120 replies to this topic

[Something Wycked]

having a competitively weak codex

While I would prefer the tone of your post be a bit lighter, M2C, I agree. And their competitiveness is easily debatable.

I did some research, and Chaos wins a fair amount of tourneys. To sum up, from January 2010 to February 2011, Chaos placed in the top 3 spots at tournaments 11.7% of the time, as recorded in official results on GW's website, tied with Orks and behind only IG and all varieties of Space Marines added together, which skews the numbers in favor of all varieties of Loyalist Marines.

So the Chaos codex, as much as some people like to claim that it isn't competitive, is.

But I'll totally give them that their codex is bland. It feels like Codex: Renegades, not Codex: Chaos Space Marines. If for nothing else Chaos deserves a Codex update that fixes the flavor of how they play.

[rpnightsend]

Sorry, and yes I agree with that. Did my phrasing cause confusion?

[bushman101]

nevermind. my comment is off topic.

Edited by bushman101, 24 January 2012 - 03:26 AM.

[bannus]

Alright folks, looks like the topic went on a very bad tangent. I have removed the posts. Let's stick to the topic.

[ShadowHaunt]

I think what some people are missing, is that there is a certain frustration to selecting a force to play because you very much enjoy the backstory and theme, only to find out that when you put that army on the table, there's no option to represent that army's theme, even just a little bit. That's not to say every part of a Chapter's theme needs to be backed by rules, but some Chapters are quite simply left in the cold. Iron Hands have nothing, and are arguably more deviant from the Codex than BA. Raven Guard are repeatedly referred to as master saboteurs, infiltrators, and experts at drop pod assaults, but BA's do pods better, and the only way to infiltrate anything other than scouts is with a SC, who only lets you infiltrate one unit. Aurora Chapter is known for their tanks, and there's no way at all in the codex to take more tanks, or upgrade them in any way.

I know that fluff won't always match the table, and I don't expect every facet of a Chapter to be reflected in special rules. That would be insanity. But it wouldn't really be all that difficult to have, say, a list of army-wide special rules that could be included in the list for a points cost, to allow for customizing a list more effectively. I don't want to get scatter-proof drop pods automatically, just because I paint my marines black, and give them beaky helmets. But, if you told me I could pay 50 points to allow my pods to apply their BS to their scatter dice, I'd be all over that for my Raven Guard list.

[11th Company Dark Master]

I started 40k in 4th edition with the Space Marine codex, using the traits to work on my DiY Chapter (then called the Shadow Guard). As soon as the Dark Angel codex came out I decided that I wanted it, not for power but for flavour. I mean, the idea of warrior-monks and a secret mission was just amazing and my Chapter became the Angels of Shadow.

Thus begins my story of woe. I had less than a year to learn my codex, work out how to use Deathwing and Ravenwing as well as Interrogator-Chaplains and our Librarians. Going from many powers to but two powers was hard. Then all of a sudden BAM! New Vanilla codex (on the month of my b'day no less). I purchased it as well as Black Reach. I had no intention of using it, I just wanted it. Jumping Jaghatai on a pogo stick! I knew I was about to have a very hard time playing the hobby. Looking at wargear changes, rules, characters...two codexes full of Astartes, and ours are radically different.

I wholeheartedly agree that tactical, assault and veteran units should have the same stats, rules and points. I like our Elite Scouts having the statline of a Space Marine, implying they have almost completed their training. What I would like is more to make the Deathwing unique. Ravenwing have all they need, "tactical" units and "support" units. Deathwing are expected to be fulfill it all themselves. Ok, sure, we have Raiders and Dreadnoughts. We need a crusader if Belial is in a squad, and Dreads just don't seem to compare to tanks. We could run Preds, but not if you want a pure Deathwing.

Which leads me to wonder (ignoring that we got the less-is-more applied to our codex), should our vanilla units be more expensive if our unique units are cheaper/better than vanilla TDA and bike units? Or should a tactical marine be a tactical marine with weapon x costing x amount of points, no matter what codex?

