We are now into our third codex for 6th edition. So far I like the looks and feel of what a 6th edition codex is looking like, and I have spent a good amount of time within each one. Like most of you reading this, I spend a lot of time trying to read other people are thinking about the latest codex, its strengths, weaknesses, and what units people are excited about.


I think that for the most part, we are still stuck in the mode of previous editions. By that I mean that we tend to look at a codex in its entirety, and with the exception of maybe a cool trick from an allied codex, thats it.

The latest codex has shown us that there will not be a lot of overlapping or crossing over of abilities between codices. However most people talking about the latest Chaos Daemons have practically left out Chaos Space Marines. (not all, but most)

This is 6th edition. Other codices should be thought of as an extension of your own primary force codex. For Chaos Daemons, that means Chaos Space Marines, and Imperial Guard. Both allied codices with Daemons makes for some powerful combinations, with the flexibility to really create some fun strong lists.

For example, the things that are crossing my mind when reading the Chaos Daemon Codex, is adding in the infernal machines of Chaos Marines. Heldrakes, Forgefiends, with lots of cultists. That just sounds fun.

Or going the other direction with the force of the imperial guard. Vendettas, IG blobs, massive tanks, lead to endless possibilities.

I think that reviews of a codex are single codex are great, but what we are missing the entire picture, of what a new codex can become when it is looked at with its allies. Hopefully as things start to settle down a little bit over the next couple weeks, we can start seeing more complete reviews of the Daemon codex taking a closer look into including allies.

70 Comments:

  1. I would agree. I don't use Allies- ever, but I see their value and fun. I look at the Codex books in a single army light with no allies and all 3 have been awesome!

    I hate Timmy power players and they have no business playing the game. Their tears of frustration, whinning, raging, bitching and gnashing of their teeth are mine to enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a character who's primary goal is playing non-counts as fluffy lists, I find them highly mediocre, not bad mind you, but still very limited and lacking vision. Either Phil Kelly lacks ambition or the higher ups at GW are seriously tying the authors' hands behind their backs.

      Then again there's a 90% chance your 2nd portion was just trolling, so I don't know why I bothered to reply.

      Delete
    2. character = player, can't brain today

      Delete
    3. I like the idea of allies when they add to the look and feel of the army and make sense. Some really awesome combinations that are fun come out of it. But the Necron/Grey Knight people are just jerks abusing a system.

      Delete
    4. There's no such thing as abusing the system, there's just the system. Unless you cheat, you're playing the game. Your problem is with GW, they want us to be able to play the game with more options, which I've come to find a lot of people hate. I've never met a player who's army list made them a jerk, and I've played plenty of people who play outdated 4th ed codexes that are jerks who aren't fun to game with.

      Delete
    5. Im hoping the next Tau codex will be ridiculously cheesy so I will ally my Crons with them thus forming 2 armies of elite firepower! >:)

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. Please, no direct attacks on anyone.

      Delete
    8. The Daemons codex is just fine. Like DA and CSM before, it is relatively balanced and has a lot of good options.

      People whined for balance and got it. Now they whine for cheese that builds itself. They don't want to change the way they play...ever. They also don't want to have to think of how to form a list or actually defeat an opponent.

      Delete
    9. But that's the trouble Archibald Doogan - nothing has changed. It's still can openers and monstorus creatures but now even more unreliable for the same points. Where's the fun in that?

      Delete
    10. @Pangy: not that I do it myself, but you could claim it's fluffy grey knight/necron army. They've had strong connections at least in the past (according to the grey knight codex). Ok, Coteaz/Stormlord ISN'T fluffy, but if someone turned up with Trazyn and Inquisitor Valeria that could be!

      Delete
    11. All Armys are Good/ better with Cron Air Allys or vendettas!

      I dont See how that makes a dex better unless you forget to Look at all other dexes in the Same Way.

      I'm also Sick of Hearing youre dex is Not that Bad if you Take Allys. Its Not like i couldn't do that Before under 6th. And i also find it stupid to go and BuY & paint a nother Army just to stand up vs very Old dexes!

      If GW would Balance IG crons GKs sw and so on i would be happy with the New dex!

