Codex Drukhari is offical for the start of 2021

I've only had contact with the BA and Necron ones.

The BA one was better, it has some "unfair" interactions with the SM one, it's really strong. I've been told that the SW one is similar.

The Necron one feels just good to play, its fair and it looks well designed and written, even if it's weaker in power level if you compare it with the SM ones.

No idea about Deathwatch.

Kalmah wrote:

quick question here: Do some of you have some feedback / impressions about the already released Codexes? Is there a clear winner.....a clear loser?
Including the supplements we have:

SM
Necrons
Blood Angels
Space Wolves
Deathwatch

not a lot to analyze here, but this could help us a little what to expect.

Honestly, they all are very good for a 9th edition, can not compare to 8th. While they each play differently they each have their own strengths. Now in the long term if I would rank them? It would be this

BA
SM
Necrons
DW
SW

the SM book and Necrons might go up or down depending on what else comes out. DW while is really strong, its much harder to play as you'll have a couple less units in the same army as its SM equal. Necrons has a couple extremely strong tools, but its going to depend if they are good enough and people are still learning the book and how to counter it as well. BA is just on another level for sure and will remain on top for a bit IMO, especially now that you can play a better RG army.

thanks for the feedbacks!
Another question in the same range: now we can all assume that the recently released Codexes are all viable, but do every Codexes went stronger with the passage to 9th edition? Is there a codex, in comparison to its former 8th edition version, that really became weaker?

Ive been playing against the new necrons quite a bit, and I got to say they are quite powerful. Nothing "broken", at least from what my opponent brings. Just generally strong. I have won less than 50% of my games against him while playing SM (switching between Ravenguard, Ultramarines, White Scars). He has won 90% of the games against my Guard (it seems like a bad meta match up more than anything).

@Kalmah, we are not really talking about 9th, we are looking at patterns from 7th and 8th editions. Both editions had ebbs and flows of power creep. Generally we would get 4-5 codices that were very powerful, then 4-5 that were under-powered. Then Supplements/Campaign expansions would re-balance, making different things over/under powered (like the Gathering Storm in 7th or Psykic Awakening in 8th).

Very hard to predict the future with GW though. Back in 8th, there was a lot of approval for the toning down of the power creep for a few codices. Then GW went right back to power-creeping, making those underpowered factions basically obsolete (until the supplement/CA readjusted things).

The general prediction (based on 7th and 8th) would be a general increasing of power over the course of the codex releases. There will be a few that dont follow the pattern, and hopefully we are not one of those (again).

If you are interested, look into the Space Marine history.

7th edition (early) - high power (centurion and bike deathstars with Invisibility [can only be hit on 6s])
7th edition (late) - OP (gladius formation with hundreds of points of "free" transports)
8th edition (early) - underpowered, one of the worst factions
8th edition (late) - OP again (2nd codex, then supplements, then Psykic Awakening)
9th edition (early) - OP still
9th edition (late) - unknown. May go back to medium/under powered?

EDIT: forgot about the early 7th deathstars

really interesting fisheyes....i really hope GW will not follow the trend you are stating.
It would be naive to think that one day EVERY factions will be neck to neck, it is almost impossible to do as every factions play differently, but they can try to mitigate the gap between the power level of every faction. So far they seem to have done it correctly for the few Codexes already out.


But i did not try to direct the conversation in one direction (lol i wasnt intending on saying: see? every codexes so far are better, so why should ours wouldnt?), i was really wondering if a particular codex went down since 8th edition, cause i'm pretty sure there is at least one... no?

Kalmah wrote:

thanks for the feedbacks!
Another question in the same range: now we can all assume that the recently released Codexes are all viable, but do every Codexes went stronger with the passage to 9th edition? Is there a codex, in comparison to its former 8th edition version, that really became weaker?

Nope, GW is widely varying in power creep, they can have an insanely OP codex right after an insanely weak one and then another weak one. Power creep in codices can be in the way of a couple forms though, 1 is not a real power creep, there is a difference in learning and attempting new ways to make an army with new abilities, and raw power (see GSC and IH's of 8th) one takes a lot to learn and play, the other is just OP.

My main opponent is Necrons, and the beauty of the new codex is how different effective lists can be. He's been swapping it up for each game, from a warrior-heavy footslogging list to an obsec scoring canoptek list and they truly are different without one being clearly better. And he hasn't even started playing around with the silent king or C'tan yet.

I’ve played both Necrons and DW. Both are very strong and incredibly interesting to play and play against now. What excites me if this trend extends to our new codex is the sheer depth and versatility in the new books. They’re both really good but there’s nothing obviously broken or auto win about either. GW has given these armies good toolboxes which really makes list building fun but also complex because everything has a role but the army really needs to be designed with synergy and mutually supporting units and abilities in mind to function optimally.

Oaka wrote:

My main opponent is Necrons, and the beauty of the new codex is how different effective lists can be.  He's been swapping it up for each game, from a warrior-heavy footslogging list to an obsec scoring canoptek list and they truly are different without one being clearly better.  And he hasn't even started playing around with the silent king or C'tan yet.

and i think that what you are describing here is exactly the dream game we all want.
You could play a game where (for example) 2 necron armies would face each other and both of them would feel different but still be viable.
Let's keep our fingers crossed that this trend continues on! With the leak to the Death Guard, we can assume that they are still going in a good direction with this one!