[Hellios]

It depends...

If I have the same unit in two codices then I would like them to be the same unless the background dictates their should be a difference... For Example a tactical squad in CODEX:Angry marines always has the rage and furious charge USRs. Ok that I get...

Then only other reason I really them to mess with things be it points or options is for game balance? Because of the special rules this unit gets is it at an advantage 1 on 1 against the basic version and is it more valuable within a list than the standard tactical squad is in a vanilla list?

I for one wouldn't be against one codex to rule them all as far as space marines go... If it was done well. BAs and DAs could easily be rolled into such a codex and SWs and BTs wouldn't be as tough to stick in it as some would say. I guess the biggest issue would be cramming all the fluff in there and not putting garbage about how the SWs and DAs exchange gifts and have a feast together every year to celebrate the birthday of their shared spiritual liege RG. *Calm down people... I may have exaggerated a bit but you get my point...*

Also the background is evolving and I don't mind SWs or BAs getting new units (or existing units having their names changed) but I don't think new units should be added just to make codices different.

I agree with people who say it is up to the player to make his army special, to make it stand out and play like they think a XXX force should play. However I disagree with the idea that the current chaos codex gives you more freedom to do this than the previous chaos codex. I will agree that the codex was a bit messy but it really wasn't hard to understand if the effort you put into learning the rules was more than a quick glance at the page. With a choice between messy and bland I will go with messy every time when it comes to codices.

[the jeske]

Then only other reason I really them to mess with things be it points or options is for game balance? Because of the special rules this unit gets is it at an advantage 1 on 1 against the basic version and is it more valuable within a list than the standard tactical squad is in a vanilla list?

ok but if units are priced the same way then your making a one codex for all marine armies . It can be 4-5 books , but if the units are the same and costed the same and work the same it is in fact the same dex times X. Worse if most stuff is the same , but only minor stuff is factor that makes each army different[lets say specials] then it effectivly kills the unit/build and everyone has to use codex X for their army . examples . BA RAS are costed like they should be , now on the other hand sm RAS are overcosted . Vanguard for sm are unplayable , same unit for BAs is maybe not briliant but still viable . same also mentioned devs BA cheap SM ones overcosted [and I realy think that GW should make stuff like devs or RAS come with stock upgrades and lower their cost if they are ever to be taken ].

And wouldn't space puppies have fleet troops choices?

actualy I think they do . wolfs can be troops . non scoring but they can be troops.

Edited by the jeske, 24 January 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[march10k]

While this is kind of OT, how is this any different than the current books as they stand? If you pick codex A, you get your menu choices of X, Y, and Z, but you can't take T, U or V (which are in the other books.) As a quick example, if I play mech Blood Angels, I've picked Fast vehicles, Furioso Dreads, Baal Predators and Deep Striking Land Raiders as my advantages. I've also picked my disadvantages as follows: to exclude from my list Grey Hunters, Long Fangs, Elite Scouts, Thunderfire Cannons, Dreadknights, Deathwing, etc etc etc. We pick from the GW-supplied menu of books just as in 4th edition we picked from the GW-supplied menu of perks/drawbacks.

Thank you for illustrating my point. By choosing a codex you are accepting a fixed-by-GW set of plusses and minuses as is, you dont' get to say "because I want Baal Predators, I'm choosing to cut myself off from, choosing from the menu of every vehicle in the game, um, hellhounds." That's nearly the level of the stupidity of the "balance" that existed in the traits system. For it to be at all comparable to choosing a codex, a single trait would have had to incorporate both the perk and the drawback. In failing to force the issue "if you take this upside, you are stuck with that downside," GW allowed you to sham out some seriously fraudulent "balancing" downsides by eliminating access to stuff you were never going to do/use in the first place. That's called having your cake and eating it, too.

