As suggested by Paladin Blake

I'm perfectly okay with new Codices being more interesting with newer and more varied units (case in point: the current 'nids codex), but if they're generally going to bump up the power level, they should do it edition by edition, not book by book. The great example was between second and third editions, the way they put in the mini-codex at the end of the rulebook because they were changing the overall style of the whole playstyle from a more shooting-oriented to a more assault-oriented game. Just giving the new codices bigger and better units, though, is just a waste.

i clicked.... oh crap i can't remember now what i clicked... i think it was either 'indifferent' or 'don't like it'

well, i have a DA army and i love DA, they are the awesome mysterious badass space marine dudes, but at the moment they have a really weak codex, especially compared to the new SM codex, which has just nicked pretty much all the stuff which made Dark angels a good army, and then added even more stuff.

I voted that I hate it, because my feelings towards the imbalance is stronger than dislike.

In truth however, I doubt its a scheme to get people to buy more models, I think its more like GW just arent organised or disciplined enough to update all the codices/army books before the most popular ones get a second update.

I voted Indifferent, although I am closer to Conflicted. It bugs me that power levels change between codices and I am especially bugged by the marine codices, some of which appear to out-perform others on most fronts. That being said, I realize it is necessary to keep that game alive and new units are always exciting. Change is inevitable, embrace it.

I'm rather indifferent because I feel that any army can win depending on who is leading it, not how powerful the rules for it are.

It's A hobby and the rules are just a small part so I'm pretty indeffern't it's not a big deal to me.

Argh! I think it is perfectly fine, though it should be slowed down.

I imagine all the people who voted schemers thinking the holocaust wasn't real.

templeorks, why did you steal JohnHwang's avatar?

To be honest, I love it, so long as my opponents are fair about it. By that, I mean this: I am not going to go out and purchase Codices for armies I don't play. If they know that there is a rules change which will be confusing, and deliberately take advantage of that fact to deceive me, I get aggravated. But ultimately, I think that changing things up once in a while is a great way to keep the game from getting stagnant.

And of course, some armies I would LIKE to play (Witchhunters, Daemonhunters) aren't updated, but hey, the system isn't perfect. Others, like say, Tyranids, I don't care about. Since I neither enjoy playing them or playing AGAINST them, it would make me perfectly happy to see them never get updated again. I think that the whole thing balances out in the end.

Of course, my opinion is possibly colored strongly by the fact that I play Space Marines.

I think that they are just getting Better not More Powerful.

In a perfect world, GW would pick a power level and stick to it, only introducing new codices with new twists/models to keep the army fresh.

In a world with money, that will never happen.

It's blatantly obvious that some armies are just superior to others. Hmmm... how many marines proxied as BA or SW in the last year or so? or chaos 'counts as' BA? Gee I wonder why that could be.... I wouldn't know about the MEQ discrepancies so much, just that every time a new codex comes out all us xenos get progressively more outclassed, and tons of kiddies are begging their parents for the latest hotlist for their allowance or whatever, while i sit with my old models and wonder how I can counter the new latest no-brainer list.

compare a grey hunter to a SMurf, or a guardsman to a guardian.. pointsywise... no contest who has an advantage.

I wish they would stick to the same codex all released at the same time as the rules edition. Too many times people have to revamp their army right before some new change comes up in the rules, only to have to go out and buy more stuff in order to be competative level.

It doesnt exist. There are only broken armies. (im looking at you IG!)

I don't know about "The New Army" is the most powerful. Every time a new Dex comes out expecialy a Imperial Codex their are screams of Creep and Broken. I know their are some out their that have their problems, like Chaos Marines, Tau and Necron. However they seem to win.
As far as "My Chaos Army is using the SW or BA Codex" I can see why.
It goes with my Roleplaying Game Philosophy.

The System is Unimportant!
The System is All Important.

What this means is that one system is better than others for what you are trying to achieve.

If I want to play a Assault Based Marine Army you want the Space Wolves or Blood Angels.
If you want a Terminator Army you use Dark Angels or Space Wolves.
If you want a Well Balanced Take on all comers Gun Line you use Ultramarines.
If I wanted to run a Chaos Army filled with Bat Winged Maries that actually fly, you can’t do that with Codex: Chaos Maries [at least I don’t think so, I don’t play them], you would have to use Blood Angles.

I play Space Wolves
I have looked at the Blood Angels, yes they can be a Powerful Army, but try to build the force with everything you want for 1,500 points, it is not going to happen.
I can take my Space Wolves and create a Twin-Deathstar List, but I am going to have 13 models on the board, and the Nid player can field over 100 models.

I don't think there is as much as a creep as there is "More Flash" for your Buck.

It would be nice to have a variant game of Warhammer40k where every aspect of every model was given a points value, no matter what the race/chapter/etc... You saw powerfist I say poweklaw etc... and all armies had all options at the same cost, just with different looks and names to them. You pay for each and every piece of your army. NO FAIR SPACE WOLVES GET A CCW AND A BOLTER AND A BP FOR 1 POINT LESS THAN MY JUNK ASS TAC MARINE! kind of bs would be a thing of the past... oh yeah... when we played like that it wasa a thing of the past. We called it rogue trader.

