One small tweak...

[Mr Mystery]

Evening all!

Just a quickie as I wait for me pizza (I can cook, but rubbish day at work so sod it!)

And this thread is for wish listing of a sort, namely adding just one small rule to a given unit which you currently consider to be a bit rubbish. Examples coming up........NOW!

Howling Banshees, specifically Banshee Mask. Added to existing -5 I.... 'Any unit assaulted may not overwatch, as they are temporarily paralysed by the psychic shock'.

Pyrovores. Flame spurt is 8" range Torrent (may well be happening, seeing as their a new book coming!)

And off you go!

[Maelstorm]

Necron Flayed Ones -

Shrouded (-2 Cover)

[DarkLink]

All Grey Knights may exchange their default powers for book powers :).

[Pssyche]

The Wave Serpent to be an Assault Vehicle.

[Eldar_Atog]

Ditto on the howling banshee rule. I've given up using any assault units besides harliquins.


For Dark Eldar:

1) Make the Decapitator special character an independent character that can only join an unit of Mandrakes.

and/or

2) Remove the requirement of a power from pain token to use the Bale Blast ability on the Mandrakes.

[DarkLink]

The Wave Serpent to be an Assault Vehicle.

Like the internal balance of the codex needs to be jacked up any more than it already is.

[Dalleron]

Id rather just give Howling Banshees grenades. You're telling me citizen militia can use them, but not specialized assault CC troopers? What you smoking Mr. Kelly, I want some.

[Eldar_Atog]

Like the internal balance of the codex needs to be jacked up any more than it already is.

Gonna have to agree. The wave serpents are already the strongest transport in the game without another power boost.

[MajorWesJanson]

Eldar:
Wave Serpent- Serpent shield range reduced to 24", may not be twin linked by scatter laser
Howling Banshees- Banshee mask prevents overwatch, remove -5I element.

Nids-
Only Hive Tyrant may roll on Biomancy chart
Pyrovore- flamespurt gains Torrent. Alternate fire mode- flame jet 18" S7 AP1 melta assault 1
Genestealers- treat dangerous terrain as difficult terrain, and difficult terrain as open ground
Doom- remove.

Space Marines-
Chaplain and Librarian may upgrade +1W and +1A for 40 points.
Thunderfire cannon +20 points
Honor Guard- may take a Land Raider as dedicated transport

Daemons-
Flamer chariot gains relentless
Grimore may not improve inv save past 3++

Dark Eldar-
Wyches gain 4++ dodge save vs overwatch fire
Move Razorwing to FA slot
Shadowfield save may not be rerolled

Stronghold Assault-
Remove Aquilla Strongpoint (keep it Apoc only)

BRB-
Vehicles may fire all weapons when moving at combat speed, 1 weapon + snapfire when moving cruising speed, no weapons when moving flat out.

[Katharon]

BRB, Overwatch: If a unit is being charged by multiple units, it can choose to split its Overwatch fire between the two -- to show different parts of the unit responding to threats directly facing the models perspective. If the unit does not split-fire, then it may resolve Overwatch as normal against a single assaulting unit.

IG: Allow Conscripts to be taken as an individual Troop choice and not as part of a Platoon.

BRB, Vehicles: Vehicles may fire non-blast sponson weapons in Overwatch, so long as the assaulting unit is within the sponson weapon's arc of fire.

BRB, Furious Charge: +1 Iniative & +1 Strength on the charge.

BRB, Power Maul (change): [Range] - [Strength] +3 [AP] 3, Unwieldy, Concussive Force

BRB, Power Axe (change): No longer have "Unwieldy".

[DarkLink]

Gonna have to agree. The wave serpents are already the strongest transport in the game without another power boost.

If Falcons had it, though...


Id rather just give Howling Banshees grenades. You're telling me citizen militia can use them, but not specialized assault CC troopers? What you smoking Mr. Kelly, I want some.

Phil Kelly is not the quality codex writer some have made him out to be.


Eldar:
Wave Serpent- Serpent shield range reduced to 24", may not be twin linked by scatter laser


Yes.



Nids-
Only Hive Tyrant may roll on Biomancy chart


Really, they should just remove all references to D3 in the whole Biomancy discipline.



Pyrovore- flamespurt gains Torrent. Alternate fire mode- flame jet 18" S7 AP1 melta assault 1


And put them in pods, if you can't already. And make them cheaper.

[MajorWesJanson]

BRB, Power Maul (change): [Range] - [Strength] +3 [AP] 3, Unwieldy, Concussive Force

BRB, Power Axe (change): No longer have "Unwieldy".

So a Power Maul would be a Thunder Hammer with 1 less Str and 1 Less AP for half the cost?

Axe would be a Power sword with +1 Str and 1 better AP for the same price?

These two changes would make the Power Sword, Spear, and Lightning claw obsolete, and unless you need both high strength and AP2, make the Power fist and Thunderhammer overcosted and redundant. That's just on Marines. On guard, it gets even crazier, with the Maul becoming a guard thunderhammer with 1 less AP for less than the price of a power fist.

[silashand]

Shuriken catapults should have the Destroyer rule. Lasguns should be assault 5, large blast :D

Seriously though, the couple I can think of are:

Serpent shield reduced to 36" range, but loses Ignore Cover and cannot be twin-linked by the Scatter Laser. I don't agree with the 24" range as that is inconsistent with the old Epic ability which is where it came from. 36" is the max range of most Eldar weaponry and should be sufficient if coupled with these restrictions.

