|
|
Post by dapperswain on Apr 17, 2024 8:30:33 GMT -5
Poorhammer came out with a fantastic video for what a 40K codex should look like and how the current releases are failing. Except the Orks codex, which is great.
|
|
|
|
Post by raceygaming on Apr 17, 2024 8:49:29 GMT -5
I will admit the ork codex does feel like the internal balance is pretty crazy. I think there are maybe 6 units that will never see a table no matter how casual because they are bad designs ( 3 are flyers and 1 is a fortification) , but otherwise with the 6 detachments there is a room for almost every datasheet to be playable and have feel good plays.
I think like any game there is very much a optimised list that smashes face. I do think orks are actually on the cusp of having to take some nerfs as some detachments make a good datasheet too good.
|
|
|
|
Post by dapperswain on Apr 17, 2024 10:40:59 GMT -5
In watching this, there are a lot of "rules" for a codex presented here that are almost just common sense. Not deep game design - just common sense. Things like "an army rule should apply to the whole army" or "there should be at least six detachments".
There's obvious points where the game has been updated and rules in the codex no longer make sense. There was a change where only Battle Tactic stratagems can be reduced in cost or repeated. AdMech and Custodes have detachments that focus on units that do that, but no Battle Tactics in those detachments.
There's a level of disappointment in these rule books that's bordering on painful. Most of these rules are generating boring and uninspiring gameplay. Stuff like Tyranid Crusher Stampede benefiting big monsters, but only if they're below starting strength.
It's rough when I'm expected to pay for such disappointing rules. I didn't bother buying the AdMech codex based on the low quality of the rules. There's a high chance that I would have bought a high quality art and fiction book for AdMech.
|
|