True my "Tactical Squads" are cheaper, but we Space Wolves don’t get Heavy Weapons, Veteran Sergeants, The ability to break into Combat Squads. We have to spend an Elite Slot to get a “Squad Leader”. If we take a “Squad Leader” we no longer fit in a Rhino or Drop Pod.
It looks like that they did not go “A Space Wolf Grey Hunter is a Space Marine Tactical Marine with a Chain Sword, but they looked at is role in the Army and decided its point cost.
Another to look at is out Terminators
Normal Space Marine Terminators

Terminator Squad (Power Fist x7; Storm Bolter x7; Chain Fist x2; Assault Cannon x2)
-1 Sergeant (Power Sword; Storm Bolter)
Total Cost: 470
And you can put a Character in Terminator Armor with them and Deep Strike

Now lets look at Wolf Guard armed the same way.

Wolf Guard Pack
-1x Wolf Guard in Terminator Armour (Power Weapon x1; Storm Bolter x1)
-7x Wolf Guard in Terminator Armour ( Armour; Power Fist x7; Storm Bolter x7)
-2x Wolf Guard in Terminator Armour (Chain Fist x2; Assault Cannon x2)
Total Cost: 490
And we don’t get to teleport, If we want to Deep Strike, we either get no Character or Lose one Terminator. It also cost us an extra 35 points to Deep Strike.

This is not Creep, it is Different. We get Different units, that work Different and so we pay for it Difrently.

By the way
I still use the following for my DIY Chapters, just for the different feel each gives me and I think that a few of them are BETTER, Not more POWERFUL.
o Black Templers Codex
o Blood Angles Codex
o Dark Angels Codex
o Deamonhunters Codex
o Space Marine Codex

What the Difference between “More Better” and “More Powerful”
Better means more ability to make use of your Strengths and Compensate for your Weaknesses. The newer the Codex the better the armies are getting at doing this.

I actually like the rise in power levels between armybooks/codices. I think when playing as one of the older books against a newer one there is a higher challenge within the game. I often put a lot more thought into my army list when battling against a 'newer' army. For example my regular opponent and I are both starting new WHFB armies, all I know is he's taking Lizardmen, (I'm taking VC). My books older, so i'm going to be beardy, whilst not disclosing my tactics fully, as he will read this. I'm planning on zombies, lots and lots of zombies. using the entire army as a roadblock to allow my few finer units to engage his flanks and rears, whilst trying to raise as many zombies as pos, damm those Slaan.

(This may not be feasible in the new edition as i have not read the new rulebook yet, but the idea remains the same, playing to your opponents weakness, as opposed to taking a fun list.)


M.C.

Not a fan at all of codex creep. For me releasing the new books should be about making that army fit the new core rules and to give them a new model or two to sell, not creating a new hard core army that everyone will bandwagon jump onto. While the latter may generate more initial revenue, it also can turn people off in the long run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42, I mostly agree with your analysis for those units. But you forgot to mention that you do not have to take a full squad in terminator armor. Give a few no upgrades to soak up AP2 fire, or leave others only the power weapon so that not everyone swings last in CC. Both of those are also cheaper. You've got a lot of tactical flexibility that also comes at a lower point cost. I call that an improvement.

The Space Wolf HQ's are also very impressive, customizable, and you can take 4 if you want. I think they are generally worth their points so this is something that is different, but maybe not always cheaper. Again, you gain flexibility though.

JOTWW... well... I won't get into how much better that power is than vanilla powers, or Living Lightning... Yeah, those are different AND better.

I don't believe codex creep exists. If it did, then all codecies would get irrevocably better, and older ones would always be much worse. Case in point, remember how many elder players were really pissed off when they got their new codex? Clearly codex creep and eldar feeling nerfed conflict. Likewise, the new chaos codex was universally derided when it came out. Codex creep implies that the new codex is always the most powerful, while it is widely awknoledged that chaos BECAME a 2nd tier army
when their new codex came out.

Anpu42 wrote:I think that they are just getting Better not More Powerful.

I agree with this. It's not that codecies are stronger, it's just that they're cleaner, and more appropriate to the rules edition that they're in. For example, the new guard codex isn't cheesy. All they did was throw in more specialist options, and re-work it so that it was appropriate to 5th. ed. rules. Likewise, Necron don't suck just because it's old (DE and =I= are both older and aren't as crappy), but because their rules and play-style is fundamentally mismatched to 5th ed rules.

I think that what really drives the illusion of codex creep is jealousy. People see that a new codex got shiney new toys that their codex doesn't have and they immediately cry cheese at the top of their lungs. I mean, just look at how much noise was made when space wolves came out because people just looked at the new priest abilities? Why isn't space wolves the uber army of 40k as all the screaming implied? Because the space wolves actually got a bad new codex and people were only so focused on what priests could do that their army couldn't that they lost sight of the codex as a whole.

Are some codecies stronger than others? Yes. Is it because every codex is always stronger than the one before it? I really don't think the data can be read in any other way but "no".

@Ailaros

Ailaros tells the truth, have a medal!

My only thought on the subject is that some armies are awesome and some need some work. There are so many example that could be used to show how well the new codexes work but, on the flip side of the coin there are also many examples of how the new codexes alienate some players because of the shear power some armies have gotten. All in all I love the game but as with anything there is always room for improvement.

What's Codex/Army Creep?

Codex Creep is when whatever GW wants to sell next gets a new Codex with more comparatively overpowered and underpriced options and even more special abilities than the last one, to encourage people to play that army. Funny how many people picked up orks when they came out, or I.G. when they got off the 'suck' list, and so on. Mostly it hurts xenos players because the marines get revamps all the time and can switch which marine codex they want to use based on flavor of the month, where each xenos get a single book, maybe updated every few years.

