Give that a quick read first and then we'll start......
Done?
Okay then lets start with the fundamentals.
Part of the problem with 'mono-build' codices comes from the fact that 5th Edition has certain design biases that are almost unavoidable. Not convinced...allow me to continue then...
The Big Issue - Mechanisation.
If you can't deal with vehicles then your going to lose. Certain armies are limited in the amount of anti-armour that they can include in their units and others have a similar problem of having to cram all their anti-armour into a single Force Organisation Chart slot. Tyranids have issues with their 'Elite' slots as unlike armies like Marines they can't give effective anti-armour weapons to cheap troop units. Necrons used to have a similar problem but they aren't as bad now as they were previously. The overall effect is to make a certain unit obligatory in a certain 'slot' with no effective alternative being available without reducing your armies effectiveness.
Other Issues.
Certain armies are more commonly seen than others. If you can't kill Marines then your average game is going to be disappointing. This forces the competitive gamer to include in his lists solutions for dealing with common threats (which is obviously quite sensible) but has the same effect of making all armies look the same as edition biases and poor codex design.
Variations of these issues apply to virtually every codex. The ones that only have minor issues can still be used to create a wide variety of viable armies...others not so much...
I'm going to be doing a series of articles over the next week or so on those armies that are unfortunate enough to be planted firmly in the 'mono' category and try to crowbar whatever flexibility into those codices that I can.
First up will be Tyranids ;-)
Oooh. I love Tyranids so will be interested in seeing what you come up with.
ReplyDelete