      Delete
    12. Well the Daemon Codex is actually pretty solid on it's own, the only thing where Random is actually detrimental is on 3/11 of the Warpstorm charts, and rolling boxcars on instability (which would probably have pretty much wiped the unit anyhow, on average ld for the book that's like 5 dead or something right?)

      But it's important to remember that no book is an island anymore (except tyranids u.u), and I'm pretty sure that was the entire point ot the article...

      Delete
    13. On their own, the first 3 6th codices are awesome. The minute you play grey knights, you get frustrates, and i think rightfully so. Gw made 3 cool codices that are balanced with eachother. But until you Nerf the overkill armies proper will always compassion. And you know what, i don't mind their complaining. Its gw's fault for giving people a taste of uber powerful armies, giving them the expectation that each new codex will at least match the previous codex in power.

      Then csm comes out with a reasonably balanced codex.. And you think wow what a reasonably balanced codex, but how the f***an i supposed to compete with gk and necrons? Why are they not up to par with what already exists? Those expectations were given by gw. And until those uber power armies are corrected, there will be an "exaggerated" unbalance in 40k.

      Delete
    14. On their own, the first 3 6th codices are awesome. The minute you play grey knights, you get frustrates, and i think rightfully so. Gw made 3 cool codices that are balanced with eachother. But until you Nerf the overkill armies proper will always compassion. And you know what, i don't mind their complaining. Its gw's fault for giving people a taste of uber powerful armies, giving them the expectation that each new codex will at least match the previous codex in power.

      Then csm comes out with a reasonably balanced codex.. And you think wow what a reasonably balanced codex, but how the f***an i supposed to compete with gk and necrons? Why are they not up to par with what already exists? Those expectations were given by gw. And until those uber power armies are corrected, there will be an "exaggerated" unbalance in 40k.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. honestly a balanced codex isn't a abd thing, I predict necron and GK players are gonna hate their new codex because it brings em down to earth. or rockets up their point costs.

      Delete
    18. I think of it like this, GK are a mysterious Army of great power that are feared by even the regular SM. They should be powerful if they ever hope to capture and redeem any of them.

      Necrons are the same. I would expect that Tyranids would also be an OP army when the new Codex is released. It just fits their fluff.

      And no I don't play any of these armies.

      Delete
    19. They should be powerful, fine, but why OP? Make them powerful and expensive. Very elite. That way, it fits the fluff for GK and to an extent, Necrons. Tyrannies should still be a horde army, though.
      Essentially, Tyranids should be able to have ridiculous numbers of models, Necrons should be about average, and GK should be very powerful. I have no problem with the latter having very powerful units, so long as they pay out of the arse for them, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DAMN ARMY IN THE GAME! Having an UNDERCOSTED unit because it is powerful in the fluff makes no sense. The points system in this game exists for a reason. It is there to BALANCE things. If a GK is worth 2.5 bloodletters, that's how much they think it could kill. Having it worth 1.5 (for example) doesn't make any sense, because it is then going to kill more per point than that unit for no good reason.
      That was a bad example. I'll try again. In the fluff, GK are very powerful Space Marines. They have better armour, equipment, and training. Therefore, in game, on a 1:1 model basis, they are more powerful, but they are also more points. This is to balance out the fact that they are more powerful per model than a space marine. Then ideally, on a point to point basis, both the GK and SM squad would be equally powerful. That's why there is a point system. It's there for balance, and intentionally making some things more powerful than others defeats the entire purpose of it.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. You cant judge a unit in this game by its statline. You have to judge it against every other army in the game and in the judging include wargear, most likely choices, allies, synergies (both actual and tactical).

      For Example, a Space Marine from a tactical squad with a Lascannon may be like 25 points, but from a Dev Squad he is more expensive, 35 Points. Same stat line, same weapon. This is because the lascannon in the Tactical squad is not meant to stand still and fire every turn. Another example is 3 hellhounds. Some would say to not field them. I say it might be rough if they are separated from the rest of the unit and they are the primary threat. Having 3 Basilisks in the backdrop and Mortar teams causes the hellhounds to be more point effective because the enemy is getting attacked from two locations, rather than just one location.

      Or maybe I am rambling. Lol.

      Delete
  2. Running an IG blob as allies to Daemons would be a questionable idea. Not only do they get no battle brothers to make the blob strong, but they can get hit by the warp storm table because they're considered enemy units.