I don't think it's always negative, though. I mean, they did make Guard a really strong army compared to the almost joke they were in the old book. Same for Orks, SM, etc.
However, power creep can also have many negative effects. Like Daemons. And Daemons. And more Daemons, while we're at it.
Greetz,
Mr. Self Destruct

model collector wrote:I actually like the rise in power levels between armybooks/codices. I think when playing as one of the older books against a newer one there is a higher challenge within the game. I often put a lot more thought into my army list when battling against a 'newer' army. For example my regular opponent and I are both starting new WHFB armies, all I know is he's taking Lizardmen, (I'm taking VC). My books older, so i'm going to be beardy, whilst not disclosing my tactics fully, as he will read this. I'm planning on zombies, lots and lots of zombies. using the entire army as a roadblock to allow my few finer units to engage his flanks and rears, whilst trying to raise as many zombies as pos, damm those Slaan.

(This may not be feasible in the new edition as i have not read the new rulebook yet, but the idea remains the same, playing to your opponents weakness, as opposed to taking a fun list.)


M.C.

This.
Some people want a challenge. I enjoy a challenge sometimes.
I remindes me of a character in i think it was street fighter that was made to lose. So if you got beaten by a player using him you lost all face.

Who? The Yoga-flame guy? everybody knew if you wanted to kick some butt you take chunt-li.

I want it to remain stagnant. Eldar did not get nerfed by new codex, but by new rules superimposed over old codex designed for old rules, while IG had their plate handed to them with new rules. That, to me, is a good example of codex creep. Suddenly my falcons suck, my vyper sucks since move-n-shoot got nerfed, and my harlequins are nowhere near worth their points since rend got nerfed, and everyone else can move as fast as me because of 'run' nerfing fleet as a "special" ability that now everybody, even clunky ass terminators, can do? Yeah that sucked. Not the book of Eldar, the book of rules that made the book of Eldar obsolete, while all the latest ones are made to match 5th rules and take advantage of them.

There are 11 or 12 40k codexes im pretty sure. Last time I checked, at least 5 of them were Space Marines. This is absolutly ridiculous. But if GW is going to make that many books for SM, why not do it for CSM. they have different legions with different characters, troops, etc. I am so sick of GW producing more SM stuff.

Guitardian wrote:Who? The Yoga-flame guy? everybody knew if you wanted to kick some butt you take chunt-li.

I want it to remain stagnant. Eldar did not get nerfed by new codex, but by new rules superimposed over old codex designed for old rules, while IG had their plate handed to them with new rules. That, to me, is a good example of codex creep. Suddenly my falcons suck, my vyper sucks since move-n-shoot got nerfed, and my harlequins are nowhere near worth their points since rend got nerfed, and everyone else can move as fast as me because of 'run' nerfing fleet as a "special" ability that now everybody, even clunky ass terminators, can do? Yeah that sucked. Not the book of Eldar, the book of rules that made the book of Eldar obsolete, while all the latest ones are made to match 5th rules and take advantage of them.

Eldar are still a good army... they do well enough most of the time. But this edition didn't change the fact that the majority of the codex is overpriced garbage. This was the case even last edition. The only big change is that foot eldar aren't good at all, where last edition they were an (albeit suboptimal) option.

The previous eldar had a lot more going for them, with many different things being viable. The current book... not so much. Every eldar player I know who has been playing for awhile wishes the old army list was still legal.

I don't really see the complaint about the change of fleet. Your guys get to assault after running, clunky space marines usually don't... So space marine can go 6 +d6, and do nothing. Eldar go 6 run d6, and assault 6... So I fail to see how marines are faster than eldar. Sure if you want to just move more and not assault it makes them the same speed. But Fleet was meant to be an assault tactic, not a move into position tactic. Now how well eldar do in CC is something else, with no real good way to get the t3 4+ save models into combat in the first place.

Off topic: chun li wasn't the best character, not even tier one IIRC. I know for certain in SF2 turbo HD remix she is middle teir, and dhalsim is tier one. He has a great keep away sniping game, one that is really dominate. Chun li was/is the scrub killer, fast enough to get away from the obvious moves, but not good enough to avoid the multi tiered traps that better players set up. The real bad characters were THawk, blanka, zangeif, and cammy. They all are generally bad, but sometimes are counter characters for specific top teir guys.

For the most part there was a bad period of 40k design that occurred during the tail end of 3rd ed, and lasting for most if not all 4th. Most of the books in this time period were mono build, few real options, and just terrible weakness all around. Even supposedly "good" books from this time have HUGE weaknesses that are often exploited. The DE book, the WH book, the BT book are all still very competitive, despite their age. They can hold their own even against the supposed codex creep armies. Heck even tau are a real terror if the player knows how to play them.

I see the current direction of the codex as GW finally realizing that models don't sell if the rules for them suck and people only ever buy the handful of good units and ignore the rest. I've personally seen just about every unit out of the current IG and tyranid books used. I'm pretty sure I've seen less than half of the eldar, CSM, necron, WH/DH, and tau books. If a model is good, its more likely that somebody will buy it even if they are just getting it to give their list building options. With the old books if you included certain units you were nerfing your own list. Just look at taking the WH freak show units, or taking pariahs in a necron list.

I think its good to keep things moving and stop them getting stagnant so I love it.

Have it when things get dragged behind tho, no army should still be on 3rd edition codexes! ie... Dark Eldar, Templars etc etc etc.

