# What do you guys think of the 5th edition codexes?



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Hi folks i'm new to HO, i've read posts on here before but never posted myself. 

I've had a 40k army since the 2nd ed rules were released so long ago though i played mainly 3rd ed before i moved into a situation where i had no space to be able to play any more.

Recently this changed and i eagerly dug out my old ork and csm models in preparation for a return to gaming. 
Upon picking up the relevant 5th ed codexes i was really disapointed. Not in the level of fluff or story that was in the books but in the army lists themselves. 

When new rulesbooks have come out before i have learned that i should expect to make some minor modifications to my armies to keep them up to date and legal. I dislike special character models, in approx 7,000pts of chaos and 3,000pts of speed freeks i have only one special character. Fabius bile which my girlfriend bought for her own chaos marines and has become allied to my own army. I take the view that there is only one of each of these guys in the universe so fluff wise you are more likely to have a warlord titan at your disposal. I would rather make my own commanders. 

When third edition came around the argument was that too many people were relying on these spec characters and so they would be scaled down and made harder to include in battles, now it seems the opposite is true. So many characters allow specialist units to be classed as troops which is vital to most mission objectives that it is a rare thing to see an army without a special character now. 

My speed freeks now require majoy reconstruction to be legal. The warbike outriders have no equivilent in the new codex, my nobs armed with choppas and shooty sluggers need full weapon changes to be effective in battle and my converted warboss with big shoota is downright illegal. Furthermore as a speed freek i must now rely on foot slogging heavy weapon squads instead of having the option to field them all in trukks. It seems like there are onlt really two effective ways of building an ork army now. A foot slogging mass with dredds and loadsa boys or a foot slogging mass with fast support. 

whilst i have no issues ith the new core rules i can't see what the benefits of stripping down armies which worked well before are. CSM have lost the diffeent legion rules, i would imagine the same is more or less true of standard SM, Orks have lost a lot of their tactical flexibility by restricting weapons so heavily, IG pretty much seem to have no choice but to field tanks as the regimental rules are removed. It seems that the only armies which will benefit from this are the ones who hadn't a lot of flexibility beforehand, dark eldar, necrons, tyranids (my apologese to players who play these armies in a varied style but everytime i've played against these armies they've used very similar tactics).

So what do you guys think? I'd like to know if i'm the only one out here who feels that some of the depth has been lost with the implication of the new codexes or if the harsh simplification of the rules was a necisary evil. I myself never had any problems following a 3rd ed game and iirc 4th ed didn't introduce much that was new aside from combat changes. 

Also i know that a lot of people on here support the use of 4th or 3rd ed codexes if there is no 5th ed equivilent to use. I've seen the nasty tactics thread using DH 3rd ed rules combined with IG 5th ed. Would anyone here take issue with somone using speed freek army drawn from codex armageddon? or a chaos traitors army using codex eye of terror?

Cheers for your insight

Grimzag "Spleentear" Gorwazza


----------



## bloodangels666 (Jul 20, 2010)

im newer to 40k but i have read some of the old codexes and your right i think some of the older stuff would have been more fun. but having said that i also think gw might just be trying to make the game more simple


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

CSM and Orks don't have 5th ed books (although Orks were just b4 5th...). In regards to actual 5th edition books they are the best books GW has produced game-wise. Balanced both internally and externally they offer up a lot of options for players which is good. Special Characters are a part of this (in particular ones which open up new Troops) as they create more variety. Even regular HQs which do this (i.e. SM captain on Bike) are important because it adds to the flavor of the game. Special Characters are also not an "automatic" choice. Whilst some Specials like Vulkan, Dante, Swarmlord, Creed, Logan, etc. are all very good, you pay the price for them and you need tomake sure you take the maximum benefit possible to make their points worthwhile (i.e. taking Dante for one scoring unit of Sanguinary Guard isn't effective).

That being said, the ability to individualise your armies in 4th edition books like Traits, biomorphs, doctorines, etc. was nice but the 5th edition books are plain better. When I can have multiple army builds from one book, I'm happy.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

CSMs 3.5 was better than the current one for fluff and options. The current chaos dex did not benefit from the Force altering special characters like the newer armies have. 
Not to be only negative, the guard dex is fantastic. More options than you can poke a stick at.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> It seems like there are onlt really two effective ways of building an ork army now. A foot slogging mass with dredds and loadsa boys or a foot slogging mass with fast support.


I disagree.

The most effective build would have to be Battlewagons.
Throw 3-4 of them in your list with a KFF and you will do quite well.

The other alternative is 6 Trukks with Boyz, and a KFF.
Its not as effective as the Battlewagons, but its still quite effective.

Nob Bikers are effective too. They arent quite as good as what they were at the start of 5th ed (mainly because people know how to counter them now), but if an opponent has no way to counter them then you will win for sure.

Foot slogging armies are actually one of the least effective ways to run Orks, UNLESS they are covered by 9 Killa Kanz and a KFF, in which case they are fairly effective but lack mobility.

The worst way to run Orks is as a combination of different things. Combining fast units, slow units, foot units, and mech units all in the one army is a poor choice.

