Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Breaking off from another discussion about game balance, something I have noticed (and it's probably just me) but seems like codex/army book based games work pretty decently for the first couple of armies that have books that come out with them. For example, O&G and Dwarfs are somewhat balanced versus one another.

Sure you can break the crap out of anything if you try to abuse the list but the power seems to be at least in the same ballpark for these two 7th Ed armies. Later books, not so much. To the point where it's almost certainly the list strength versus much of what the players do on the table that determines the win.

Other than Space Wolves and some of the psychic stuff that Nids are now able to do, seems like the armies for 5th ed 40k have also been fairly reasonabl on the power glide slope.

I know some folk will say that an outstanding player can win with a 'weaker' army and that list strengths are just poor players' imaginations but I don't agree. What's your take on Codex Creep?

I hate that creepy guy who paws through all the codexes in the store, but never buys anything too.

Also I'm just going to say it now and leave. Daemons of mofoing Chaos.

One LGS chain shrink wraps everything to prevent just that problem.

Making more powerful army books encourages sales.....

Fits perfectly with a company that admits to not caring about balance...

Local GW keeps the codices behind the counter to prevent that as well, just leaving the open copy out.

But, yeah it looks like the newer codices/army books are stronger than the older ones. Except Tyranids that one seems to be well made and I haven't noticed any Codex Creep with that one yet.

AP1 Strength 10 Lance? I've never seen so many anti-tank attributes in one place at the same time.

Although some of the new 'nid stuff is powerful, they have lost a lot of their customisation, far less stuff gets 2+ saves and you can ID the b**gers now!

In fairness to GW (I know, I feel dirty saying it... ) the current crop of 40k codices are better balanced than they have been for a while. Fair enough Necrons, Tau and Daemonhunters all suck but are in desperate need of updates. DE and Sisters still hold their own even after a long time between updates - and hopefully all of these will get new books over the next year or two.

This is a significant contrast to fantasy where winning depends entirely on whether or not you play Daemons...

what I hate is people who buy armies without finishing their old one, and haven't even put their first or even fifth army to it's full potential.

that, my friends is why some 'dexes seem week.

Captain Solon wrote:what I hate is people who buy armies without finishing their old one, and haven't even put their first or even fifth army to it's full potential.

that, my friends is why some 'dexes seem week.

Completely agree here.

There is a power surge but not exactly a codex creep. Rather all the post 5th edition codecies have been very much well balanced playing one another but the imbalance comes with the codecies of 3rd edition and 4th edition. Tau and Eldar are overpriced while Necrons and DH are just outdated rules wise but Dark Eldar still can put up a good fight along with WH. Orks are doing well and Demons have their play style pretty much stolen and improved by Nids.

Captain Solon wrote:what I hate is people who buy armies without finishing their old one, and haven't even put their first or even fifth army to it's full potential.

that, my friends is why some 'dexes seem week.

How, exactly, does that make an older codex seem weak? Are you saying that because some people don't 'finish' (when exactly is an army finished anyways?) their army that we can't gauge the overall effectiveness of an army? Are the Tau a lower tier army because some people bought the book and some crisis suits and then decided to buy something more effective, like Necrons?

And you hate people who buy a second army without finishing the first? Really?

Tau are a lower tier army because;

1. They were never a top tier army, owing to various reasons.

2. Their codex is mid 4th edition. The rules changes in 5th edition mostly work against them rather than for them.

Yes, and not because people started the army, didn't finish, and bought a different one.

I think the frequency of updates GW makes on codex books^ depends much on a overall popularity of an army.

Like the Witch/Demon Hunters armies, The Tau, Necrons.
How frequently do you see a person walk in a store for a quick game with all Sisters army opposed to SMs???

And GW's stubbornness on NOT updating SOB's miniature range to multi plastics does not hep to elevate their popularity at all.

But I think I'll agree with the thoght that good players can mostly whoop with anything.

Systemically, most of the 40k armies are "flat" from a power standpoint, with relatively little difference in power between best and worst.

But then, that's assuming one builds an army within the preferred themes for that army. Trying to build a sub-optimal list is possible, and will perform accordingly.

That's actually NOT a bad thing.

HI all.
GW uses Codexes and Army books to help market its new minature ranges.
(They ONLY release them when they have new minatures-kits for that particular army.)

IF GW had a stable frame work of guide lines and methodology that spanned an entire editions worth of updates, this would not be much of a problem.

But the development team seem to change guide lines and methodology several times during an edition span.
This coupled with limited playtesting , makes the optimum -sub optimum efficiency divide across armies and units worse than they need be

Within a few days of release, the 'optimum units' have been identified by players , and posted on the internet....
If these can be detected so relativley quickly by players, it indicates a lack of playtesting, or interest in better levels of game balance by GW.

IF the asthetic elements were developed seperatley from the functional elements , niether would have such a negative effect on the other.
Rules development SHOULD be kept seperate from minature realases, IMO.

Background, assembly-conversion and painting resource books, released with new minatures to optimise the asthetic appeal would NOT comprimise rules development and game balance .

Seperate rule development and game play issues could then be adressed as required, not having to wait for incremantal releses years apart....


TTFN
lanrak

Pika_power wrote:AP1 Strength 10 Lance? I've never seen so many anti-tank attributes in one place at the same time.

Now try to find any more anti-tank in there that doesn't involve CC. Especially against high armor values.