If someone said, 'nids are too strong now', or something like that, I would find it a challenge to whoop their rears!

Oh, and another reason people think codex creep exists is when an army gets a new codex and they didn't get rid of things that were broken (in a too powerful way), while their own codex had said broken things removed. That or having broken things get taken away, creating the illusion that your codex is worse and therefore bad, while new codecies are better balanced.

I mean, seriously, codex creep exists because GW changed SMF? The only people who complain about that are people who never played with anything other than hoards of skimmers against people who never had any of their own...

dark6spectre wrote:i clicked.... oh crap i can't remember now what i clicked... i think it was either 'indifferent' or 'don't like it'

well, i have a DA army and i love DA, they are the awesome mysterious badass space marine dudes, but at the moment they have a really weak codex, especially compared to the new SM codex, which has just nicked pretty much all the stuff which made Dark angels a good army, and then added even more stuff.

Agreed. The SM Scout back squads are nearly as good as the Ravenwing who are supposed to be the best short of the White Scars. Then Loganwing pops up and ousts the Deathwing who is supposed to be the best period. We have a little glimmer in our snipers but thats about it.

Here is a question? I don't want to start anthing, but I was wondering how many peaple that compain about Codex Creep have played the "Latest" Codex that "Codex Creep" was Attached to?

Creep is real. The same thing happens in other games. Paladiums Rifts anyone?

FacelessMage wrote:Creep is real. The same thing happens in other games. Paladiums Rifts anyone?

RIFTS dose not count, It is juast a Wet Deam for Power Gamers

all armies will eventually have their time in the sun... it will come again

I really do not see it as a problem, I think in some cases it is but that is more of the player than the book itself. I play competitively but fun(basically if I see 3 lists on warseer that are identical to the one I was writing I scrap it and start fresh). Like there are a lot of things in the newer books that make them stand out, however that is because they are new. Let people learn to overcome them and they are not too bad. It is less of a power creep and more of a need to adapt.

As for power creep, comparing new books to a book that was designed for a different edition is not quite accurate. Look at the Dark Eldar book for 3rd edition. The point costs are atrocious compared to now but when it came out units were priced differently. Space Marine Jump troopers have come down almost 10 points since then. So as the rules changed different types became better or worse, it is something that changes over time. At the time the DA came out I am sure they were priced appropriately for the time.

I don't mind it too much, mainly because I'm a bit more interested in the hobby aspect of the game. If I was a hardcore player I could see how it could get annoying though.

I think that its good because it keeps the game from stagnating, but at the same time it should be done more evenly. I'm not saying change everything, but I think the SMs need to stop getting so OP, and that a lot of the older, more broken codices need some attention. If a codex is playable and competetive, leave well enough alone IMHO. Focus on the broken ones before you decide to give the SM's another unnecessary update or another redundant codex.

id like it better if they did all the codex's at once instead of from time to time because then the ones left out are either way OP like crons or way weak

Blitza da warboy wrote:It doesnt exist. There are only broken armies. (im looking at you IG!)

Are you kidding me?

Oh Im sorry that IG are no longer the laughing stock of the game anymore... like they have been for years and years. Even now the new Codex has ALOT of room for improvement.

Yes, we have lots of tank options.... but with the crappy squadren rules, tank variants that nobody will take due to being obsolete, and high base cost and insane upgrade costs they are worse now then before.

Over cost codex units (Stormtroopers/ogryn, All LR tanks)
Worthless/WTF codex units (RoughRiders, Penal Legion, Ratlins, Deathstrike)
Loss of several army wise skills/units that drastically altered many army lists (Drop Troops, single base Heavy Weapons, Skills like shartshooter, nerfed vox casters ect ect)
And several lackluster Special Characters leave many a Vet guard player wanting for something better. Espically after the stupid long wait we had to endure from the last codex update.

I won't deny that we got some cool new stuff (Valk, Banewolf) however...all we really got this update was ALOT of stuff that we once had and was taken away in the past (Griffion, Hydra, alot of the special characters ect ect) but it just doesn't feel good enough.

We got a shift in power all right.... just instead of going up the ladder.. we just shifted sideways and am strong in new areas instead.

@jp400, at least you're not Necrons. We got hit so hard by the nerf hammer its not even funny

dark6spectre wrote:i clicked.... oh crap i can't remember now what i clicked... i think it was either 'indifferent' or 'don't like it'

well, i have a DA army and i love DA, they are the awesome mysterious badass space marine dudes, but at the moment they have a really weak codex, especially compared to the new SM codex, which has just nicked pretty much all the stuff which made Dark angels a good army, and then added even more stuff.

Ba codex did the same to the marine codex. It seems you should just repaint your marines every once in a while.

I think most armies can win consistently as long as the player is smart.
Obviously all armies have, at one time or another, certain units that are worth taking over all other units in the army, and these can unbalance the game somewhat at times.

All armies will at some point be the 'best' out there, or near to it, at the time they are updated. It all kind of works out in the end. As someone said 'All armies have their time in the sun'.

The one thing that I would like to see, is the Tau's Pulse Rifles being made Heavy 2, and their Carbines Assault 2. Sounds weird but bear with me. The Heavy classification could be explained fluff wise by the fact they take longer to focus on far away objects, and as time for them to set up disciplined firing lines. The Assault for the carbines is because they are smaller and lighter. This would mean there is finally a real reason to take carbines (lets face it, Pinning is not a good trade off for rapid fire) and would go some way to making the Tau the extremely shooty army they are meant to be.
At the moment, we are not really any more shooty that most other armies, and seeing as how we have no close combat abilities (bar the Kroot) this is unfair. Perhaps some more ally races for CC abilities, GW?