But basically, every army should include a Big Mek with a KFF, and at least 1 unit of Lootas.
The 1 exception to this rule is a Biker army. If you run Warbikers then use Wazdakka as your HQ, and if you run Nob Bikers then use a Warboss on a bike.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Welcome to Heresy GrimzagGorwazza.

Well as I have plained the game since Rougue trader days and all the editions in between, you are right to say the codex are now totally different, in style as well as rules.

I dont like the fact that we still have codexes from 3 different editions of the game (Dark Eldar is still stupidly old even if a new one may be due out, its still taken too long). But the GW have decided to make special characters into a way to theme an army. So Wazdakka can be taken to make a more spead freak army with bikers counting as troop choices. Its a good approach but it can lead to standard power builds, but I suppose this is the same with all things.

Most armies have changed massivly since 2nd and 3rd so rebulding/changing units will be needed (one way GW keeps making money). I dont see a problem with using the Armageddon spead freaks, but you will be loosing some of the newer orc stuff which makes them so competative. You'll obviously need to OK it with whoever you are playing first.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

I personally think the SW, BA and IG codecies are great. Loads of new units, characters and options. I think the codecies you are looking at are both pre5th, but with 5th in mind, and suffered for it, trying to straddle two editions. C:CSM is still very competitive, and while it doesn't give specific rules for running single legion armies, it is very easily done. All the options are there for noise marines, berzerkers etc. Don't write it off just yet.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

IG Codex is fantastic. Best one by far. 4th Edition Space Marines, and the 3.5th Edition CSM were by far better - simply by dint of options. 

Instead of being able to create your own Chapters, you were forced to use Special Characters to have your army appear how you wanted. And when you turned up with Red Marines, and started rerolling Missed Melta shots, and rerolling failed to wounds with Flamers, and you didn't use the Vulkan He'Stan model, you have to explain yourself to new players the reason. Became very tiresome, as you could no longer hand over your army list, and your codex, where they could double check and see that the Space Marines on bikes as your core options were granted by the trait "Be As Swift As the Wind", and that each one of your Assault Marines had Furious Charge.

No need for this "but that's not He'Stan", or that's not "Korsarro Khan" etc.

Yes, that's also a state of mind with the little arsewipes who play the game, but just the sheer amount of choice would be far more preferable.

Also, I'm all for a well designed book with good rules, and pretty pictures - which is what they are. But I'd rather forgo the entire fluff and painting section where instead I could have proper rules to design my chapter, to design my Chaos Legion/Warband, or Imperial Guard Regiment.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Hmm seems i ereally am in the minority.



bloodangels666 said:


> i also think gw might just be trying to make the game more simple


 Maybe though i don't know if it was really necisary, 3rd ed was a simplification of 2nd in the first place and 4th streamlined the combat rules. all fifth ed has done is take the presimplified rules and cut down on the options the player has in the effort to make the game easier to learn. To me it feels like the equivilent of playing dungeons and dragons with the choice of only 3 classes. 



kirby said:


> CSM and Orks don't have 5th ed books (although Orks were just b4 5th...).


I stand corrected. most of my experiance is with 4th ed books.



kirby said:


> In regards to actual 5th edition books they are the best books GW has produced game-wise. Balanced both internally and externally they offer up a lot of options for players which is good. Special Characters are a part of this


Aside from not being sure how the game can be externally balanced, i'll have to take your word on the 5th ed books being better though this still doesn't address the problem for players who like to play the fluff and don't want to field spec characters. If SC's are a part of the balance whereas before they offered a set of options but where more or less sself contained. You could build an army around them but you could create decent enough combat units without their help. I don't want Ghazskul or wazzdakka muscling in on my orky glory, likewise Kharne and Abadon should keep their noses out of my chaos lord's buisiness. 



kirby said:


> (in particular ones which open up new Troops) as they create more variety. Even regular HQs which do this (i.e. SM captain on Bike) are important because it adds to the flavor of the game.


 They open up variety but it was variety which we already had before. The index astartes rules allowed the fielding of entire space marine bike companies without resorting to special characters using the white scars army list.




kirby said:


> That being said, the ability to individualise your armies in 4th edition books like Traits, biomorphs, doctorines, etc. was nice but the 5th edition books are plain better.


 This is a matter of opinion. I play for the fluff and like to have memorable storylines. Traits etc helped me achieve this. A variety of wargear for characters helped set them apart from the crowd and it now seems like in the spirit of speed play a lot of this has been lost. Who in their right mind would see a kombie shoota as a viable option for an ork warboss. Your best combat unit in the army (aside from dreds and specials) loosing an attack to shoot a strength 4 weapon. It's just not worth the points. Whereas before he could take a big shoota and hose the enemy before charging, for a few extra points it was worth losing the attack. 


kirby said:


> When I can have multiple army builds from one book, I'm happy.


The old CSM dex contained army rules for each of the traitor legions as well as vanilla CSM's i don't see that kind of variation anywhere in the newest book.




shaantitus said:


> Not to be only negative, the guard dex is fantastic. More options than you can poke a stick at.