[Something Wycked]

Thank you for illustrating my point. By choosing a codex you are accepting a fixed-by-GW set of plusses and minuses

Thank you for illustrating mine. The traits were "fixed by GW," too

[Grey Mage]

While this is kind of OT, how is this any different than the current books as they stand? If you pick codex A, you get your menu choices of X, Y, and Z, but you can't take T, U or V (which are in the other books.) As a quick example, if I play mech Blood Angels, I've picked Fast vehicles, Furioso Dreads, Baal Predators and Deep Striking Land Raiders as my advantages. I've also picked my disadvantages as follows: to exclude from my list Grey Hunters, Long Fangs, Elite Scouts, Thunderfire Cannons, Dreadknights, Deathwing, etc etc etc. We pick from the GW-supplied menu of books just as in 4th edition we picked from the GW-supplied menu of perks/drawbacks.

Thank you for illustrating my point. By choosing a codex you are accepting a fixed-by-GW set of plusses and minuses as is, you dont' get to say "because I want Baal Predators, I'm choosing to cut myself off from, choosing from the menu of every vehicle in the game, um, hellhounds." That's nearly the level of the stupidity of the "balance" that existed in the traits system. For it to be at all comparable to choosing a codex, a single trait would have had to incorporate both the perk and the drawback. In failing to force the issue "if you take this upside, you are stuck with that downside," GW allowed you to sham out some seriously fraudulent "balancing" downsides by eliminating access to stuff you were never going to do/use in the first place. That's called having your cake and eating it, too.

It would have been easier to balance the advantages with specific drawbacks, or to simply add the ability to take chapter tactics for a price to generic HQs- like the BT vows. While yes, there were many who took the smallest drawbacks available to them so as to least affect their armies the system of traits should have been made with that in mind. C:SM wasnt the most powerful book in existence when it came out, and while it never dropped out of sight it wasnt overpowering either.

[march10k]

Thank you for illustrating my point. By choosing a codex you are accepting a fixed-by-GW set of plusses and minuses

Thank you for illustrating mine. The traits were "fixed by GW," too

Not in the same way. "If you take one item from column A, you must also take one from column E" is vastly different from "If you take fast skimmer land raiders with manticore turrets, you must also field three assault squads with holy hand grenades of antioch."

While yes, there were many who took the smallest drawbacks available to them so as to least affect their armies the system of traits should have been made with that in mind.

A, it was the vast overwhelming majority, not merely "many" (it's not that they took negatives with less impact, it's that they took negatives that bound them against doing what they weren't going to do in the first place, making for precisely zero negative impact to "balance" the advantages that they were taking), and B, my whole point is that the traits system wasn't, as it should have been, made with that in mind. What I'm proposing is exactly that, a small number of limited "sets of traits" that are internally complete and balanced, that can be expressed in about one paragraph in the next C:UM, that allow players to field the lesser known chapters of renown, such as the white scars, without being UM clones straining the limits of the FOC and equipment restrictions in an attempt to faithfully replicate white scar fluff.

Also, I wasn't saying the codex was OP, I was saying that it brought out the worst in players. It actually trained people to cheesemonger, even if the results were kept at the moderate level by the overall power level of the codex.

Edited by march10k, 24 January 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[Something Wycked]

Not in the same way. "If you take one item from column A, you must also take one from column E" is vastly different from "If you take fast skimmer land raiders with manticore turrets, you must also field three assault squads with holy hand grenades of antioch."

Such hyperbole! Its exactly the same.

The way you're describing it, people should have been forced to directly suffer the impact of the negative Traits choices. By that logic, all C:CSM players should be forced to take at least one unit of Possessed or Spawn because they chose the Chaos codex and it has those units in it, and those units are a weakness of the codex. Space Wolf players should be forced to take at least one unit of Biker or Jump Pack Blood Claws because they chose the SW codex and it has those units in it, and they're considered a weakness of the codex. Lather, rinse, repeat with the weak points in the various codices filling in as the drawbacks in the Traits system.