    Vendetta is a good idea, however.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah I would think mech up, keep the squishy bits safe from the warp storm

      Delete
    2. Do you have to use warp storm table if the Daemons are the allies?

      Delete
    3. No sir, its just if its your primary detachment

      Delete
    4. I disagree about the Warp Storm affecting non-battle brothers.

      The rules are:

      "Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units [with restrictions]." (RB p112)

      This means that only the *units* in your army consider them as enemies. You, the player, do not, otherwise you would not have permission to actually move or perform any other actions with those units.

      The Warp Storm table results tell you to roll for enemy units (etc). You, as the player, do not consider your AoC as enemies, so you do not roll to hit them unless they happen to have an opposing Mark/Daemon of Chaos rule.

      Delete
  3. Then lets see some synergies between codices. We have the two chaos books come out a few months apart and the written synergies are damn near zero. I'm surprised by GW. This was their chance to up-sell and make you buy two books and they fell flat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. this is so that gw can remove allies when 7th edition is developed.

      Delete
    2. Why would they remove it? If anything they would expand one all armies are on the same page... Allies has the potential to sell more models in such a great way, we are just waiting for that something extra that makes them a more easy choice to make.

      Delete
    3. because its GW.

      this is not the first time 40k had the allies rules.

      Delete
    4. And as far as I know they never removed it either. It was simply left with the defunk Daemon/Witchhunter books. Besides the year lapse in 5th edition to 6th, Allies have been in the game since at least 3rd edition continuously.

      Delete
    5. But only for some armies. It used to be everyone, IIRC but I'll happily stand corrected, and then went away, and now it's back.

      There is absolutely no reason why it can't be removed again.

      Delete
    6. 5th edition only really specific allies,
      6th edition more elaborate allies making people expand and buy new units from other armies,
      7th edition remove allies then everyone has the choice either sell their small allies force or expand it into a proper army making even more gw sales :)

      Delete
    7. Look further back then 5th edition as there use to be things like Kroot Mercenaries.

      Delete
  4. I was working on a tau-dar list ( tau main with elder magic support )
    Lots of re rolls for broadsides and cover saves but I am going to wait till 6th edition codecs come out for both that way I can get a idea of what I can and can't do but if u look at them as allies then there are endless competitive lists

    ReplyDelete
  5. True that... They got rid of allies and then brought them back on crack!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent point. I actually purchased the daemon codex specifically to ally them with C:SM. There may not be a direct synergy, but they can certainly plug holes in either army. Nurgle is especially strong in both codexes and I see a lot of potential with Slaanesh to add a fast component and Khorne for assault (though it's not as strong as I would've hoped).

    Tzeentch comes off as fairly weak though, in both codexes, but maybe someone else is having more luck with the god of magic than I.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think one of the best things coming from codex demon as allies so far is the access to divination for the Tzeench units. Prescience on a forge fiend or obliterators is what CSM were missing.

    The soulgrinder as a cheap skyfire plateform is nice also.

    Cheap troops that can deep strike for chaos is nice since they don't have drop pods.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No synergies? Clearly some of you are not looking close enough to thinking outside the box. Perhaps you were simply running flamer/screamer spam netlists before and now are forced to be original until the next round of tourneys provide you with more tried and true power lists.

    There are codex which some players keep griping about being nerfed, underpowered and dysfunctional, yet inventive players keep winning with them. Tyranid come to mind as the forerunner. I'm sure Daemons will be similar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I concur with your assessment. People need to think outside the box, and look at what combinations of allies would work.

      Delete
    2. Thank god Tyranids can choose allies in 6th edition. Oh wait...

      Delete
    3. That's why I love my store. They allow tyranids to bring IG as allies to represent genestealer cults.

      Delete
    4. @Crow198. Soon, sorta soon, Tyranids will be able to pull from Genestealer Cult armies (so I hope).

      Delete
    5. I'm bouncing some lists around, with Heralds of Tzeentch tossing out divination to CSM.

      Delete
    6. If Daemons are your allied force, you can only bring one Herald... If CSMs are your allies, you're fine in that regard...