I'm starting to think a bit differently about codex creep. I'm not so sure it's there as such (yes boo me if you want! No, i don't work for GW - they don't pay enough). I think quite a few of the recent releases (95%) are well balanced against each other, and compared to 2nd ed aren't that more powerful as a force but rather encourage larger armies. Where i think people struggle is on the whole between 3e and 4e where there was a change in style of the books/army lists and some of the books by todays standard are pretty poor. I think the newer books we're now seeing show that GW have figured out what they should be doing - making good lists that are fluffy E.G. marines getting a ML in a tactical, IG troops being so cheap they actually are very expendable now.

Feel free to shout me down!

The rules edition changes do make a difference. Not all codexes are equally affected.

In the 5e rules, Troops have been made more important and 5e codexes have cheaper troops than the 4e equivalents. This puts 4e and 3e codexes at a basic disadvantage.

Even so, Dark Eldar remain a competitive army, possibly because they are difficult to play so they tend to be used only by really good players.

IMHO,

Codex Creep seems to have faded a lot in the last two years.

It looks like they are applying both math and playtesting (despite claims to the contrary), so that high powered units cost a premium, and it isnt as easy as it was to seek out set builds for power advantages. Kudos to GW for that.

Also the codexes are getting beefier and they are providing plenty of options for variant armies. Using orcs as just one example, its possible to think up about ten different lists that are viable. In fact, the lack of obvious power choices makes it quite hard to settle on one list.

The bottom line is that players are now obliged to use and modify an army with real play experience to find the list and tactics that works for them.

The situation is much better than it was ten years ago, when each new codex would have something bigger and better than everyone else.

Now, much better, there are aesthetic and modelling reasons to chase a new army rather than power play.

The guys who keep canning GW all the time aren't noticing that they have been reading and responding to complaints consistently for the past three years or so, and certainly with the changes of managment, they are very much attentive and responsive to the players views about all this.

OTG.

We're getting a lot more Super-Heavy-esque/Monstrous Creature/Apocalypse Creep these days.

That's a bit disturbing...

@Lanrak: Do you even play 40k any more?

Kilkrazy wrote:The rules edition changes do make a difference. Not all codexes are equally affected.

In the 5e rules, Troops have been made more important and 5e codexes have cheaper troops than the 4e equivalents. This puts 4e and 3e codexes at a basic disadvantage.

Even so, Dark Eldar remain a competitive army, possibly because they are difficult to play so they tend to be used only by really good players.

I've seen plenty of bad details players as well. Ive never bought the whole "de players are just really good" perhaps a better explanation is that 5th ed made vehicles more popular and plasma cannons are great now too due to no partials in 5th. Troops are key as everyone know

De has had the same list for 10 years and it just happens dark lances, ap2 blast and 6 troops is much better in 5th

Its almost as if the game is meeting its original 3rd edition design goals...

I don't know, I'm going to have to agree with KK on this one, and also admit that it is mostly anecdotal evidence too, but DE players seem to lean toward the 'good' side of the curve...

Kirasu, it's true that the dark eldar have some incredibly nasty stuff that's good regardless of the game edition. That is what makes them good.

However, the reason they tend to be used by good players is simply thus: bad players cannot use them to their full potential. They're too unforgiving for someone who is not very familiar with the game.

Troops are worthless if the enemy vapes the entire opposing force. Locally, I've seen a continued emphasis on min-ning Troops choices to max Elite, Hvy and FA to maximize destructive potential and survivability. It doesn't matter if I only have a 5 man scout squad left standing on an objective if I've smacked down everything else you own. Just saying locally, and all.

New units in new codexes sell new models.

Making those new units extra uber cool will obviously help them sell better. Like Valk/Vendettas. Or the new big bugs.

Changing overall rules in the game, like how vehicles operate, can massively effect codex creep. Look at how previously average armies with mech elements are now doing much better.

Throw out a new codex with new models- tougher models often require new tactics to counter- this often requires people with existing armies to add a few new models.

Codex Creep- is just a marketing tool, sometimes its subtle, sometimes its not.

Mistress of minis wrote:New units in new codexes sell new models.

Making those new units extra uber cool will obviously help them sell better. Like Valk/Vendettas. Or the new big bugs.

Changing overall rules in the game, like how vehicles operate, can massively effect codex creep. Look at how previously average armies with mech elements are now doing much better.

Throw out a new codex with new models- tougher models often require new tactics to counter- this often requires people with existing armies to add a few new models.

Codex Creep- is just a marketing tool, sometimes its subtle, sometimes its not.

That would make sense if they actually made models for the new coolest of the cool units instead you get one or two new models and then the rest spread out over the lifespan of the current edition. Maximizing sales would mean making the whole line available so people run out and buy the new cooles of the cool models.

Kirasu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The rules edition changes do make a difference. Not all codexes are equally affected.

In the 5e rules, Troops have been made more important and 5e codexes have cheaper troops than the 4e equivalents. This puts 4e and 3e codexes at a basic disadvantage.

Even so, Dark Eldar remain a competitive army, possibly because they are difficult to play so they tend to be used only by really good players.

I've seen plenty of bad details players as well. Ive never bought the whole "de players are just really good" perhaps a better explanation is that 5th ed made vehicles more popular and plasma cannons are great now too due to no partials in 5th. Troops are key as everyone know

De has had the same list for 10 years and it just happens dark lances, ap2 blast and 6 troops is much better in 5th

Yes, but.

DE are no more popular now than they were under 4e, and seem to be achieving similar high rankings in tournaments as they did under the 4e rules.

Of course it is increasingly hard to make that argument since there are fewer tournaments happening than used to.