I'll keep this short, seeing how in the time it took me to complete a shift at work many of you have already brought up many points that i would have brought up...

With that being said my only beef is that the codex's come out the same time vs. one at a time drawn out over a year+.

Like the release of Blood Angles/Space Wolves codexs, many people near where i live who play basic vanilla space marines have talked about flocking over to "convert". I my self am going to hold on to my self mix vanilla with my dash of sprinkles * Demon Hunter / Witch Hunter allies *, and not jump on the band wagon for whats hot and fresh. But i do like to see all the new things that come with the new codex's.

But like stated above... would prefer to see all at once or over a very short period of say a few months vs. year-years for one army list to be updated to the rest.

I've gone through this discussion many times on the Star Wars miniatures boards.

It's so much about power creep, it's more about marketing. GW need to sell their latest codex and army. If it's crap only a handful of dedicated fans will buy it, so they have to make to appealing, thus they have to make it very good.

So I just see it for what it is, marketing. And that is not going to change in any game.

somecallmeJack wrote:I voted that I hate it, because my feelings towards the imbalance is stronger than dislike.

In truth however, I doubt its a scheme to get people to buy more models, I think its more like GW just arent organised or disciplined enough to update all the codices/army books before the most popular ones get a second update.

Totally, and they probably aren't as competitive as us Americans. My friends from the other side of the pond say of us, "You are all just too damn earnest!" We tend to be into a fair fight with all having equal chances of winning. The designers don't take that to heart, so books tend to be, "Cool", rather than balanced. I just wish they would playtest some core lists that we could use to play balance scenarios.

Paul J.

As a loyal Dark Angels player, it is annoying that I am constantly barraged by players going, "really? Dark Angels? good luck with that..." It would make more sense if GW tried to put out codexes closer together, but then again, the price would increase as they hire more and more gametesters and writers...

Zero sum

Here's an idea, how about codex updates released online? They already do the errata and FAQs, how much of a hassle would it be to do the same thing but with pts changes and the like? For example, the necrons codex. Everyone can agree that pariahs and tomb sipders are overpriced for what they do. So GW releases a thing that says they are now worth X pts. People still need to pay for the dex to play them, as the stats and the like aren't in there, but it would maintain the games balance.

Think of it like the updates to computer games like Dawn of War II.

As a bonus, OP things could get nerfed in a similar way.

What do you guys think?

I voted the second option down, though my opinion of it replaces the words "i like it" with "i don't mind it"

Freelancer48 wrote:Here's an idea, how about codex updates released online? They already do the errata and FAQs, how much of a hassle would it be to do the same thing but with pts changes and the like? For example, the necrons codex. Everyone can agree that pariahs and tomb sipders are overpriced for what they do. So GW releases a thing that says they are now worth X pts. People still need to pay for the dex to play them, as the stats and the like aren't in there, but it would maintain the games balance.

i think this is a great idea. GW obviosly cant be bothered to re-realease the codex and all this takes is a few people sitting down and discussing it for a while, and once they've decided to go ahead with it, it's just a few tippy taps on the keyboard and bingo! This will doubly benefit them as they'll make their customers happy (especially the necron players) and sell more pariahs and tomb spiders as a result! What's not to like GW?

I wonder how many Necron players screaming nerf have a necron army that dosent touch the ground?
Ie. the Necron players that smoked my Eldar all over the place cause of all the damned destroyers they would use, and a single token block of warriors?????
How many of you floaters are out there? lets see some hands!!!
Necrons got nerfed cause they the players turned it into a monolith backed, skimmer army. All necron players i have played against have completely ignored the spirit of the models and mathed out a badass army. Which is fine and dandy. I played against a dozen Necron players and the army lists differed in only two areas. One Lord on skimmer or with the token warriors.
And the second variation i saw and played against was whether they should deploy with the monolith on the table or deep strike it to squeeze an extra foot of move out of a single turn.
necrons were broken, and they got fixed not nerfed.

Jay-Man McDougall wrote:I wonder how many Necron players screaming nerf have a necron army that dosent touch the ground?
Ie. the Necron players that smoked my Eldar all over the place cause of all the damned destroyers they would use, and a single token block of warriors?????
How many of you floaters are out there? lets see some hands!!!
Necrons got nerfed cause they the players turned it into a monolith backed, skimmer army. All necron players i have played against have completely ignored the spirit of the models and mathed out a badass army. Which is fine and dandy. I played against a dozen Necron players and the army lists differed in only two areas. One Lord on skimmer or with the token warriors.
And the second variation i saw and played against was whether they should deploy with the monolith on the table or deep strike it to squeeze an extra foot of move out of a single turn.
necrons were broken, and they got fixed not nerfed.

Woah man, what's with the flame? I was just using the necrons as an example. Everyone can benifit from GW changing the points on stuff around in between codices. Both nerfing and improving. If GW could change the points values on stuff, they could fix things soooo fast, the game would become infinitely more balanced.

Besides, can you blame the necron players for making the most out of what GW gives them? I mean, it's like saying "freaking ork players taking boyz all the time, what the hell?"