      Delete
  9. First thing I did when I got the daemon codex was to grab my CSM codex. After reading through the daemon codex and making notes in various units I made a list of the pros and cons to each one as the primary detachment and as the allied detachment. In the end I went with CSM as primary and daemons as allies. I did this for three reasons with the first being that the winds if chaos is for daemons as the primary detachment. Using them as allies negates this. The second reason was that I wanted the inclusion of 1-2 heldrakes and a CSM biker squad. Taking two to three fast attack meant that CSM had to be the primary. The rhird was rhat i wanted plague marines as a troop choice cHere is a link to the list I made:

    http://thechaosmanifesto.blogspot.ca/2013/03/monday-musings-of-mantic-1750pts-csm.html?m=1

    I went mono Nurgle as I wanted to capitalize on both plague marines and plague bearers being robots troop choices. Cultist fall flat for me as the lack resilience and fear. They are just meat shields that drop like flies. Plague bearers with a herald for FnP are like a fist full of rocks that just will not bleed. I feel that the two codices together work extremely well and my list above demonstrates that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm by no means an expert but your list looks pretty nice.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah allies are wonderful unless you're Dark Eldar or Tyranids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, Eldar for psychic defense and support, with sniper scoring units is just a terrible addition...

      Delete
    2. Yes, I just hate that I have jetbike troops and psychic-def-sup-jetbike-unit. I mean, it is actually terrible only against my enemies... with whom souls I shall feast tonight!

      Delete
    3. And those rerollable 2+ invulnerable saves, why would you ever want those...

      Delete
  12. The Slaanesh psychic power from the CSM and Biomancy power that lower toughness could work well with all the toughness test powers in the new daemon dex.
    Would depend on rolling for the right powers of course but pull it off and you are taking toughness tests against units with -2 T that they have to pass else moves on to next guy. Throw in a Fiend also for -5 I..
    Seems to be quite a lot of synergy in the new codices I agree. Daemons didn't seem like it at first but if you look hard enough you can find some great and nasty combos with CSM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup... Lots of play testing to do... :-)

      Delete
  13. I take the same view on codices that Yahtzee from The Escapist does on games.
    If a game is only good on multi-player and not single player, then it automaticall get a kick in the teeth in the opening of the review.
    If a codex cannot stand on it's own, then it is worthless IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  14. While I think having the possibility of allies is nice, making them mandatory is completely wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't found allies to be mandatory. The codex books stand fine on their own.

      Delete
    2. The codex books stand fine on their own as they are balanced unlike those of 5th edition.

      Delete
    3. I dunno, allies give you an additional 6 force org slots, its always going to give you an advantage, especially considering the fact that most books with durable troops can get cheap ones via allies (though not every book with cheap troops can get durable ones, sad sad deldar)

      The question is whether the HQ tax is worth the added utility.

      Delete
    4. True and with Daemon heralds starting so low it really makes paying that tax an easy proposition. Gets even easier when you consider how a herald can buff a daemon troop choice to a whole new level.

      Delete
  15. My only beef with allies in 6th is the fact that it removes some of the inherent weaknesses that are built in to each Codex while standing alone. I enjoy the challenge of building a balance list and hope that my opponent leaves openings that I can exploit. With allies it makes it easier to build a balanced list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's true to an extent, but I think its also expanded the potential roster of opponents to a point where there isn't a truly balanced list, every list has a weakness to a specific build simply because the variety is bigger now

      Delete
    2. How is this a bad thing? By having more balanced lists the sway of the game will rely on the players skill and strategy over who downloaded the strongest netlist. More diversity on the table top is a good thing.

      Your post essentially says "I build balanced lists and hope my opponent's list has a lot of weaknesses". Personally, I would rather win by my own merit and skill than just what units I wrote down on a piece of paper.

      Delete
    3. Whoa Harley, I don't read or rely on lists off of the net. And yes I do hope that my opponent has chinks in their armour. Do you not believe that preparation lends to successes in everything that one does? My merit and skill starts with intimately knowing my codex and knowing my enemy as well. This is all before the first piece of terrain hits the table.
      I like the idea that certain codices force the player to build, set-up and play in a way that makes you keep your weak points guarded.

      Delete
  16. I mourn the loss of the solo codex. I liked that armies had pros and cons.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Have any of you considered using fateweaver with the grimoire of true names? 2+ Re rollable Invulnerable save yes please.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm looking at the Tyranid codex. It's a single codex. And it's a failure.

    ReplyDelete

 
Top
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...