Ability to assault out of vehicles if they are stationary.

Go back to the automatic hit if stationary/4+ if it moved/6+ if it moved flat out to hit vehicles. The treating as WS1 is idiotic as is always hitting rear armour. The only time you should hit rear armour automatically is if the vehicle didn't move. You cannot tell me that infantry of any kind can hit a fast skimmer doing 100+ mph across the battlefield reliably in the rear if they attempt to assault it (realistically if it's moving flat out, infantry should not be able to assault it - they'd just end up a brown spot on the countryside if they tried).

Baleflamer reduced to AP4 (there is zero reason for any flamer weapon to be anything better than AP4 IMO)

Vector Strike should not ignore cover (a flying monstrous creature should not be able to automatically catch a supersonic fighter aircraft period, nor should infantry hiding in a ruin or whatever not be able to simply jump aside or hide behind a rock to avoid it - idiot rule).

GoTN limit of 3++

There are others, but those are the ones that annoy me the most at the moment :)

Cheers, Gary

[Vindur]

Death Company Tycho gains IC but my only join Death company.

It probably the tiny one that annoys me the most.

[pgarfunkle]

I'd agree with a previous poster that Furious charge should be returned to +1 I & +1 S. I think this would go some way to improving BA in the current edition

[Lexington]

Not a unit, but it fixes up one of my big pet peeves with 6th:

Characters who refuse a Challenge may fight normally in combat, and their Leadership value may still be used, but their unit suffers a -1 Combat Resolution penalty this round.

Characters may never be forced to issue or refuse challenges; a unit with character currently obligated to issue a challenge in a given round of combat will suffer an additional -1 Combat Resolution penalty on a turn in which the character did not issue a challenge when able (ie. on their own turn, or on a turn where an enemy has failed to issue a challenge).

Bulky and Very Bulky models suffer no penalties for refusing a challenge from a non-Bulky or Very Bulky character. Monstrous Creatures never suffer penalties for refusing or failing to issue a challenge.

[Mr Mystery]

Interesting choice.

The challenge rules are fairly clearly a port in from Warhammer, where a refused challenge results in the character sulking up the back, where he gives no Ld benefit to the unit, and of course can't throw any punches.

I reckon the -1 to combat res isn't enough of a downside, but I do see where you're coming from. I'd say 'fights normally, but casualties caused by that character don't count toward the unit's combat resolution score'.

[Eldar_Atog]

If Falcons had it, though...

I agree... but the idea just rubs me the wrong way. The primary role of the falcon is not supposed to be a transport. There is a lot of stuff that I really like about the Eldar codex but watching the wave serpent become a stronger gun platform than the falcon has not been easy.

[Dread Corsair]

For BRB tweaks was never a fan of the new wound allocation rules seems to significantly slow down the game. 5th edition wound allocation was okay but really just prefer 3rd and 4th edition style where the owning player just removed what they want. Also eliminates the finicky placement of your models I get some people might find that a more tactical part of the game but it doesn't sit well with me.

[DarkLink]

I agree. Though then some models didn't get their saves. If 5th ed wound allocation had been divvied up by saves rather than unique wargear, I think that would be perfect.

[Kyban]

Stop letting Phil Kelly write rules.

[This Dave]

It may not be a minor tweak but I would love to see Twin-Linked weapons actually be two separate weapons firing but still counting as one for damage results and such. This would make things like TL Shuriken Catapults useful and the TL Lascannons on a standard Land Raider dangerous tank killers.

[Katharon]

Stop letting Phil Kelly write rules.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/43871170.jpg


Phil Kelly is, by far, one of the best rule writers at Games Workshop. Let me guess, you must like Matt Ward?

[DarkLink]

Phil Kelly is a terrible codex writer. Literally every single codex he has ever written in 40k, including the much vaunted Dark Eldar, inevitably devolved into monobuild lists. Typically, as is the case with Space Wolves and Eldar, the new codex becomes the new OP spammed lists that everyone hates to play against. Rarely, as is the case with CSM, it's the list that everyone, including CSM players, hate, because not only is it massively imbalanced in certain ways externally, but it so massively misrepresents what the army should be (e.g. actual Chaos Marines, rather than Heldrakes+Cultists+Bel'akor) that the bandwagoners are annoyed at the absolutely atrocious internal balance.

Matt Ward, in fact, actually does a pretty good job with internal balance, and with the exception of Grey Knights has done a good job with external balance as well. And the problem with Grey Knights was not the codex itself, but several fundamental flaws with 5th edition (abusable wound allocation buffed Draigowing, and broken vehicle rules led to the abundance of light vehicle spam, which Grey Knights can do better than everyone else). Once those two issues were fixed with 6th, GKs became a mid-level codex at best.

Not to mention, how many times has Phil Kelly introduced a rerollable 2++? Anyone who is not only incompetent enough to introduce it once, but in multiple units across multiple codices, is unworthy of any praise.

[Katharon]

Phil Kelly is a terrible codex writer. Literally every single codex he has ever written in 40k, including the much vaunted Dark Eldar, inevitably devolved into monobuild lists. Typically, as is the case with Space Wolves and Eldar, the new codex becomes the new OP spammed lists that everyone hates to play against. Rarely, as is the case with CSM, it's the list that everyone, including CSM players, hate, because not only is it massively imbalanced in certain ways externally, but it so massively misrepresents what the army should be (e.g. actual Chaos Marines, rather than Heldrakes+Cultists+Bel'akor) that the bandwagoners are annoyed at the absolutely atrocious internal balance.

