually the main reason why I started playing 40k back then .

I think orks are still very fun to play, but I don't do events, and about the codex I don't think it's that bad, it's the layers of nerfs to orks and buffs to other armies by FAQs that made the book looking pretty bad.

But compared to something like SM they're still hands down much more fun to play, I've basically shelved my SW because the bloat is unbereable and they're terribly boring to play now, regardless of how they perform (I think pretty well). And I can understand why many power armour & bolter fans are looking forward to join 30k.

In all honesty, I think Orks got the lions share or modeling work this edition. All their new models show an immense amount of detail, quality, and aesthetic. I really love their new stuff, as opposed to my factions SOLE addition, the Blade Champion. (Lets give them a model with a sword, but not just a normal sword, LIKE A REALLY BIG SWORD, otherwise exact same as the other SCs)

My number 1 is no longer an army.....

This is a but of all aesthetics, fun, style, etc..
S) Corsairs
1) Drukhari
2) SoB
3) Tyranids
4) Orks
5) GSC
6) The rest bc I dont really care (Well 7th Khorne Daemonkin was great but thats dead)

Tyel wrote:

Vipoid's thing (sorry to always pick on you)...

It's all good.

Tyel wrote:

...is that Archons/Succubi need jetbikes etc. But I don't think that would radically alter how DE play, or how their armies are built.

I mean lets compare HQ choices, DE have 3, all of which are kind of mediocre baseline. The Archon & Succubi can admittedly be built into combat monsters with suitable warlord traits and relics.

Something I feel I should clarify here is that, while I know I often talk about the lack of skyboards, wings and jetbikes (and I still would like them), I actually agree that these aren't currently the biggest problem for the characters.

I believe a far more pressing issue is fact that DE characters have one niche - "infantry melee character who is utterly hopeless in melee unless you give them the right artefact and WLT combinations".

Even by the most generous standards, DE have no ranged characters at all (the most any of them can get is a crummy pistol). Nor do they have any support or toolbox type characters (like psykers or crypteks). Nor do they have any assassin characters. Nor do they have any big, hard-hitting characters (e.g. Daemon Princes or the like). Nor do they have any characters with strategic benefits. etc.

What's more, even in terms of melee, their choices are so homogenised that you might as well be picking your favourite colour of sword, rather than making any meaningful trade-offs. An Archon, for example, can choose between an Agoniser (AP-2, D1, Poison 4+), a Venom Blade (AP-1, D1, Poison 2+), A Power Sword (S+1, AP-3, D1), and a Huskblade (S:User, AP-2, D2). In other words, your choices basically amount to 4 marginally-different Power Swords, all of which fulfil the exact same role. And all of them suck at that role.

If DE are going to have a pathetic pool of HQs, then they're in dire need of some meaningful distinctions between them. As I mentioned in my previous post, Harlequins are a great example of this. In addition to their characters fulfilling different niches from the get go, Pivotal Roles enable you to further customise their roles (in contrast, DE master abilities offer no choice whatsoever, nor do they meaningfully change how any of the characters function). It's the same with SoB - their generic HQs are fairly limited, yet there are far, far more ways to shape and customise them. Yet, for some reason, none of this creativity is ever applied to DE.

Tyel wrote:

CSM have lost things - but gained others. I can understand if you have your 2k list and don't want to buy any more models that sucks. But you are getting new stuff to play around with. DE by contrast have just be cut and cut for 10 years. The fact that everything was 10-20% undercosted on release (by comparison with the books at the time - its less of an issue today) made the DE codex strong. But didn't make it interesting. Unless you went all in on venom spam - or all in on say thin city wrack spam - its hard to have a DE list that looks dramatically different to everyone else. Because there just aren't options. (I'm perhaps exaggerating a bit - but not that much I feel).

I agree with all of this.

One thing I want to add, though, is that splitting an already tiny army into subfactions means that you have almost no choices at all. In the past, there were reasons to put an Archon with Grotesques, there were reasons to put Haemonculi with Incubi or Wyches or Warriors. However, because auras and such are all subfaction-locked, there's no reason to ever do combinations like the above. Moreover, each subfaction has so few units that lists practically build themselves. Which Kabal HQ do you want? I hope the answer is an Archon because it's the only one they get. Which troops do you want? Oh, guess it has to be Kabalites because they're the only Kabal troop choice. Perhaps you'd like some Heavy Support choices? Welp, it's Ravagers or GTFO I'm afraid. You get the idea.


As far as CSM go, I get where you're coming from in that they've still got far more options and toys than DE. However, let's be honest, losing your favourite toys is never fun. You might sympathise with other factions who have it worse but it hardly makes you feel any better.

Sadly, GW seem to be doing very well at the moment, so I guess the message they're getting is that people want fewer options, less customisation, and for special characters to be pushed even harder.

 vict0988 wrote:
Oh lol, GW actually removed cult entries. I actually suggested that as an option a while back because Alpha Legion was better at fielding the cult units than the legions that spawned them.

They removed Rebris, Plague Marines and Khorne Berserkers from the book, but as far as I'm aware they can still be fielded in the army to some degree - not sure of the actual rule on that, though.

Noise Marines are still kicking around, though, with their "finely cast resin" conversion kit...

The rules were a bit messy, but I rank Necrons pretty high just for the huge range refresh/extension. So many gorgeous new minis to build and paint!

Does anyone else find it odd that we routinely consider DG a seperate and distinct faction from other Chaos factions? Same with Thousand Suns. Yet GW insists that Space Marines all need TWO books to able to play.

Well I don't think you do need 2, I am talking theory not actual valid list which often for marines of all types include FW dreads, books to play with DG or 1ksons.

With marines GW has the problem that, if they wanted to have both primaris and all the classic marines in each marine book, they would end up gigantic each time. On the other hand they can't just cancel classic marines, or at least couldn't do it in 8th and 9th. Until most of the primaris line has a replacement option, I don't think GW physicaly can make a regular RG or IF books. But they aren't missing much. Just jump infantry, maybe mounted characters, but considering csm that is not a given and a replacment for termintors.

Karol wrote:
Well I don't think you do need 2, I am talking theory not actual valid list which often for marines of all types include FW dreads, books to play with DG or 1ksons.

With marines GW has the problem that, if they wanted to have both primaris and all the classic marines in each marine book, they would end up gigantic each time.

I'd rather have 1 larger, but complete, book per force than two. One of wich isn't useful on its' own.