I can see a lot that would increase the choices of somone building an army like the Cadians but not much new stuff to benefit lighter guard armies like the ghosts or catachans. If they had included bike squadrons and lightly armoured trucks for transports i would have been much more impressed. Whilst i've only given it a fleeting glance it seems to me that a lot of the old doctrines can now be taken without restriction by simply purchasing the unit but the more lightly armourd builds might lose out..



king of cheese said:


> The most effective build would have to be Battlewagons.
> Throw 3-4 of them in your list with a KFF and you will do quite well.


 Battlewagons take up a heavy support choice so i can only field three maximum, if i do this then i cannot take flash as they are also heavy support although this would give me the transport i crave for my tankbustas and lootas. 



king of cheese said:


> The other alternative is 6 Trukks with Boyz, and a KFF.
> Its not as effective as the Battlewagons, but its still quite effective.


This is closest to my origional army plan from so many years ago, my main concern was lack of transport for the specialist units though battlewagons could be the answer.



king of cheese said:


> Nob Bikers are effective too. They arent quite as good as what they were at the start of 5th ed (mainly because people know how to counter them now), but if an opponent has no way to counter them then you will win for sure.
> But basically, every army should include a Big Mek with a KFF, and at least 1 unit of Lootas.
> The 1 exception to this rule is a Biker army. If you run Warbikers then use Wazdakka as your HQ, and if you run Nob Bikers then use a Warboss on a bike


 I dislike bikers, not the rules or the backgoround or even the models. They are just my least favourite model type to paint, not quite a vehicle not quite an infantry model but taking longer than both. My afformentioned outriders are all mounted on mechanised rollerskates and skateboards. I had already decided on a KFF i used to field one on a lowly mekboy in my warboss's mob before. Shame, i wouldn't have minded giving the Shock attack a go.



humakt said:


> Welcome to Heresy GrimzagGorwazza.


 Thanks, it's great to be here. 



humakt said:


> Well as I have plained the game since Rougue trader days and all the editions in between, you are right to say the codex are now totally different, in style as well as rules.
> 
> I dont like the fact that we still have codexes from 3 different editions of the game (Dark Eldar is still stupidly old even if a new one may be due out, its still taken too long). But the GW have decided to make special characters into a way to theme an army. So Wazdakka can be taken to make a more spead freak army with bikers counting as troop choices. Its a good approach but it can lead to standard power builds, but I suppose this is the same with all things.
> 
> Most armies have changed massivly since 2nd and 3rd so rebulding/changing units will be needed (one way GW keeps making money).


I expected the rules to have changed though TBH i cna't see a lot of difference between the core of 3rd ed and 5th ed, whereas trying to play second ed was a completely different experiance. I'll admit the style of the army list did excite me (it reminded me of the old gorkamorka sourcebooks) but the disapointment i felt when i realised that i needed to remodelling work on almost every single unit in the army was deeply upsetting. I think what GW need to do is a IA article with all of the revisions to lists which havn't been remade yet. Just simple things like saying which books take precedence.

eg: Codex armageddon: steel legion army list is now void, codex IG takes precidence. Codex DH: The stats for the chimera troop transport found in the IG codex replace the DH chimera stats.

Obviously things like Dark eldar would have a longer section to try and get them into a usable format.

Using special characters as a way of themeing sounds like a nightmare from where i stand, when we used to run campains before spec chars were banned unless you could come up with a very good reason why they were on the planet fighting in the war at that time. Or unless both players agreed beforehand. Now we would be hard pushed to deny thier use on the grounds of it ruining the story of the campaign because we would be limiting army choice. I don't mind changing my army, heck i used to field blood angels in second edition (most of which are now members of my CSM army) but i do take issue with changing it and being forced to downgrade it for no real reason. If GW want to make money by changing lists then i still believe that they should do it by increasing options (mork bless apocalypse) rather than massively limiting options.



humakt said:


> I dont see a problem with using the Armageddon spead freaks, but you will be loosing some of the newer orc stuff which makes them so competative. You'll obviously need to OK it with whoever you are playing first.


Do i need to OK it? I'd be fielding the latest Speed Freek army list available. :spiteful:

Grimzag


----------



## Gog (May 27, 2009)

Im a Speedfreaks player, and understand your problems,

My tips would be (and this is how I play my bikers)

Take 1/2 Biker Warbosses this then allows you to take 1/2 squads of Nob Bikers (these should take big choppas and the odd powerklaw as then they eat armour), take Lootas as your heavy troop killers in your elite slots and to transport them take BWs if you feel they need to move, but with the range they have they should just stand still, Fast attack is Bikes Bikes Bikes, with a Nob in each squad with PK if you can as then the squads can take both units and armour out.


----------



## Rob1981 (Jul 13, 2010)

> In regards to actual 5th edition books they are the best books GW has produced game-wise. *Balanced both internally and externally* they offer up a lot of options for players which is good.


Space Wolves. Need I say anymore?


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

i guess i'm hoping that they bring out more specific army lists like the new BA dex and SW. But don't limit them to loyalist SM's like they have in the past. A supplement for Gaunts ghosts or Alpha legion would be nice for example.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

Rob1981 said:


> Space Wolves. Need I say anymore?