Freelancer48 wrote:

Jay-Man McDougall wrote:I wonder how many Necron players screaming nerf have a necron army that dosent touch the ground?
Ie. the Necron players that smoked my Eldar all over the place cause of all the damned destroyers they would use, and a single token block of warriors?????
How many of you floaters are out there? lets see some hands!!!
Necrons got nerfed cause they the players turned it into a monolith backed, skimmer army. All necron players i have played against have completely ignored the spirit of the models and mathed out a badass army. Which is fine and dandy. I played against a dozen Necron players and the army lists differed in only two areas. One Lord on skimmer or with the token warriors.
And the second variation i saw and played against was whether they should deploy with the monolith on the table or deep strike it to squeeze an extra foot of move out of a single turn.
necrons were broken, and they got fixed not nerfed.

Woah man, what's with the flame? I was just using the necrons as an example. Everyone can benifit from GW changing the points on stuff around in between codices. Both nerfing and improving. If GW could change the points values on stuff, they could fix things soooo fast, the game would become infinitely more balanced.

Besides, can you blame the necron players for making the most out of what GW gives them? I mean, it's like saying "freaking ork players taking boyz all the time, what the hell?"

Lol no not really. It was kinda heavy handed wasnt it? my apologies.
I do like that GW forced everyone to use their troop choices more often, and gave a really good reason for it. It is unfortunate in the current rules that the Necrons took the biggest hit though.
The skimmer thing, not so bad. The troop choices again not so bad they have awesome troop choices. But the not able to assault after deep strike, that really stretched thier O-rings. Add to that the swarm bases just dont cut the mustard for cover anymore.
But its not like they are saddled with the worst though, thier destroyers still rock. The lord choices are still wicked, their Immortals are still overpriced but hit real hard. And they still have their monolith.

God save the Monolith.

Not that the Monolith needs the help...

Freelancer48 wrote:God save the Monolith.

Not that the Monolith needs the help...

I wonder what i could aim at a Monolith, from my Nids list to pop it?
I havent got the new codex for them yet. But I know my Marines will likely send volleys of Missiles and Lasguns at them in a vain but glorious 2 turns, then itll be in range and Ill die
Still they were a little easy to take advantage of in 4th dont you think?

Also, do you REALLY want them to release all codecies simultaneously every five years?

Think about it. Let's say that they didn't balance it right (GW not balancing? Gasp!) This means that everyone would figure out which are the best armies and everyone would be stuck in the mud for 5 years. There wouldn't really be a point to playing a non-first tier army, other than because you liked the minis.

Instead, a flexible release schedule allows them to tweak the balance as they go, and allows them to re-release more broken codecies faster, while leaving good codecies (like old ork or old guard) unchanged for longer. Of course, theory and practice breaks down (like Necron or DE), but I don't think that people are really thinking through the rammifications of if they did it some other way.

Ailaros wrote:Also, do you REALLY want them to release all codecies simultaneously every five years?

Think about it. Let's say that they didn't balance it right (GW not balancing? Gasp!) This means that everyone would figure out which are the best armies and everyone would be stuck in the mud for 5 years. There wouldn't really be a point to playing a non-first tier army, other than because you liked the minis.

Instead, a flexible release schedule allows them to tweak the balance as they go, and allows them to re-release more broken codecies faster, while leaving good codecies (like old ork or old guard) unchanged for longer. Of course, theory and practice breaks down (like Necron or DE), but I don't think that people are really thinking through the rammifications of if they did it some other way.

12-14 army books at 40-50 bucks a pop every 5 years would be murder on the wallet too, lets say they give you a volume discount and round it off to 400 bucks its still steep.
I dont mind the way they release the books as much I wish they would slow down. Enough Marines already lol.

Those who fear or are reluctant to change should be destroyed.

When one army creeps, all the armies left behind learn to SPAM everything good they have and ignore the stuff that doesn't compete any more (anybody seen any Vypers or Falcons lately? Bet you see a heck of a lot more Fire Dragons in Wave Serpents... that is if you see any Eldar at all...)

I don't like that it has to become that. When a badass powerhouse codex comes out (SW/BA), all the leftover older codex have to spam their cheese to compete and the older armies all become bland clones of each other if they hope to keep up with the newest thing. So many units in my Codex are simply not viable any more, and a few are still full of awesomeness. So just like any other Eldar army, I have had to go mech in order to accommodate JotWW and deep-striking land-raiders and Baal predators oh my (not to mention psykic tyranids more powerful than Eldrad, Orks in 30 mob units with hidden powerklaws)

Sometimes I look at old books and think they are fortunate because they have a lot more leeway with 'armory' options so they can adapt. We who are caught in the middle (Tau, Eldar, DA, regular SM, CSM) of the creep have the hardest time adapting other than spamming what works for us in order to keep up.

Jay-Man McDougall wrote:I wonder how many Necron players screaming nerf have a necron army that dosent touch the ground?

What about us Necron players that didn't scream nerf? =D

Anyway, I put the "I like" option. I don't really mind armies becoming stronger/more powerful. What I do mind is how strong/powerful they become (Imperium armies), who becomes more powerful/strong (Imperium armies) and the frequency it happens (it's averaging about ~3 40k codices a year? 90% being Imperium since 5th ed). I say maybe change it to just 2 armies per year - 1 imperium, 1 xenos. That'd seem the most "fair" or "balanced" to me. Well, really, just for variety. Any thoughts? GW will make $ regardless, so I'll ignore the fact GW spams SM to make $

As for the existence of "creep", I'm not sure. I've heard of codex updates (not BGB updates) that actually nerf armies...so...

I really wish i could comment on WHFB...but i can't!