Kalmah wrote:

really interesting fisheyes....i really hope GW will not follow the trend you are stating.
It would be naive to think that one day EVERY factions will be neck to neck, it is almost impossible to do as every factions play differently, but they can try to mitigate the gap between the power level of every faction. So far they seem to have done it correctly for the few Codexes already out.

With a good design and given enough time that is perfectly possible. However, balancing takes time and as long as GW will create new editions, there will never be a stable meta with near-perfect balance.

Developing all the codices at the same time is a great improvement, however.

Kalmah wrote:

i was really wondering if a particular codex went down since 8th edition, cause i'm pretty sure there is at least one... no?

It's arguable, but I think 8th dark eldar is worse than 7th edition with coven formations.

Depends on the meta you where in, our formations didn't matter with loads of D weapons. It was banned in almost every local and event but the 3 Warp Hunter formation basically could kill 3-4 units a turn (Apoc Blast template D weapon, the 15" blast template)

dumpeal wrote:

Kalmah wrote:

i was really wondering if a particular codex went down since 8th edition, cause i'm pretty sure there is at least one... no?

It's arguable, but I think 8th dark eldar is worse than 7th edition with coven formations.

I would disagree. You may be looking at our 7th edition formations with rose-tinted glasses. Our codex is mid-tier now because of power creep at the end of 8th starting with the Marine 2.0 book. But it was a legit top tier codex when it came out in 2018 and did very well competitively with strong showings in numerous events. In fact a DT list just got second at a GT in Australia. And Skari routinely still wins events with the book. Our 7th edition codex was pretty bad when it was released and even things like the Corpse Thief Claw and Dark Artisan weren’t enough to keep it competitive once GW started going insane with formations starting with the Necron book released soon after the 7th edition DE book.

Yeah, CTC adn DA with 18 Reavers, 3 Venoms, 2 Lahmaens was one of my 2 go to lists, Many event level lists just completely destroyed it b.c vehicles were VERY common and CTC didn't get points for kill vehicles, when someone gets 8+ free vehicles they don't mind putting 2-3 in front of your CTC. Or 3 Wraithknights shooting D, so what you have a 4+ FnP, its D weapons.

It is not a surprise DA codex seems to be the next after the DG one.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/01/06/how-the-dark-angels-lost-a-homeworld-and-gained-the-rock/

We were told it was going to be.

Under current circumstances I'm totally fine with being later. Not like I can get down to a store to play so ...

GreyArea wrote:

Under current circumstances I'm totally fine with being later. Not like I can get down to a store to play so ...

same here in Canada, we will enter in a total lockdown with curfew this saturday for a minimum of an entire month........really no games in sight

The only thing tough is that i'd love to see the new datasheets cause i still have some models to build....no big deal, for example i still have to build a Ravager........do i put 3 Disintegrator as always or do i start looking in the direction of Dark Lances?? (i don't magnetize). Bah meanwhile i'll focus on my Thousand Sons army :/

In the meantime we have points uptade in munitorum 2021 Here (page 31-32):



Edit : All is inclued in base cost

Thank you, but those numbers are a bit misleading if you don't see the whole page.

As an example, Disintegrator Cannons are 5 pts now instead of 25, so a Triple Dissie Ravager is 155 instead of the 160 we pay now.

Venoms... are going to be cheaper? Right now a barebones Venom (1 cannon, 1 double rifle) is 75, in the new page it looks like the basic one is 65. Are we forced to pay 10 for the "compulsory" cannon?

Wow Reavers look really cheap at 10 pts.

Yes, we must pay 10 for the first Splinter cannon.

Page 2 :

Quote :

You must then add points for each weapon, or item of wargear, that is included in that unit if it is listed in that unit’s entry (weapons and wargear not listed in a unit’s entry cost no additional points to include in that unit)

hoooooooooooooo yes!!!!!! I'm so happy for our Reavers and Wracks!!!!!!! ))) (sad for the Hellions tough....)

Darklord wrote:

Yes, we must pay 10 for the first Splinter cannon.

Page 2 :

Quote :

You must then add points for each weapon, or item of wargear, that is included in that unit if it is listed in that unit’s entry (weapons and wargear not listed in a unit’s entry cost no additional points to include in that unit)

I don't think this is true for the new points values. Base wargear is included in the price and options are free unless there's a specific points value for the option.

Reavers at 10 points, Hellions at 17.

Who the f**k write these points?! It must be some mistake...

So, according to this, for 110 points, a talos has available to it for FREE:
Ichor Injector
2x Macro Scalpels
1x Chain Flail
A Stinger Pod
2x Haywire Blasters
2x Heat Lances
2x Splinter Cannons.


So, the old set up of scalpel/flail/blasters was 115 points.
This set up is now 110.

I am not seeing a lot to dislike here.
Ravagers and raiders have "free" dark lances.  A trriple dark lance ravager before= 145. Now it is 140.
Triple dissie WAS 160. NOW 155.

And the reavers... my god. If that is not a typo....