That they're a good army? The internet loves to think IG and SW are miles ahead of the rest of the books when they aren't. Most people also think SW is simply SM+ when they are completely different books, just like BA. They all have different strengths and making lists which maximise those strengths bring out lists which are all top-notch. 

@GrimzagGorwazza; externally balanced means from codex to codex. i.e. all of the new books are very good and whilst some (see above) would say book X is way better than others, it's hard to pick. Let's assume GW continues with this mindset and all the new books will also be like this.

If you are playing more for the fluff, that's fine. You don't need to use SCs or the best units, etc. But GW figured out a while ago that catering to just the fluff gamers doesn't work so they now cater to both. You can make your fluffy lists (and often they can be quite good i.e. Blood Angel Jumper lists) but you can also make your competitive lists. Whilst there may be less options compared to traits, legions, craftworlds, doctorines, etc. the new books have just as much variety in them in more units, FoC swaps, more SCs, etc. You can still build mono-Chaos, White Scars, Iyanden, etc. type lists with a bit of imagination and make your own fluff and storylines. 

This is where GW is great. They've provided us with the background and rules for the game we love but we can go to town with actual backstories, etc. Again, GW no longer caters to just one crowd and I for one am thankful for that if they keep producing army books of top quality backed up by proper FAQ rulings. Their fluff may have taken a hit but I'd rather a bit of fluff and a bit of gaming than just fluff.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Kirby said:


> That they're a good army? The internet loves to think IG and SW are miles ahead of the rest of the books when they aren't. Most people also think SW is simply SM+ when they are completely different books, just like BA. They all have different strengths and making lists which maximise those strengths bring out lists which are all top-notch.
> 
> @GrimzagGorwazza; externally balanced means from codex to codex. i.e. all of the new books are very good and whilst some (see above) would say book X is way better than others, it's hard to pick. Let's assume GW continues with this mindset and all the new books will also be like this.


 There're always people who claim one is better than the other and i suspect there always will be in everything. My bad on the external balance i missed that and it was pretty obvious when i think about it in hindsight.



kirby said:


> If you are playing more for the fluff, that's fine. You don't need to use SCs or the best units, etc. But GW figured out a while ago that catering to just the fluff gamers doesn't work so they now cater to both. You can make your fluffy lists (and often they can be quite good i.e. Blood Angel Jumper lists) but you can also make your competitive lists. Whilst there may be less options compared to traits, legions, craftworlds, doctorines, etc. the new books have just as much variety in them in more units, FoC swaps, more SCs, etc. You can still build mono-Chaos, White Scars, Iyanden, etc. type lists with a bit of imagination and make your own fluff and storylines.
> 
> This is where GW is great. They've provided us with the background and rules for the game we love but we can go to town with actual backstories, etc. Again, GW no longer caters to just one crowd and I for one am thankful for that if they keep producing army books of top quality backed up by proper FAQ rulings. Their fluff may have taken a hit but I'd rather a bit of fluff and a bit of gaming than just fluff.


You seem to misunderstand what i am saying i miss. I'm not asking for fluffy units with no real use in games, my speed freeks were undefeated in my gaming group. At one point i was running a battle wagon with lobber mount, 5 bolt on big shootas, a big mek with kustom forcefield and a unit of mekboys with KMB and other weapons, the rest of the BW capacity was topped up with ammo runts who also manned the big shootas. In a turn they could put out 6 strength 7 ap 2 blast templates(the bigmek also had a blastier-slugger), 15 strength five big shoot shots and a lobba blast. Yes it was hideously expensive nad yes i only fielded the unit twice as i had to drop a lot of other mobs to afford them but it fit the army whilst being competative. (the second time i fielded it somone landed a basalisk shell on the wagon in turn 2 and wiped out half the unit). At one point i had a CSM lord which weighed in at 260points after wargear, effectively a homegrown special character but completely within the restrictions of the dex, i only ever fielded him in 2000point or greater armies and he got killed more times then i care to remember (damned emperors champion). But there were also times where he ran through enemy units carving a bloody path of ruin behind him with his terminator bodyguard mopping up the stragglers.

I want the customisation + the ability to make competative armies. And i want to be able to do it without having to field special characters to get the interesting model combos. I know that these examples are overpowered but you lost massive chunks of your army to compensate for the points drain. I miss the power to be able to let my drink addled brain concieve a unit which will probabley cost more points then it is worth and test it out rather then being told. "Sorry, you may be a ten thousand year old chaos lord who has headbutted his way through the ranks and murdered his own father by savagely beating him around the head with his own severed legs but we just can't allow you to take master crafted lightning claws....you would be too powerful for your own good."
If such an item of wargear is so overpowering then just charge more points for it, who does it help by removing it completely?


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

I personally think the 5E codex's are brilliant. They are not flawless by any means but I still think they're pretty great. The Space Wolves codex in particular stands out, probably because it was written by GW's most talented and intelligent writer.