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:As for the existence of "creep", I'm not sure. I've heard of codex updates (not BGB updates) that actually nerf armies...so...

Exactly. In my FLGS, we don't say "nerfed" we say "nidded". Remember how much better the old chaos codex was compared to the new one? Remember how many eldar players bitched and moaned when their new codex came out?

For codex creep to be real, whichever codex comes out next must nearly always be better than the one that came out before. That and you should see 3rd tier armies become 1st tier armies whenever their new codex comes out, and 1st tier armies should always become 3rd tier over time.

Look at what goes on objectively, and codex creep really looks like an illusion.

*cough* blood angels *cough*

There's your codex creep. Nids were an interesting break from the trend but then they weren't Spehs Marinez so it just stands to reason that they don't benefit from uber goodness.

I'm indifferent.

Surprised by how much hatred there is out there...

And I've still never lost to a Blood Angels player.

I find some Codecise can be so much better than others and some can be so much worse than others too.


Take the Space Wolves Codex. What a mistake of an overly powered Codex from GW that is. Cheaper but probably better versions of Tact Marines, cheaper Terminators which can be Troops, cheaper versions of Devastator Squads, an amazingly overpowered Psychic Power in Jaws of the World Wolf, they can have 4 HQ's and they have Lukas the Trickster and his "if you kill me in close combat then you're dead" grenades/bomb thingy (I forget the name).

Now on the other hand there are some rather more difficult Codecise to create a decent army list with. Eldar for example with their low balistic skill Grav-Tanks, overly priced troops in the form of Guardians and only really the same units seen in tournament lists (Eldrad, Fire Dragons, Dire Avengers, Serpents, Fire Prisms, Guardian Jetbikes and thats about it with the odd exceptions). Also there is the Blood Angels Codex and how all the vehicles have been massively upped on price because they are fast (Vindicators 30 points more expensive but are still useless even when fast vehicles). I suppose the Blood Angels do make up for this with units such as Mephiston, Stormravens and the Sanguinor and rules such as Red Thirst and Decent of Angels. The Tyranid Codex is also a bit poorish as the Carnifexes have been made all but useless now and they have units such as the Doom of Malan'tai which are great but one Krak Missile Launcher shot will instant death if that 3+ Invulnerable is failed. Albeit the previous 'Nid Codex before the most recent release was extremely overpowered with incredibly cheap Hive Tyrants and Tyrant Guard actually giving the Tyrant extra wounds rather than just being with him in a unit as it is now but it suddenly has become a lot less nooby/cheesy.

I love 40K and in truth I like how many Codecise are much better than others but sometimes discussions in games can get a little heated due to one stupidly overpowered rule.

reidy1113 wrote:Take the Space Wolves Codex. What a mistake of an overly powered Codex from GW that is. Cheaper but probably better versions of Tact Marines, cheaper Terminators which can be Troops, cheaper versions of Devastator Squads, an amazingly overpowered Psychic Power in Jaws of the World Wolf, they can have 4 HQ's and they have Lukas the Trickster and his "if you kill me in close combat then you're dead" grenades/bomb thingy (I forget the name)

Oh yes so broken, lets looks at this.
1] Cheaper Terminators.
Normal Codex: Space Marine Assault Terminators with Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield=200 Points

Space Wolf Terminators with Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield=315 Points
And if I want to Deep Strike tack another 35 for a total of 350 points

2] Terminators as Troops
Dark Angels can do it for about 130 points and I can still take them as Elites

Space Wolves, it Cost me 270 Points and I can ONLY take them as TROOPS.

3] Cheaper Devastators
Noraml Space Marines can buy up to 5 Meat Shields

Space Wolves: No Meat Shields

4] JoTWW: Kills Orks, and Eldar just laugh at it. The most I have ever killed with it is 3 models.

5] 4 HQ’s: Who Hooo! I can buy 4 Models that each cost as much as a fully loaded Tactical Squad and I don’t have accesses to Command Squads.

6] Lukas: Have you ever seen him Used, I would Rather buy and extra Grey Hunter Pack than pick him.

As far as Grey Hunters vs. Tactical Squads why I consider them better is not their cost, but the fact I can give them 2 special weapons. When you look at the cost of everything else, it is nice to have ONE cheep units that can score.

Although I voted that I hated Codex Creep, I apply it more to all gaming in general. Sortve like how D&D splat books can get out of hand, 40k follows the same trend. It's about sales really.

That said, I think people sometimes put too much faith in the Math Hammer aspect of the game. Just read the latest tournament results? Where was all the space-wolf and IG domination? Sure they had successfull players, but so did Daemons running screamers (Who were always laughed at in army lists as OMGHORRIBLE!) and Eldar running a Falcon AND Wraithguard 10 deep as a troop! I can't tell you how many times I've seen that laughed at in lists!

Point being that every unit benefits from each ability differently. There are a few things that might have point adjustments due in all books, or some abilities that werent really thought through that well, but that's where new codexes eventually cope.

I personally would like to see A single SM codex with variant rules posted in it for playing alternate chapters to increase the rate at which xenos and other codeci see updates, but that's just me.

I'm pretty indifferent, but I haven't been playing long enough to really notice or care. The only thing about codex creep that bothers me is that some of the codexs and army books aren't updated as often as the others, which means that armies I'd like to play -- Tomb Kings and Brentonnians in particular -- are weak compared to the most recent books.