It actually trained people to cheesemonger, even if the results were kept at the moderate level by the overall power level of the codex.

So... people were cheesemongering with the traits and... only achieving the power level that was designed into the codex?

There's 2 reasons to make choices in an army list: an effective, competitive army list and army compositions that fit the fluff. Playing to your weaknesses in an effort to not be considered a "cheesemonger" fit neither of those concepts.

Its very close to saying things like this: Blood Angels players have chosen the beneficial Trait to have Assault Marines in their Troops slot, and chosen the draback Trait of not being allowed to take more than 1 Thunderfire Cannon in their list. Therefore Blood Angels players who stack up Assault Marines in their list and don't take a Thunderfire Cannon are cheesemongers.

The traits were a perfectly viable, non-overpowered (by your own admission) method of representing divergent Chapters. And this is sorely missing in the 5th edition codex.

GW would do well to reinstitute a system like the traits. There are only a relative handful of Chapters described by GW versus how many really exist in the fluff. Special Characters are neat, but being forced to take an HQ choice that isn't customizable in the slightest to get the army flavor you want is distasteful to many players for a number of reasons. Differentiating any particular force of Astartes needs customization driven by player choice over the capabilities and weaknesses of the brand of Astartes in question. The choices need to be balanced, of course, and they need to be balanced better than they currently are. As an example, Salamanders with Vulkan: in giving up the choice of falling back (which is handy in certain situations, but it is hardly a massive drawback to lose it), they gain twin-linked Meltas, Flamers, and Thunder Hammers (which is handy in many, if not all, situations- definitely a large benefit.)

[Hellios]

Then only other reason I really them to mess with things be it points or options is for game balance? Because of the special rules this unit gets is it at an advantage 1 on 1 against the basic version and is it more valuable within a list than the standard tactical squad is in a vanilla list?

ok but if units are priced the same way then your making a one codex for all marine armies . It can be 4-5 books , but if the units are the same and costed the same and work the same it is in fact the same dex times X. Worse if most stuff is the same , but only minor stuff is factor that makes each army different[lets say specials] then it effectivly kills the unit/build and everyone has to use codex X for their army . examples . BA RAS are costed like they should be , now on the other hand sm RAS are overcosted . Vanguard for sm are unplayable , same unit for BAs is maybe not briliant but still viable . same also mentioned devs BA cheap SM ones overcosted [and I realy think that GW should make stuff like devs or RAS come with stock upgrades and lower their cost if they are ever to be taken ].

Well I think if a codex was built correctly with units at the right points cost with the right abilities then there would be far more viable lists available. The old chaos codex for example had a few lists that would give you a decent chance if you wanted to win an event and even more lists that didn't have the same edge but at least placed in middle tier. If I can do Blood Angel DoA style lists, Deathwing style lists, Ravenwing style lists and BT blacktide style lists along with the standard marine list types in one codex and the codex is balanced so that all these lists are roughly as viable as one another... I don't see the problem.

[Telanicus]

Not in the same way. "If you take one item from column A, you must also take one from column E" is vastly different from "If you take fast skimmer land raiders with manticore turrets, you must also field three assault squads with holy hand grenades of antioch."

Such hyperbole! Its exactly the same.

The way you're describing it, people should have been forced to directly suffer the impact of the negative Traits choices. By that logic, all C:CSM players should be forced to take at least one unit of Possessed or Spawn because they chose the Chaos codex and it has those units in it, and those units are a weakness of the codex. Space Wolf players should be forced to take at least one unit of Biker or Jump Pack Blood Claws because they chose the SW codex and it has those units in it, and they're considered a weakness of the codex. Lather, rinse, repeat with the weak points in the various codices filling in as the drawbacks in the Traits system.

It actually trained people to cheesemonger, even if the results were kept at the moderate level by the overall power level of the codex.

So... people were cheesemongering with the traits and... only achieving the power level that was designed into the codex?