----------



## The Thunder of KayVaan (Jun 19, 2009)

To be honest i much prefered my 4th edition Space marine codex to my 5th. Vets could really (in my opinion) be vets, Squads didn't have to be ten men to get a heavy weapon and a special weapon, I prefered the armoury to options, Traits.

In short, I prefered the massive customisation to the competiveness. I always play for fun, never competiveness. (thats what the consoles are for )


----------



## Schizofen (Mar 11, 2009)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> I want the customisation + the ability to make competative armies. And i want to be able to do it without having to field special characters to get the interesting model combos. I know that these examples are overpowered but you lost massive chunks of your army to compensate for the points drain. I miss the power to be able to let my drink addled brain concieve a unit which will probabley cost more points then it is worth and test it out rather then being told. "Sorry, you may be a ten thousand year old chaos lord who has headbutted his way through the ranks and murdered his own father by savagely beating him around the head with his own severed legs but we just can't allow you to take master crafted lightning claws....you would be too powerful for your own good."
> If such an item of wargear is so overpowering then just charge more points for it, who does it help by removing it completely?


One alternative to actual special characters is to make your own version and play it as 'Counts as'. So if you want scoring Sternguard in you marines you could have Captain Dave, play him by Pedro's rules, use whatever model you wanted (as long as it's consistent with the wargear, so has a power fist). Not quite what you're after, but with a bit of imagination you can probably get close.

And yeah, probably best not to use the Chaos Marines codex as the basis for your argument. That's widely scorned for having practically no customisation, flavour or variety, and everyone will agree with you about that one. Things like the Guard codex are insanely better by comparison.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

I hate Special Characters and I hate the players who feel obliged to shoe-horn in as many as possible into every army build they come up with.
Bring back the days of asking your opponent's permission in order to field them.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Pssyche said:


> I hate Special Characters and I hate the players who feel obliged to shoe-horn in as many as possible into every army build they come up with.
> Bring back the days of asking your opponent's permission in order to field them.


Rather screws trying to field a Death Wing or Ravewing list though:angel:


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

I find 5ed codexes a curse that makes the game boring to be honest, sure there are lots of choices in them, but whats the point when one or two builds become as popular as breathing that evenone takes a clone of said builds, GW may as well make a bland boring codex that gives us players no choices for imagination at all, nobody uses it anyway so nobody would have the right to complain about it.

like the BA codex, what was the point in putting tactical squads and scouts into it?, or any other choice other than assault squads, rhinos and mepth/dante, GW may as well save there time since thats all the large majority of players actually use, and if you don't use them your basically bullied until you finally do.

booooooring.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

Stella Cadente said:


> I find 5ed codexes a curse that makes the game boring to be honest, sure there are lots of choices in them, but whats the point when one or two builds become as popular as breathing that evenone takes a clone of said builds, GW may as well make a bland boring codex that gives us players no choices for imagination at all, nobody uses it anyway so nobody would have the right to complain about it.
> 
> like the BA codex, what was the point in putting tactical squads and scouts into it?, or any other choice other than assault squads, rhinos and mepth/dante, GW may as well save there time since thats all the large majority of players actually use, and if you don't use them your basically bullied until you finally do.
> 
> booooooring.


SM = Thunderbubble, Mech (Libby & Vulkan versions), Bikers, Fast'N'Slow (Suppression & Termie versions), Sternguard Pods, 6x Dread Pods
IG = Blast spam, Hybrid Mech, Air-Cav, Hybrid Air-Cav, Mech
SW = TWC, Loganwing, LasPlas, Hybrid TWC
BA = Jumpers, Bloodwing, Blood Hammer, Blood Rodeo, 6x Pred, Mech w/LasPlas, Stormraven, Drop Dread
Tyranids = Swarmlord, T6 Spam (Trygon & T-Fex variants), Spore

That's 29 competitive list variants off the top of my head from the newer books rather than the 5-10 (1-2 per book) you suppose the new books have and there are major diversions within those templates as well and some I didn't bother naming. Glad we had this convo again.



GrimzagGorwazza said:


> I want the customisation + the ability to make competative armies. And i want to be able to do it without having to field special characters to get the interesting model combos. I know that these examples are overpowered but you lost massive chunks of your army to compensate for the points drain. I miss the power to be able to let my drink addled brain concieve a unit which will probabley cost more points then it is worth and test it out rather then being told. "Sorry, you may be a ten thousand year old chaos lord who has headbutted his way through the ranks and murdered his own father by savagely beating him around the head with his own severed legs but we just can't allow you to take master crafted lightning claws....you would be too powerful for your own good."
> If such an item of wargear is so overpowering then just charge more points for it, who does it help by removing it completely?


The new books have customisation + competitive but I think what you really want is the massive units, HQ, etc. that can just decimate an army if left alone but if it dies early severly handicaps you? GW has a whole has moved away from that I think. Fantasy used to basically be that (aka Herohammer) but 8th edition has moved Fantasy towards what 40k currently is, a game of balanced armies. You can still deck out your characters, some units, etc. (look at Wolf Guard, Wolf Lords, Vanguard, Command Platoons, Tyrants, etc.) whilst maintaining a decent level of competitiveness but for the moment Orks & CSM (and a few others like Eldar, Tau, DE, etc. but they have a competitive build) lack on the customisation and competitive side it's true.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Pssyche said:


> I hate Special Characters and I hate the players who feel obliged to shoe-horn in as many as possible into every army build they come up with.
> Bring back the days of asking your opponent's permission in order to field them.


