Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Unhinged Hobo
Joined
·
2,341 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
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.
 

·
Angryman
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,491 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,182 Posts
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.
 

·
Dazed and confused.
Joined
·
8,496 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
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.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Unhinged Hobo
Joined
·
2,341 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Hmm seems i ereally am in the minority.

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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
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.
 

·
Unhinged Hobo
Joined
·
2,341 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
519 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
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 :p)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,146 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
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:
 

·
blahblahblahblah
Joined
·
6,663 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top