There's 2 reasons to make choices in an army list: an effective, competitive army list and army compositions that fit the fluff. Playing to your weaknesses in an effort to not be considered a "cheesemonger" fit neither of those concepts.

Its very close to saying things like this: Blood Angels players have chosen the beneficial Trait to have Assault Marines in their Troops slot, and chosen the draback Trait of not being allowed to take more than 1 Thunderfire Cannon in their list. Therefore Blood Angels players who stack up Assault Marines in their list and don't take a Thunderfire Cannon are cheesemongers.

The traits were a perfectly viable, non-overpowered (by your own admission) method of representing divergent Chapters. And this is sorely missing in the 5th edition codex.

GW would do well to reinstitute a system like the traits. There are only a relative handful of Chapters described by GW versus how many really exist in the fluff. Special Characters are neat, but being forced to take an HQ choice that isn't customizable in the slightest to get the army flavor you want is distasteful to many players for a number of reasons. Differentiating any particular force of Astartes needs customization driven by player choice over the capabilities and weaknesses of the brand of Astartes in question. The choices need to be balanced, of course, and they need to be balanced better than they currently are. As an example, Salamanders with Vulkan: in giving up the choice of falling back (which is handy in certain situations, but it is hardly a massive drawback to lose it), they gain twin-linked Meltas, Flamers, and Thunder Hammers (which is handy in many, if not all, situations- definitely a large benefit.)

I agree with what you are saying about the traits.

However, I think it would be more advantageous to just have customizable character lists that can affect your army the way it is now. For example, the way they have the "Chapter Tactics." Commanders get to choose between a list of them that very in point costs, as an upgrade. That way the characters are still important, but you can really build your own captains and chapter masters to have the chapter trait they are good with. It also allows companies to function differently (some fluff has each company a little different). See what I am saying?

The drawback: if you pick the chapter tactics trait "Fleet" (or another, more awesome name for it), you can't pick "Hold the Line."

[Arikel]

Its very close to saying things like this: Blood Angels players have chosen the beneficial Trait to have Assault Marines in their Troops slot, and chosen the draback Trait of not being allowed to take more than 1 Thunderfire Cannon in their list. Therefore Blood Angels players who stack up Assault Marines in their list and don't take a Thunderfire Cannon are cheesemongers.

What you just described there is a problem, having better assault marines is a good advantage, being limited to just one thunderfire cannon is a retarded disadvantage, especially if you weren't planning to own any, because it doesn't actually disadvantage you, you only get the benefit of better assault marines. The issue here is that you are picking an advantage that fits your list while taking a drawback that does not affect your list negatively. This is what can be considered abusive. The idea is you should not build the list you want and then pick advantages that benefit your list while taking "negative" traits that don't actually impact your list because of the way it's built.

The current system (for the codex space marines, anyways) allows you to take a positive trait to represent your army, with the disadvantage of losing combat tactics and having to take a specifically armed HQ unit. Whether this is better as a whole is debatable, but it is certainly more balanced because of the inherent drawbacks required to get the positive trait.

[march10k]

Such hyperbole! Its exactly the same.

The way you're describing it, people should have been forced to directly suffer the impact of the negative Traits choices.

I don't think hyperbole is the right word...it's not so much a gross exaggeration as it is the use of completely-made-up-from-thin-air-on-the-spot example codex entries.

And "forced to directly suffer the impact" is a bit strong, but why not? You're directly benefiting from the impact of the positive trait! What I want is for people to be unable to tailor their "balancing" negative traits to have zero impact. That's not balance, that's taking the plusses without any minuses. If a single trait contains both an upside and a downside that GW deems balanced against one another (in their dubious wisdom, I know), and you can take it or leave it as-is, that's what I'm after. If you look at it and say "Gee, that one suits my playstyle, and I don't even own the model I'm not allowed to take," the end result is the same, sure, but how you got there was very different. The guy at the next table might say "Gee, I'd really like that one, but it doesn't let me field my favorite unit" and move on. Under the open system, you would have ended up in the same place, but he would have been able to take a different downside that was of no consequence to him.