Then whats the point in making a Solid List if theres a chance I cant use them? Why should I buy a Model if I cant use it? More importantly why should I not field Pedro for my CFs, or Huron Blackheart for my Red Corsairs? The CF are like what 300 strong? Red Corsairs were 200 strong? However I should ask permission to field my meagre SCs that my Fluff Theme is base around? Thats okay. As someone said already it be hard to field Deathwing, Ravenwing, armies. Hell it be hard to lead IF 1st Company without Lysander.



Kirby said:


> SM = Thunderbubble, Mech (Libby & Vulkan versions), Bikers, Fast'N'Slow (Suppression & Termie versions), Sternguard Pods, 6x Dread Pods
> IG = Blast spam, Hybrid Mech, Air-Cav, Hybrid Air-Cav, Mech
> SW = TWC, Loganwing, LasPlas, Hybrid TWC
> BA = Jumpers, Bloodwing, Blood Hammer, Blood Rodeo, 6x Pred, Mech w/LasPlas, Stormraven, Drop Dread
> ...


 I agree that 5th allows more to field fluffy and competitivly. 

Hey Kirby, write down the VARY Competitive list for Necrons, SoB, CSM, and DE. I really like to know what the Older Editions competitive builds equal too.





Kirby said:


> The new books have customisation + competitive but I think what you really want is the massive units, HQ, etc. that can just decimate an army if left alone but if it dies early severly handicaps you? GW has a whole has moved away from that I think. Fantasy used to basically be that (aka Herohammer) but 8th edition has moved Fantasy towards what 40k currently is, a game of balanced armies. You can still deck out your characters, some units, etc. (look at Wolf Guard, Wolf Lords, Vanguard, Command Platoons, Tyrants, etc.) whilst maintaining a decent level of competitiveness but for the moment Orks & CSM (and a few others like Eldar, Tau, DE, etc. but they have a competitive build) lack on the customisation and competitive side it's true.


I like the 5th edition books, however I think 3.5 CSM dex was the BEST example of how awsome Cutomisation can get for 40K.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm not saying that i want to ban the use of special characters altogether, i had a regular opponent who used to field logan grimnar every battle and despite the fact that one was a special character and one was my own character we still had some epic duals. The key differecne i think is that the SC of back then used to have more rules that related directly to themselves and were effectively individualised little pockets of awesome. Unfortunately again i can only call on the csm and ork 4th ed codecies for comparison. If seems to me that now the SC have a much bigger impact on the composition of the force as a whole. 

No fluffy player in their right mind would have an issue with an opponent fielding fabius bile at the head of an army of Super Marines, or a legion of the damned army including Veteran Sergeant Centurius, or the emporers champion in a black templar army. What i am saying is that it would be nice to be able to field an entirely bike mounted ork army without being forced to take Wazzdakka to achieve it. There are so many other ork speed freek commanders out there why should we be forced to play with the only one which GW have written rules for? There have been numerous chapter masters for space marine armies so why should we have to take the current chapter master to field an army of them? The master of the ravenwing or deathwing can't be present at every single action that their armies fight in so forcing people to use them just seems counterproductive to me. There are 100 marines and additional termies in the first company of a space marine army. How often do you see someone field a full 100 terminators? Those others which are not in the company commanders enterage must be fighting somewhere and it is niave to believe that they are always split up across the chapter. What i am trying to say is that wouldn't it be nice to sometimes field a ravenwing force led by Commander Grim Odessius, who has taken the reins from the current master of the ravenwing because he caught bird flu when a Termegian pigeon hit him in the face during the last battle. 
People who want to field the ravenwing army with an alternative colourscheme aren't then forced to take the master who their own chapter might not have an equivilent of. Very few 3rd ed armies insisted that you include a certain character to be able to use
them (I would say none but i'm not positive that there weren't armies that required spec characters....). All i'm saying is would it be so difficult to have written the books so that we don't have to use the characters GW have written for us. 
You wouldn't expect to play DnD with characters which had been built for you.

I think the competative aspect is something we could argue until we find ourselves in the actual 41st millenium. Whilst i have no doubt that the new lists make it easier to field tournament ready armies and that it is possible to come up with a long string of viable tactics. I still retain that any list that allows more variety in wargear and unit selection must give you a longer list of tactics. 

I'm wonderering wether we should all just call a truce on the issue as we're never going to come to a mutual agreement as to which is better. It's a pepsi - coca cola issue.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the issue or we'll just end up with a flame war and i really didn't intend that when i first started this thread.