Matt Ward, in fact, actually does a pretty good job with internal balance, and with the exception of Grey Knights has done a good job with external balance as well. And the problem with Grey Knights was not the codex itself, but several fundamental flaws with 5th edition (abusable wound allocation buffed Draigowing, and broken vehicle rules led to the abundance of light vehicle spam, which Grey Knights can do better than everyone else). Once those two issues were fixed with 6th, GKs became a mid-level codex at best.

Not to mention, how many times has Phil Kelly introduced a rerollable 2++? Anyone who is not only incompetent enough to introduce it once, but in multiple units across multiple codices, is unworthy of any praise.

Everything you just said is based on net-listing and power-gaming. In other word, PLAYERS. Players who take the codex written and intended by a guy who always plays the game for enjoyment and fluff. The first thing net-list lovers do when a new codex comes out is to find every exploitable point in the codex to make the next "lulz awesome-insta-win" tournament list. Phil Kelly put a Viking saga into the Space Wolf codex, that's pretty darned awesome.

Matt Ward on the other hand is the number one malefactor in the trend of codex creep. Each codex he wrote, from 5th Edition Space Marines to Grey Knights, was progressively more powerful and broken than the last -- by itself, without power-gamers even needing to look for power-combos.

Don't blame Kelly for the actions of players who purposefully twisted his army books until they wrung out some uber-list. Matt Ward on the other hand I do blame. I restarted Warhammer 40K after leaving behind 2nd Edition, coming back into the fold about mid-way through 5th. I picked up Vanilla Marines because I'd had a SM army back in 2nd. I was shocked by how strong they had become. When I saw Blood Angels come out my jaw was on the floor. By the time Grey Knights was released, I just gave up hope. The codex creep was in full power mode. Because of the overpowered combinations and certain special characters, I refused to take certain lists when playing my SM army. I wanted to have fun and actually have to use my brain to make tactical decisions -- not rely on an auto-win of any kind.

Grey Knights still have a stupidly strong codex, even in 6th. They're one of the only armies that can put 72 lascannon onto the board at the same time. They have monsterous creatures that can teleport around the board. They have a way of adding +1 strength to nearly every kind of ranged attack. There are so many different ways to make an overpowered GK list. The only reason you don't see much of them anymore is because most tournament players are also net-listers. They listen to the BS being played out around the net for the "best l33t" build for an army and the combinations that break an army list (referencing your 2++ reroll). Majority of tournament goers no longer build a list themselves, they just copy paste the best they can find (or if they think is the best) on the net.

[DarkLink]

...

Ok, gimme a bit, I'm trying to think of a way to respond to that without sounding rude.

[Katharon]

...

Ok, gimme a bit, I'm trying to think of a way to respond to that without sounding rude.

It's OK. I know that my argument is not perfect, just like I don't believe that Kelly is perfect. I simply make my opinion based on what I observe and use critical analysis. Kelly is not perfect, but he is certainly one of the best GW has.

[Demonus]

No issues with Phil Kelly other than the CSM Codex which feels like he half assed his way through.

As far as "tweaks", Id change Serpent Shield range to 36" and drop the +1, keep it d6 shots. Change some point costs here and there (Vallkyrie, etc). Disallow tau from allying with farsight (why have the restriction if you can just ally in?), not allow riptides their cheesey wargear bought "unit" status so they can add IC, etc.

[DarkLink]

Got dragged away by a game of cards.

Yeah, same for me with Matt Ward. I don't think any of the GW writers are particularly good. I happen to prefer Ward's rules overall, and I don't think Phil Kelly is the worst. He's at least consistant. Robin Cruddance is pretty hit or miss, Vetock is new to 40k so I don't really know him too well, and a lot of the older guys are... not so great.

And just to clarify, I'm referring specifically to rules alone. Fluff is a totally different story, and a much more subjective one. Some people despite Draigo, I think he's pretty funny, and very appropriate for 40k's blatant over the top-ness.

But as for the rules, I'll address Grey Knights first:


They're one of the only armies that can put 72 lascannon onto the board at the same time.

Jokaero aren't particularly good. They're immobile, fragile, with poor BS and Ld. I've heard of this list before, and I'm personally not impressed by it, and I've never actually seen anyone run a single Jokaero let alone 72, so I'm not really too concerned. Henchmen are useful, but other than the old Death Cult Assassin assault deathstar thing in 5th (which doesn't really work anymore) they're not particularly powerful. The DCA unit of death was super nasty in 5th, where you could hide cheap units in Razorbacks or Chimeras and assault out of them when your opponent got close and then just murder everything in assault, but that doesn't work in 6th for obvious reasons. Now, DCA are good, but you need a Land Raider or Raven to deliver them and they lack grenades and are only AP3 so they're not nearly as scary.



They have monsterous creatures that can teleport around the board.

Dreadknights are fairly nasty, but they're straight up outclassed by the Riptide and Wraithknight. Granted, the Dreadknight will kill both of them one-on-one in assault, but overall the Dreadknight is just too expensive for being so relatively fragile. T6, 4W, and a 5++ doesn't cut it for a nearly 300pt model. Most armies can bolter them to death, and that's not counting the plethora of grav guns, ion cannons, and massed str 6/7 firepower that Tau and Eldar can bring. They're not bad, but they're just outclassed by so much stuff out there.