It's not the competitive advantage that bothers me, it's the absolute lie that the chosen "disadvantage" actually has any impact that drives me crazy. Of course I expected people to exploit the hell out of the traits system all day long, but I was bitterly disappointed in GW for creating a traits system that fosters such cheesemongering in the first place. In other words, no hate towards the player, much hate towards the rules-writer.

Edited by march10k, 25 January 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[Something Wycked]

being limited to just one thunderfire cannon is a retarded disadvantage, especially if you weren't planning to own any, because it doesn't actually disadvantage you, you only get the benefit of better assault marines.

This is exactly my point, Arikel. Saying the C:SM 4th ed Chapter Traits were "broken" or "cheesy" because you could pick a disadvantage that doesn't disadvantage you at all is silly- the current codices follow exactly the same trend without having the options for Chapter Traits.

As Telanicus mentions, a more balanced approach would be to give options of packaged benefits and drawbacks. The only issue I have with it is when the first codex is redone in that style, all the other codices are still written in the old benefits-without-drawbacks approach. But, generally, I would love to have army-wide traits I could pay a points cost for to represent divergent forces

[Arikel]

Well then it looks like we all agree on that then;) Getting advantages while taking a non-impacting drawback is silly.

The question is how to fix it. Personally I don't think that Blood Angels or Dark Angels really differ enough from basic marines to have their own codex, but I don't think I'd get very far arguing that and it doesn't seem likely that GW would drop that approach in any case, so they will be different by codex enforced design. For regular codex space marines, I think a reasonable approach would be to be able to select an army wide trait that gives an advantage and a disadvantage based on the geneseed. Another option would be the ability to select one minor positive trait from a small list which is not hugely game affecting that has no drawbacks. This could be relatively difficult to balance, which I think is the reason that GW went with the if you want this cool ability, you're stuck paying for this guy idea.

One example: Someone else could confirm this, but apparently in some older editions Salamanders were depicted as having slower reaction times than other marines due to differences in vulkan's geneseed as compared to others, so if in return for the benefit of twinlinked meltas, flamers and mastercrafted thunderhammers, a force designated as sons of vulkan would suffer an army wide initiative penalty of -1, dropping the score of every unit that has an I score by one point from hq units to dreadnaughts to base line troopers. Now this is just tossed off the top of my head, but gives an idea of things we could be playing with here.

[march10k]

~shrug~ I wouldn't be against a single fat book for all marines. The only problem with that approach is that some chapters can be done with a single paragraph. Others, not so much. Chapters that have unique units, like the baal predator, or funny little rules like deathwing assault, would need several pages. Those include, but may not be limited to, BA, DA, BT, and SW. Say each takes up five pages in a C:UM omnibus...that's twenty pages just for their rules, either driving up the cost for everyone, or seriously cutting into the fluff that can fit...exacerbated by the further consequence that what little room for fluff and pretty pictures of eavy metal that remains...would have to be shared.

Given the choices of separate codexes, one huge expensive one, or one large slightly expensive one that has little more than rules in it...I like what we have now, even if it does mean that xenos codexes get done less often.

In the end, though, it's purely economic. Marines sell well, so by having 5+ marine dexes out there, the sneaky gits at GW can redo a different marine codex 2-3 times a year to keep that gravy train rolling under the pretense that they're just alternating between imperium and "other," so it's really just a 50/50 split, which is perfectly reasonable nodsnodsnods...