----------



## Loli (Mar 26, 2009)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> The master of the ravenwing or deathwing can't be present at every single action that their armies fight in so forcing people to use them just seems counterproductive to me. There are 100 marines and additional termies in the first company of a space marine army. How often do you see someone field a full 100 terminators? Those others which are not in the company commanders enterage must be fighting somewhere and it is niave to believe that they are always split up across the chapter. What i am trying to say is that wouldn't it be nice to sometimes field a ravenwing force led by Commander Grim Odessius, who has taken the reins from the current master of the ravenwing because he caught bird flu when a Termegian pigeon hit him in the face during the last battle.
> People who want to field the ravenwing army with an alternative colourscheme aren't then forced to take the master who their own chapter might not have an equivilent of. Very few 3rd ed armies insisted that you include a certain character to be able to use
> them (I would say none but i'm not positive that there weren't armies that required spec characters....). All i'm saying is would it be so difficult to have written the books so that we don't have to use the characters GW have written for us. .


Using other commanders is possible due to the whole count as thing. So its not a problem, if you dont like Wazdakka, have him count as someone else. Im failing to see the problem.

And regarding your point of the master of the ravenwing at each battle, then your trying to apply the scope of the 40k universe to the actual tabletop, which could only be done if only 1 person in the entire world could field the commander, which to me kinda takes the fun out of the game.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Loli said:


> Using other commanders is possible due to the whole count as thing. So its not a problem, if you dont like Wazdakka, have him count as someone else. Im failing to see the problem.


 The problem is that i don't want him at all, even a counts as model is restricted because they have to include the wargear which the special character uses. Prior to this latest itteration of the rules i could field a speed freak army of only bikes with a standard warboss on bike leading the army. That isn't an option anymore unless i include wazzdakka or his counts as. 



> And regarding your point of the master of the ravenwing at each battle, then your trying to apply the scope of the 40k universe to the actual tabletop, which could only be done if only 1 person in the entire world could field the commander, which to me kinda takes the fun out of the game.


 I'm not saying that no one should be able to field him, i'm just sayint that the option to take a ravenwing force without the master of the ravenwing should be a possibility as it has been in each of the other 4 editions of the rules. 

What i mean is that picture for a moment that i want to field an army called the Blood Bears (counts as ravenwing). They're almost space wolf in appearance but have brown armour and dislike technology. I want them to be very fast and use hit and run attacks but they ride armoured beasts into battle (counts as bikers). i avoid using landspeeders in the list because unless i am willing to make a pterodactile of some sort they are going to be unfluffy. Now to make this list legal i have no choice but to include either Sammael or at a push Korsaro Khan. You might say that's fine, just use a counts as model, either Pterodactyle based model for Sam or a standard armoured beast model for Korey. It only becomes a problem if i want my particular commander to wield a different weapon, lightningclaws or a thunder hammer. I'm stuck with whatever gear the special character had. If they had included rules like "If your commander is mounted on a bike then he may take bikes as troops or fast attack choices but must take one less elite choice for the army" It would have satisfied both parties.
Those who wanted to take the special character would still get the benefit but those of us who want to build our own storylines for our own characters without having to be forced to use special characters would still have been able to.

PS: I really don't want to make the Blood Bears, it was just an example.


----------



## Gog (May 27, 2009)

Hate to say it but that is exactly what you "CAN" do with space marines, if the space marine commander is mounted on a bike then squads of 5 bikes count as troops.

And on the Ork Bike front thair is nothing stopping you having bike heavy armies, you just have to take Nob Bikers or Trukk Boys, if thair wern't restrictions on the unit types you can take in certain situations the game would be nuts, hell I would only feild Nobs and Deffgunz, sorry to say it but its just the way it is, unless you have a mates (like I do) who allow intresting armies that are fun to play, then you have to take the Specials, or find ways round it eg: take warbosses on bikes and nob bikers as troops, hence bikes and no boys.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I stand corrected i hadn't seen that on the captains options sheet, though i can't see why if they made it an option for marines why it wasn't allowed for orks. The benefits to the non special characters are for only single squads. 

That's pretty much what i'm saying.
If the ability to take certain types of troops as an entire army is imbalancing then why put the option in there even with special characters. 
The main issue i'm trying to raise is that 3rd and early 4th edition did in fact allow for you to field armies of bikers (speed freaks, stormwind host, white scars, ravenwing) and elite powerhouses with ver few models(Grey Knights, Deathwing). And they succeeded in doing it without relying on special characters. 

your own home grown characters were at a level where they could, with a few choice gifts from the armoury, actually be a challenge to special characters. Instead they've nerfed the choices which characters are alllowed to take.

Yes a Chaos lord in terminator armour with A6 ws6 str5 power weapon attacks that rerolled to hit dice and to wound dice was hideously powerful on the charge. But at the end of the day he cost nearly 300points and could be nulled if you could get a dreadnought in combat with him. 

The game used to be about powerhouse units which you got to design blasting the cack out of each other and going down in a blaze of glory.

Now it seems no one can put out any serious hurt unless they have some support from other units, all you end up with is people trying to make combinations of units that are hideosly vicious instead of making each unit special. And as each unit only seems to have a very small selection of options (Ork boys mobs have lost the option of taking scorchers as have the trukks they are able to ride in and the nobs who accompany them no longer have free rein of the armory) i can't see how anyone can claim that the list is more flexable.