They have a way of adding +1 strength to nearly every kind of ranged attack.

They still get outshot and outranged by Tau and Dark Eldar and Eldar and IG. They have very good medium ranged anti-infantry, yes, but they have no long range shooting outside of Psyrifle Dreadnoughts (which are good mainly against light vehicles, but that's not what anyone plays anymore, other than Serpent Spam and DE).



There are so many different ways to make an overpowered GK list.

This is actually the good thing about the GK codex. That is, the 'so many different ways' part, not the overpowered part. Which they aren't, not any more. Regardless, virtually every single unit in the book is solid. A few of the Inquisitorial options (assassins, non-Coteaz special characters) are terrible, and Brother Captains, Techmarines, and Brotherhood Champions are pretty crappy, but everything else is a viable options. Except Crowe. **** Crowe. That there is terrible design. But everything else is very good. You can literally randomly pick units from the codex and toss them together at a whim, and out pops a pretty decent army with relatively little tweaking. That is phenomenal codex design. The GK codex has extremely good internal balance.

However, multiple armies hard counter GKs. Which armies exactly depends on what type of GK list you're running. DE, Eldar, Tau, IG, and Daemons can all give GKs an extremely hard time. GKs can deal with all of those armies, but it's impossible to take an all-comers list that will deal with each of them. Draigowing and Land Raiders are the answer to Eldar and Tau, but are pretty bad against Daemons and DE, for example.



The only reason you don't see much of them anymore is because most tournament players are also net-listers.They listen to the BS being played out around the net for the "best l33t" build for an army and the combinations that break an army list (referencing your 2++ reroll).

Some tournament players are netlisters. But there are plenty of non-adoption cases out there. If GKs were still the most OP codex, they would still have a significant following. CSM, for example, is a pretty new codex, but they basically only have the Heldrake and Daemon Prince, so no one actually uses them except as occasional allies. Meanwhile, the legitimacy powerful Tau and Eldar books have people flocking to them.



Majority of tournament goers no longer build a list themselves, they just copy paste the best they can find (or if they think is the best) on the net.

I'd give the majority of tournament players more credit than that.

[Da Gargoyle]

I support DarkLink on the issue of Phil Kelly. He has no affinity for the races he does the codex for and does not seem to allow for the fluff or the unit function when designing rules. For example, in Codex Eldar, taking Counter Attack from the Banshee and giving it to Dire Avengers is astounding. Which one would logically be attuned to close combat, the close combat team or the fire fight team.

In the Ork Codex he annihilated the Ork Bikers. Psycho blasters was a compensation rule, he removed it but left the half range penalty and then ruduced the number of shots from three to two on the Dakkaguns. Lootas don't actually use looted weapons and what is the point of Mob Rule when a mob can't have more than 10 boys in it?

That said my tweak would be in the Eldar codex. If you want people to spend an extra 35 points for a special character whose contribution is a psychic power, then at least let the Warlock counsel roll for their powers before hiving off individuals to units. I mean how stupid would a command team look if it allocates a Warlock with a CC skill to a Artillery unit while it retains a strong defensive trait i.e. Potect/Jinx.

[Deadlift]

Rules aside, The Ork codex is one of the most enjoyable codexes to read. It's very funny.

[DarkLink]

As for Phil Kelly's track record, the reason why netlisters latch onto his books so rapidly is because they have terrible internal balance. It's easy to take one quick glance at them and say 'ok, Rune Priests are the best HQ, Grey Hunters in Drop Pods are awesome, Long Fangs are awesome, and Thunderwolf Cavalry with a Thunderwolf Lord is pretty rough, too'. Bam, instant netlist. Same thing with current Eldar. 'Wow, Wraithknights, Wave Serpents, Farseers, and Seer Councils are better than everything else in the codex'. Bam, netlist. CSM? 'Heldrakes murder mechanized Marines'. Daemons? "FMCs, Flesh Hounds, and the Screamerstar'. Old Eldar? Eldrad, Falcons, Harlequins, Fire Dragons. Dark Eldar? Venoms, the Baron, and Ravagers.

In every single one of his books, you can look at any give force org slot and quickly determine which unit is the best. He always has one unit in each FOC that is pretty blatantly better than the other units in that slot. Occasionally two units with share the top spot. The only exception to this rule is the Eldar troops section, where Guardians, Jetbikes, and Dire Avengers are all pretty equal, depending on your purposes.

That's not to say that the other units are necessarily terrible. They're just completely overshadowed. Why would you ever take a Predator when you could take Long Fangs instead? Why would you ever take

Most netlists come from Phil Kelly's book because they have very poor internal balance. That's something not present in, say, the GK codex. There were a multitude of different builds you could be competitive with at the height of their power. Purifier spam, Acolyte spam, Draigowing, Razorback spam, Psyrifle Dreadnought spam, etc, and to top it off you could even mix and match elements between those different archetypes. But all of Phil Kelly's books always boil down to one or two netlists. If you want to take a big hit competitively, you can swap out some stuff for the less competitive units while still doing alright, but you still have to keep some of the cheese. And if you avoid the netlist units, then good luck winning any games. Anyone going to a tournament is forced to use a netlist, simply because it's the only option available if you want to actually, y'know, compete. Even the more casual tournament players (which really, that describes the vast majority of tournament players) are still trying to win. With a GK style book, however, you can take basically whatever you want and still have a solid shot at winning.