[Arikel]

I do hear you there. Blood Angels and Dark Angels do have some standout units and abilities, but it just seems that when it comes to it, the authors have to really stretch those minor differences to get what are described basically as codex adherent chapters to work differently on the table. Space wolves and black templars have quite different means of deployment and methods of warfare that couldn't be duplicated easily within the standard codex, but reasonable facsimiles of Dark Angel and Blood Angel armies could be created by simple means such as a terminator armoured or jet packed captains allowing terminators and assault sqauds as troops, respectively. Add in some more flavour rules like the "Sons of ..." Idea like I offered above and allowances for things like command squads and other units to take jetpacks and terminator armor , a wider variety of psychic powers for librarians, perhaps even the ability to upgrade rhino based chassis with fast engines(The white scars in particular are said to have fast tanks, but no way to get them in the current codex), and you get even closer. I suppose the issue here is that many fans would be upset to see their chapter "homogenized" and it's special units made available for use by other chapters. You're also correct in that fluff would be more limited in space, but depending on who's writing it, a lot of people may want to see less of that anyways;)

[Veteran Sergeant]

What I do miss is the old Chapter Traits from 4th Ed..... What I'd do for that back...

I agree, brother. It's a crying shame it was ditched. So much customisability...

The problem was it was really just an exploit system, lol. Players chose beneficial traits that helped their armies and could take drawback(s) that didn't hurt it at all. And that's all that players ever did with it.

Edited by Veteran Sergeant, 25 January 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[Freakiq]

What I do miss is the old Chapter Traits from 4th Ed..... What I'd do for that back...

I agree, brother. It's a crying shame it was ditched. So much customisability...

The problem was it was really just an exploit system, lol. Players chose beneficial traits that helped their armies and could take drawback(s) that didn't hurt it at all. And that's all that players ever did with it.

Isn't that how it works now?

If I'm not going to use the Land Speeder Storm or Thunderfire Cannon anyway I might just as well play Blood Angels for no real drawback.

[march10k]

reasonable facsimiles of Dark Angel and Blood Angel armies could be created by simple means such as a terminator armoured or jet packed captains allowing terminators and assault sqauds as troops, respectively.

The problem is your idea of what a reasonable facsimile would be. There's more to deathwing than just "terminators as troops." There's the termie command squad, the mixing of assault and tactical termies within the squad, and deathwing assault, for example. And ravenwing are more than just scoring bikes. In exactly the same way that you describe SW and BT as having "quite different means of deployment," ravenwing squadrons are composed vastly differently than their C:UM counterparts. And DW and RW, especially when combined, are the epitome of "quite different methods of warfare." Other differences, like still having elite scouts with marine statlines instead of troops scouts with kasrkin statlines, I'm not tied to. I'm sure a BA player could come in here and explain why just a captain in a jump pack to unlock assault marines as troops doesn't cut it. I don't play or even like blood angels, and even I can see that BA without baal preds, overcharged engines, sanguinary priests, death company, and so on...just isn't blood angels.

[Ubermensch Commander]

What I do miss is the old Chapter Traits from 4th Ed..... What I'd do for that back...

I agree, brother. It's a crying shame it was ditched. So much customisability...

The problem was it was really just an exploit system, lol. Players chose beneficial traits that helped their armies and could take drawback(s) that didn't hurt it at all. And that's all that players ever did with it.

This. I rather prefer 5th edition. Having played since 3rd ed started up, this is the most balanced I have seen the codices.

And no, it is not the same as having an abuseable system of options within a single book. Rather we have a fixed and flexible master list for each codex which, while still offering variety, has the points costs and pro/cons weighed within it. The balance is greater and the flexibility is as well, in many cases.
Example, You can choose to not take Land Speeders if you do not want to, or pass on Scouts, in both the 4th style and 5th style codexes. But, I don't choose to take Furious Charge on all guys, or double special weapons...all for taking a "drawback" that does not exist.
Having "handicaps" that don't exist for substantial pros is a foolish and readily abuseable system. Not my idea of good variety.


And I sure as spit do not want to go back to the 3rd edition codices of "consult Codex X." That created a NIGHTMARE of balance and abusability, even up to and including Deamonhunter inquisitor allies in 5th ed Guard Leafblower lists.