Aside from shock attack guns and the looted wagon (i know this is essentially a looted vehicle but i've included it here as i think this bit of streamlining is actually an improvement) i can see nothing new to the ork codex that wasn't in the last dex or one of the suppliments. There are a scattering of new weapons like the tankhammer but most are replacements for weapons from the old dex and are now restricted on who can use them. 

I see no gunwagons, madboys (which are actually mentioned as being bodyguards for weirdboys in the new dex but have no army list entry), before every squad could take a nob now a variety of them take something else, the wargear in most squads has been stripped away, the wargear in every nob and warboss has been stripped down, the option of taking bombing runs is gone, mekboys are removed from the warboss's retinue, to take certain styles of army you must include special characters and the choppa armour change ability.

That's a lot of things to cut from an army and not a lot to add to it.Yes there are aditions i didn't mention like tankhammers but as tankbusters already had tankbusta bomb and the ability to take a few rocket launchers and the nob who led them could take ammo runts for rerolls. When you combine the nobs armoury allowance and his ability to take a powerclaw it does seem to be much of an addition.

I'm not going to comment on this thread any longer, i keep getting dragged back into the conversationa nd i don't think i'll ever be fully satisfied with the new rules....unless they release an actual 5th ed codex for csm and orks soon. It seems the space marine dex is a little more flexible then i initially thought.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> That's pretty much what i'm saying.
> If the ability to take certain types of troops as an entire army is imbalancing then why put the option in there even with special characters.
> The main issue i'm trying to raise is that 3rd and early 4th edition did in fact allow for you to field armies of bikers (speed freaks, stormwind host, white scars, ravenwing) and elite powerhouses with ver few models(Grey Knights, Deathwing). And they succeeded in doing it without relying on special characters.


You mean like belial or sammeal who you had to add into your army if you wanted a full deathwing or ravenwing? 




GrimzagGorwazza said:


> your own home grown characters were at a level where they could, with a few choice gifts from the armoury, actually be a challenge to special characters. Instead they've nerfed the choices which characters are alllowed to take.


Ok so TWC lords who, once you have them upgraded, read like a DP?

P.S. I get you probably won't respond but you may by a bit off on some of your points.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

Warlock in Training said:


> I agree that 5th allows more to field fluffy and competitivly.
> 
> Hey Kirby, write down the VARY Competitive list for Necrons, SoB, CSM, and DE. I really like to know what the Older Editions competitive builds equal too.


None really for Necrons & CSM . The 'best' lists for Necrons revolve around Destroyers & Heavy D.s backed up by Immortals/Warriors with a couple Spyders & Orb Lord. This gives you a lot of medium strength firepower but you still suffer against heavy tanks. CSM is basically what you can put together around the core of Nurgle DPs w/Wings & Warptime, Oblits/Preds and Plague Marines. They just don't have the right options in Elites/FA though Dreads are okay.

For SoB there are basically 2: Immo spam w/IG Platoons and Immo Spam pure. For DE, lance spam.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

How I miss CSM codex 3.5... It was beautiful.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Kirby said:


> None really for Necrons & CSM . The 'best' lists for Necrons revolve around Destroyers & Heavy D.s backed up by Immortals/Warriors with a couple Spyders & Orb Lord. This gives you a lot of medium strength firepower but you still suffer against heavy tanks. CSM is basically what you can put together around the core of Nurgle DPs w/Wings & Warptime, Oblits/Preds and Plague Marines. They just don't have the right options in Elites/FA though Dreads are okay.
> 
> For SoB there are basically 2: Immo spam w/IG Platoons and Immo Spam pure. For DE, lance spam.



Clearly you`ve never faced the 2 lith list. Works like a charm. Bringing necron effective lists to ... three.

Two lith list.

Destroyer list.

Wraithspam. (exactly as it sounds. Actually works too.)

CSM? I have to disagree with your plague list. (Not just because I hate Nurgle ) I have seen a very effective Khorne based list consisting of several berzerker squads in rhinos backed up by csm squads with heavy guns. To continue the theme he has forsaken a vindi in favour of a defiler. It`s not a sure win list but it gave my nids a good fight.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

Serpion5 said:


> Clearly you`ve never faced the 2 lith list. Works like a charm. Bringing necron effective lists to ... three.
> 
> Two lith list.
> 
> ...


Please take 2 liths which are meh on the table-top and bring your Necron count down by a significant margin. Wraiths scare who again? Wraiths = no Destroyers = lack of reliable medium anti-tank = worsening (is that a word ?) your already terrible match-up against mech. 

Zerkers have issues of only being alright in combat (same as BA ASM w/FC & FNP. They are a good core unit for a combat army but they aren't combat beasts) and not having a good combat unit to back them up. Termies w/5+ invul? Lol here are some termies with a 3++. CSM squads w/AC/Plas aren't bad with 2-4 S7 shots but Chaos just don't have the efficient and effective choices in Elites & FA and Oblits/Winged DPs cannot make up for this. You can run 12 Rhino spam w/mass melta/havoclaunchers/flamers which is a pretty decent list but Immo spam is way better with meltas and heavy flamers, etc. etc. etc.


----------