TLDR; Phil Kelly has terrible internal balance. Matt Ward has, generally, pretty good internal balance, with the GK codex as his best in that regard, and Vulkan his one major failure. All of GW's writers have pretty terrible external balance, though I would still rank Matt Ward higher than Phil Kelly. Ward's only real standout was the GK codex, the rest of his stuff has been pretty well balanced overall.




For reference, internal balance is the in-codex options available to the player. Good internal balance means that all the units are roughly equally good, and you can take any given unit without worrying about how competitive it will be. Poor internal balance means that if you pick certain units, you win, if you pick anything but those units, you lose.

External balance is the balance between different codices. If a small number of books are head and shoulders above everyone else (Tau/Eldar/Daemons at the moment, GK, IG, and Space Wolves at the end of 5th edition), and/or if there are a few books that lag significantly behind everything else that's out there (Daemonhunters/3rd ed Necrons back in 5th, Nidz/Orks now) there is poor external balance. If you can take any army to competitive game and win on skill alone rather than your list, that's good external balance (e.g. the Warmachine tournament where every single faction was represented in the top 16 of a very large tournament, and no one army had more than 3 in the top 16, and the worst faction in the game took 2nd place).

It's possible to have good internal balance but poor external balance (GKs at the end of 5th, with outstanding internal balance but poor external balance, again due to the prominence of light vehicle spam and wound allocation shenanigans), and vise versa with good external balance but poor internal balance.



Edit:
Also, yes, the Ork codex is hilarious. I won't fault Phil Kelly for his fluff. Though I honestly don't read much of the codex fluff.

[eldargal]

Phil Kelly makes books that are interesting to play, Wards tend to trend towards tedium (both to play with and against) though he has improved dramatically recently. However they are both good writers, the trouble is people focus on the relatively few things each writer does poorly in their books and extrapolate it into some kind of overarching issue of competence. Banshees are terrible certainly and have really hurt my enthusiasm for Eldar but to argue that his books devolve into mono-builds is just wrong.

When I get a Phil Kelly book I know it going to be full of fun, lore friendly goodness even if the internal balance is a little wonky. When it comes to Ward I expect solid balance but a little dry and dull to play. In fairness I would say Ward has made dramatic improvements while Kelly has remained much the same, which you prefer comes down to preference. I do strongly disagree that there is always one unit per FOC slot in a Kelly book that is objectively superior, that is just nonsense. There is usually one choice which is easiest to use and people latch onto it (Trueborn, for example) and declare the others to be worse but that is simply not the case. Hellions vs Reavers, Trueborn vs Bloodbrides vs Haemonculi things etc, it all comes down to personal preferences.

[DarkLink]

Competitively they devolve into monobuilds. Like I said, there are other decent units in the codex, but there are a limited number of units that are blatantly better than everything else, which you can use to make the latest netlist. That's true of all of his books, including Eldar and even Dark Eldar. Even ask a guy like Reece from Frontline Gaming (who's been playing Eldar for many, many years) who has a habit of taking unusual combinations of non-typical units and making them competitive despite conventional wisdom, and even he will say "holy crap, Wave Serpents are just sooooo good".

Now, you can take a poorly balanced codex, show restraint, write a non-netlist, and have a fun game. That's true of both Phil Kelly, Mat Ward, and any other codex author out there. And if you play in that sort of environment, then more units become viable, and the more the illusion of balance appears.

The problem is, not everyone plays like that, especially in larger gaming groups where you don't have a tight little group of friends. That's when Phil Kelly's flaws start to appear, and his books just fall apart. Nowadays with the GK codex, though, it doesn't matter whether you play casually or competitively, you can pretty much take whatever you want and have a solid, mid-level army. With my Eldar, though, which I designed to be competitive, half the time I'll get into a game and see that I massively outclass my opponent, so I intentionally play stupid for a few turns so I don't just steamroller them. Then when I feel like I've let them kill enough of my stuff that it will be a more even game, I start playing seriously. That doesn't happen with my GKs, at least not since 6th started.

So while you might be fortunate enough to play in a particular group where poorly balanced units don't matter, you're lucky. You're in kind of a special niche. But a lot of people get screwed over because of Serpent spam, Seer Council, Warp Spiders, and Wraithknights.

[Kyban]

Phil Kelly makes books that are interesting to play, Wards tend to trend towards tedium (both to play with and against) though he has improved dramatically recently. However they are both good writers, the trouble is people focus on the relatively few things each writer does poorly in their books and extrapolate it into some kind of overarching issue of competence. Banshees are terrible certainly and have really hurt my enthusiasm for Eldar but to argue that his books devolve into mono-builds is just wrong.

When I get a Phil Kelly book I know it going to be full of fun, lore friendly goodness even if the internal balance is a little wonky. When it comes to Ward I expect solid balance but a little dry and dull to play. In fairness I would say Ward has made dramatic improvements while Kelly has remained much the same, which you prefer comes down to preference. I do strongly disagree that there is always one unit per FOC slot in a Kelly book that is objectively superior, that is just nonsense. There is usually one choice which is easiest to use and people latch onto it (Trueborn, for example) and declare the others to be worse but that is simply not the case. Hellions vs Reavers, Trueborn vs Bloodbrides vs Haemonculi things etc, it all comes down to personal preferences.

I'm not so sure. I like Kelly's older books, they all seemed pretty good but the last three have been terrible. The new Eldar book didn't seem very lore friendly at all and those three books are responsible for most of the units that people despise playing against now. Both writers have some failings but I've just been really disappointed with Kelly's rules recently, especially as Eldar are my favorites but I haven't been playing them recently because of the codex. Kelly's not the only one who failed them recently though...

[eldargal]

Competitively they devolve into monobuilds. Like I said, there are other decent units in the codex, but there are a limited number of units that are blatantly better than everything else, which you can use to make the latest netlist. That's true of all of his books, including Eldar and even Dark Eldar. Even ask a guy like Reece from Frontline Gaming (who's been playing Eldar for many, many years) who has a habit of taking unusual combinations of non-typical units and making them competitive despite conventional wisdom, and even he will say "holy crap, Wave Serpents are just sooooo good".

Now, you can take a poorly balanced codex, show restraint, write a non-netlist, and have a fun game. That's true of both Phil Kelly, Mat Ward, and any other codex author out there. And if you play in that sort of environment, then more units become viable, and the more the illusion of balance appears.

The problem is, not everyone plays like that, especially in larger gaming groups where you don't have a tight little group of friends. That's when Phil Kelly's flaws start to appear, and his books just fall apart. Nowadays with the GK codex, though, it doesn't matter whether you play casually or competitively, you can pretty much take whatever you want and have a solid, mid-level army. With my Eldar, though, which I designed to be competitive, half the time I'll get into a game and see that I massively outclass my opponent, so I intentionally play stupid for a few turns so I don't just steamroller them. Then when I feel like I've let them kill enough of my stuff that it will be a more even game, I start playing seriously. That doesn't happen with my GKs, at least not since 6th started.

So while you might be fortunate enough to play in a particular group where poorly balanced units don't matter, you're lucky. You're in kind of a special niche. But a lot of people get screwed over because of Serpent spam, Seer Council, Warp Spiders, and Wraithknights.

Sorry but that's just nonsense.

Competitively everyhing is ****ed up because the rules aren't intended for competitive play, so no ****s given to be honest. Even then it's just not true that his books devolve into monobuilds, it's just the netlist culture says they do. Wave serpents are good, but then as the onl dedicated transport in the book they aren't exactly facing much competition in their FOC slot are they? Let's go through the FOC excluding HQ and pick out all the competitive units:
Elite:
Fire Dragons
Striking Scorpions
Wraithguard/blades

Troops:
Jetbikes
Dire Avengers
Rangers

Fast Attack:
Warp Spiders
Shining Spears
Crimson Hunters

Heavy Support:
Wraithknight
Fire Prism
Wraithlords
Dark Reapers
War Walkers

People may have a favourite from each category but in my experience the preference is purely down to playstyle and meta, NOT a fault in the rules.

You can't turn around and say 'not everyone plays like that' when you are referring the the vast majority of players who do not play competitively, even if you accept the monobuild argument is something other than bollocks.

I'm not saying his books don't have faults, I'm saying that acting like his books are terrible when you prefer a different style is just stupid. His book may tend to be a bit unbalanced in some ways but they are at least interesting, Ward struggles to get his to be something other than boring. I don't even bother playing GK anymore because it's just boring. His newer books are better. All this is personal preference really

I won't deny the Eldar book is a bit disappointing in some ways though. But it's still a solid, reasonably well balanced book.


I'm not so sure. I like Kelly's older books, they all seemed pretty good but the last three have been terrible. The new Eldar book didn't seem very lore friendly at all and those three books are responsible for most of the units that people despise playing against now. Both writers have some failings but I've just been really disappointed with Kelly's rules recently, especially as Eldar are my favorites but I haven't been playing them recently because of the codex. Kelly's not the only one who failed them recently though...

Fair enough, I'm not saying he is perfect. I'm just saying people have a tendency to overstate their least favourite writers faults and understate their favourite authors faults. Ward gets the worst of it though. What most of it boils down to is a few questionable choices and a whole lot of personal preferences that people seem to think are objective.


It's rather amusing to me that I'm in the position of defending Codex: Eldar because in many ways I was quite disappointed with it, though most of those ways are related to Howling Banshees. It really killed my enthusiasm in spite of the new kits so while I've been collecting new fighter wings and a small horde of ghost warriors 4 out of 5 games I play are with Dark Eldar and I'm playing WFB more than 40k (mostly Vampire Counts, another Kelly book).

[Wolfshade]

People may have a favourite from each category but in my experience the preference is purely down to playstyle and meta, NOT a fault in the rules.
I would agree and go a little further. Many units are not taken because they are seen as uncompetative, and because of the advent of the netlist, people copy and paste a list and then gain experiance with said list playing in a certain style. So units that then fall outside of that style of play are then seen not to be as good as people do not use them effectively and moreover do not have enough game time to make it competative.

A perfect example is my brother-in-law's tyranids, he has been playing since the dawn of 40k, and as a conseuqnce has a long history of playing many many games with a variety of very different builds, consequently he can field a nid army that works together in synergy but each time being radically different, from a shooting list to a gribbly lsit to a monsterous creature list. By knowing the army inside and out he knows how each unit can be used and how they can be used together in ways that a rather one-dimensional (and easy to learn) list may not.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup. Plus, netlisting usually ends up with those dependant on them not really knowing why the stuff they're fielding is superior to the rest. It's just sort of taken as read.

Though don't get me wrong. If someone wants to netlist, there's nowt wrong with that. Horses for courses and to each their own. Your hobby is no more my hobby than my hobby is your hobby.

[Wolfshade]

Oh certainly, a net list can be a good way to get into an army and to quickly get up to speed with it.

[Eldar_Atog]

An observation about the Kelly/Ward debate:

I would say that you can't blame either of them for codex creep. They are not hiding in their offices cackling over their next broken codex. What is more likely is that they are given their marching orders from the brass about which units they want to see pushed and which should be shelved. The codex writer then comes up with a set of rules that encourages the buying behavior that the company brass wants.

[DarkLink]

Right. I'm not really trying to say that Ward is a better writer than Kelly, because frankly both of them are pretty crappy. But Ward at least has pretty good internal balance.

But I think you guys have an overly inflated opinion of the popularity of netlists. From the sound of it, I would expect 3++ is the new black to just post straight armylists, two or three per codex, and then I would see those exact lists at all the tournaments I go to or something.

It's true there are a lot of bandwagoners out there that go with the latest craze. But if a netlist doesn't deliver some advantage, then it doesn't become a netlist in the first place. I mean, going by the internet when the Eldar codex just came out, Wraithknights were the worst thing ever. I swear, Reece and I were two of the only people claiming they would be great. Now, 1-3 is the competitive standard.

Part of the issue is that you can't look at a unit in a vacuum. There are a lot of units out there that aren't bad, but they are the solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and thus are dead weight competitively. When Phil Kelly introduces the Seer Council and Wave Serpents to the game, a lot of otherwise decent units just became invalidated.

Now, you might be lucky enough to live and play in an area where a particular meta problem doesn't exist, but don't mistake that for the complete lack of a problem. And it's a really big deal for those of us who like to go to tournaments, not just to compete but to get in a bunch of games with a bunch of people from all over the place. With Wave Serpents and Seer Councils showing up frequently enough, it really starts to put a damper on how much we enjoy the game.

We are a little more sensitive to balance issues than your average garage gamer, I suppose. For us tournament players, there is a finer margin between good, great, mediocre, bad, and terrible units. I get that GW has an irrational aversion to competitive gameplay, but that's a cop-out on their part. There is no reason, aside from sheer profitability, they can't take a more active role in improving the quality of their rules. Quality, balanced rules and fun beer-games are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, in fact, I've seen plenty of games dragged down by rules arguments or imbalanced armies. In fact, tournament players tend to have fewer problems with OP rules, because they focus on ways to beat that unit. I had a winning record with Daemonhunters, the worst codex in the game, back in 5th. The point is, tournaments and netlists highlight balance issues, and the response to that shouldn't be 'aw, those dirty tournament players are at it again'. I, for one, find it more than a little frustrating when people dismiss my opinions with "yeah, but you're one of those competitive players, you're not playing the game correctly, no wonder you have problems".

So if you take a step back and ask 'what cheesy stuff is out there' for any given point in time in 40k for the last like 5 years, honestly, with the exception of the IG and GK codices, most of it points back to Phil Kelly. As a result, I, and a lot of people I know, are not so respectful of his ability to write quality rules.

[Katharon]

Darklink, let me just say that I don't take you for a snob or elitist or anything...but that post had so much snobbishness in it that I was a bit shocked. Especially the "we are a little more sensitive to balance issues than your average garage gamer."


So if you take a step back and ask 'what cheesy stuff is out there' for any given point in time in 40k for the last like 5 years, honestly, with the exception of the IG and GK codices, most of it points back to Phil Kelly. As a result, I, and a lot of people I know, are not so respectful of his ability to write quality rules.

5th Edition Codicies that were broken
Space Marines
Blood Angels
Grey Knights
Necrons

[Katharon]

An observation about the Kelly/Ward debate:

I would say that you can't blame either of them for codex creep. They are not hiding in their offices cackling over their next broken codex. What is more likely is that they are given their marching orders from the brass about which units they want to see pushed and which should be shelved. The codex writer then comes up with a set of rules that encourages the buying behavior that the company brass wants.

Since we don't know for sure about the rule writing process, or whether or not Ward and Kelly have an editor that they have to report to to have their drafts checked for suitability -- everything we think of is just going to be conjecture. I'm not saying you're wrong, some of it I believe does stem from higher paygrades giving orders to the game writers based on economics, but that is not the whole story.

[DarkLink]

Not how I intended to come off. My bad. I didn't use casual gamer because honestly, most tournament players are casual players, so it's not that much of a distinction. I guess FLGS player? I dunno. I just want to express that the meta is important for determining how "good" a unit is, or how "balanced" a codex is, and that I find it kind of frustrating when people handwave stuff with "only netlisters care about that".

While Blood Angels and Space Marines where pretty popular, and fairly solid armies, Space Marines never really had anything broken (except Vulkan was a little too good, and THSS Terminators practically carried that codex for a while, but it was a solid mid-tier codex), and Blood Angels weren't too far off in power either. Their only really super competitive build was Razorback spam, but that was endemic of 5th edition as a whole, not centered on any one codex.

[Katharon]

While Blood Angels and Space Marines where pretty popular, and fairly solid armies, Space Marines never really had anything broken (except Vulkan was a little too good, and THSS Terminators practically carried that codex for a while, but it was a solid mid-tier codex), and Blood Angels weren't too far off in power either. Their only really super competitive build was Razorback spam, but that was endemic of 5th edition as a whole, not centered on any one codex.

You kidding me? Calgar was an auto-include and cheap. Calgar in his termie armor matched with Lyzander and a ten-made Squad of terminators with TH&SS was one of the scariest deathstars of the SM 5th edition codex. They never suffered from the problems in 5th about being Fearless, since Calgar's abilities made any unit immune to Morale checks.

Tigurius was horrifically imbalanced, so long as you could keep him alive -- which was always why you stuck him with a group of meatshields. His abilities were profoundly strong -- only matched by Eldrad or Mephiston.

There were a lot of pricing issues with the codex as well, some things too cheap (and too expensive) in points. But most of that was all settled with the 6th edition codex.

[DarkLink]

That's... certainly something I've never seen before. But THSS Terminators have always suffered from a massive vulnerability to getting shot to death before reaching combat.

[Eldar_Atog]

Since we don't know for sure about the rule writing process, or whether or not Ward and Kelly have an editor that they have to report to to have their drafts checked for suitability -- everything we think of is just going to be conjecture. I'm not saying you're wrong, some of it I believe does stem from higher paygrades giving orders to the game writers based on economics, but that is not the whole story.

Yeah, my theory is conjecture. I just wanted to interject that putting the blame on the codex author is a little unfair. Just can't see GW allowing the writer/sculptor to determine what is going to be popular purchase.

[Learn2Eel]

Darklink, let me just say that I don't take you for a snob or elitist or anything...but that post had so much snobbishness in it that I was a bit shocked. Especially the "we are a little more sensitive to balance issues than your average garage gamer."



5th Edition Codicies that were broken
Space Marines
Blood Angels
Grey Knights
Necrons

Umm, what? Space Marines and Blood Angels were mid-tier at best, maybe *maybe* lowest high-tier. Your list should replace Space Marines and Blood Angels with Imperial Guard and Space Wolves.


You kidding me? Calgar was an auto-include and cheap. Calgar in his termie armor matched with Lyzander and a ten-made Squad of terminators with TH&SS was one of the scariest deathstars of the SM 5th edition codex. They never suffered from the problems in 5th about being Fearless, since Calgar's abilities made any unit immune to Morale checks.

Tigurius was horrifically imbalanced, so long as you could keep him alive -- which was always why you stuck him with a group of meatshields. His abilities were profoundly strong -- only matched by Eldrad or Mephiston.

There were a lot of pricing issues with the codex as well, some things too cheap (and too expensive) in points. But most of that was all settled with the 6th edition codex.

Calgar was never an 'auto-include' simply because Combat Tactics and a focus on kill points rather than objectives reduced the value of his ability, though I'll agree that Lysander was definitely too cheap for his abilities. Tigurius however, the guy was just over-costed like crazy. It wasn't even a matter of survivability, there was just no reason to ever take Tigurius over an Epistolary who could take the two powers that were actually good anyway (the chief one being Null Zone, the other to taste based on army list). Comparing him to 4th Edition Eldrad and 5th Edition Mephiston is, well, mind-boggling, really. Not to be rude, but 4th Edition Eldrad and 5th Edition Mephiston are 2x the characters 5th Edition Tigurius *ever* was. Eldrad dominated both sides' psychic usage and alone could make an entire Eldar death-star function, not to mention all the other benefits he provided. He was an under-costed lynch-pin that was practically essential to competitive armies. Mephiston was a true combat monster that, despite his inability to join units, was still dominant in the 5th Edition meta because of its heavier focus on S8 AP3 spam. That and he was fast as hell, ignored all armour (rather than now being AP3) and could reliably deal with units such as the Swarmlord who, at the time, didn't have access to Biomancy powers.

5th Edition Space Marines was, at the time, a relative hallmark of game balance. Until the 6th Edition book came out, it was still used as the metric by which other newer codices were measured against, proving that it was of the highest quality. Chaos Space Marines introduced a lot of cost changes to fit into 6th Edition, and 6th Edition Space Marines refined on those changes to better suit the Tau/Eldar/Daemon-dominated 6th Edition meta. Referring to it as "broken" is about the oddest thing I have ever heard.

I don't particularly love or hate any of the codex authors really, save that I've found Cruddace to be my "least favoured". His books rarely hit the sweet spot for balance; Imperial Guard were horrendous in terms of internal balance; Tyranids were, well, horrendous; Tomb Kings remain an under-powered and punishing army with only one or two truly competitive builds, and Warriors of Chaos brought unkillable characters back into 8th Edition (Dark Elf ones and so on were subsequently dissolved/neutered) plus stupidly costed units and over-powered monstrous cavalry. It was why I was so surprised to see him not only write the 6th Edition Space Marine book, but arguably better Ward's incarnation. His work seems to have improved out of sight if the Space Marine codex is any measure.

As far as Ward and Kelly go, both get a lot of undeserved criticism honestly, especially Ward. Ward is the 'easy target'. 7th Daemons, 5th Grey Knights and 5th Necrons have all been over-powered to some degree - though if Grey Knights were written for 6th then they really shouldn't count - but most of his other books, while having controversial fluff, have been very good in terms of internal balance. He was the one I hoped for most of all to write the new Tyranid codex simply because his internal balance is easily the best of any codex author, and that is everyone's major issue with 5th Tyranids. His High Elves and Dark Elves army books have been some of the best works in recent memory by any GW author, so kudos to him for that. I love Kelly's Eldar codex, and his codices tend to be the most flavourful.