At the end of the day though I think success and failure has far more to do with the general's skill with tactics and strategy. I build my armies to themes and because I like the models, and often build armies around units that supposedly suck. Yet I beat armies that built my min-maxing number crunchers. And why do I win? Because I've read Sun Tzu and studied real world military campaigns and famous battles, and I think about actual tactics, rather than relying on math to win the day. And the min-maxers I beat are usually young guys who think they have the killer list, but once it hits the table they fall for obvious tactics like rope-a-dope and force-splitting.

No codex is so good it can't be ruined by a poor player, and no codex is so bad that a good general can't win with it.

Boo space wolves codex. Cheese and over powered, dont even deny it you space puppy players. Nids is the best book in a long time. Strong armies but harder to build lists that are nice. Also nice swarmy alien feel and play.

I have spoken with some game designers candidly about power creep.

I will disclose that my source was not from GW, however I think I'd rather leave him anonymous.

What he told me was that power creep is really hard to pass up. As a game company, you need people to be interested in your newest product in order to stay afloat. Your fans have to continually buy new things, and for them to do that, you need to make the new things enticing.

On top of that, there's really only so far you can go with making something new and different. It is way easier to make something more powerful.


Now, I'm not sure that I agree with him, but I do see that attitude showing through in the current set of GW game designers. The new stuff is starting to be pretty blatantly stepping up the power curve. I really don't think that the power creep we're currently seeing is an oversight in playtesting and balance. It seems very deliberate.

Then again, GW often changes their policy and attitude towards power creep. Every so often, they start making the new codecies less powerful instead. So who knows?

'Codex creep' is a marketing tool pure and simple. The corporate bosses are calling the shots now and that's the result.

GW games are about as fair and balanced as Fox News....



That is all.

Other.

Sometimes, it's annoying and stupid, but on the other hand, it's important and sometimes even necessary.

I haven't play a lot games. I only like to paint. I can see that some armies are weaker than other that are too overpowering. Like the Lizardmen. They look really cool. But are weaker in battle.

And the orks. I remember I played just to try it out. Space Marines took out half of my force by the time I finally got into close combat and I only killed 7 marines on the way. And then the Marines tore me up in combat.

Ha, too bad you can't cross reference this poll with army played, see if the IG player are super happy and the sisters are sad,

I just paint, so more cool models makes me happy : D

I voted Indifferent because I can see both sides. If the rules just stayed the same it wouldnt be as interesting, but at the same time it isnt fair that newer codexes are well balanced and competitive for the current edition when some have been neglected from up to two editions ago and barely work at all.

Freelancer48 wrote:Here's an idea, how about codex updates released online? They already do the errata and FAQs, how much of a hassle would it be to do the same thing but with pts changes and the like? For example, the necrons codex. Everyone can agree that pariahs and tomb sipders are overpriced for what they do. So GW releases a thing that says they are now worth X pts. People still need to pay for the dex to play them, as the stats and the like aren't in there, but it would maintain the games balance.
Think of it like the updates to computer games like Dawn of War II.
As a bonus, OP things could get nerfed in a similar way.
What do you guys think?

These are my thoughs exactly. If GW would fix issues with erratas (other than just grammatical/clarification errors), the codexes would last much longer before needing updates, and be more well rounded with fewer obsolete units. They could (most important to least important IMO) correct major unit flaws due to rule changes, fix rules made useless by new rule editions, minor point balancing, or even change the way a unit works to make them actually worth taking.

Then there would be much less complaining about codex creep, as most of the issues with the older codexes would be resolved; making the armies more enjoyable/competitive until a new codex/model line is released for an army.

Indifferent: Life's not fair. Of course GW will think of new rules and ideas as the game and hobby evolve. Just something we have to live with, no reason to be bitter or angry over it.

I don't really care. I'll just keep on collecting, even if GW turns into a joke of a company and 40k is a laughable broken load of bullocks!

Anpu42 wrote:

reidy1113 wrote:Take the Space Wolves Codex. What a mistake of an overly powered Codex from GW that is. Cheaper but probably better versions of Tact Marines, cheaper Terminators which can be Troops, cheaper versions of Devastator Squads, an amazingly overpowered Psychic Power in Jaws of the World Wolf, they can have 4 HQ's and they have Lukas the Trickster and his "if you kill me in close combat then you're dead" grenades/bomb thingy (I forget the name)

Oh yes so broken, lets looks at this.
1] Cheaper Terminators.
Normal Codex: Space Marine Assault Terminators with Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield=200 Points

Space Wolf Terminators with Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield=315 Points
And if I want to Deep Strike tack another 35 for a total of 350 points

2] Terminators as Troops
Dark Angels can do it for about 130 points and I can still take them as Elites

Space Wolves, it Cost me 270 Points and I can ONLY take them as TROOPS.

3] Cheaper Devastators
Noraml Space Marines can buy up to 5 Meat Shields

Space Wolves: No Meat Shields

4] JoTWW: Kills Orks, and Eldar just laugh at it. The most I have ever killed with it is 3 models.

5] 4 HQ’s: Who Hooo! I can buy 4 Models that each cost as much as a fully loaded Tactical Squad and I don’t have accesses to Command Squads.

6] Lukas: Have you ever seen him Used, I would Rather buy and extra Grey Hunter Pack than pick him.

As far as Grey Hunters vs. Tactical Squads why I consider them better is not their cost, but the fact I can give them 2 special weapons. When you look at the cost of everything else, it is nice to have ONE cheep units that can score.

As a DA player,I would gladly shell out the extra 145 for Logan over Belial. Even though DA can still take Termies as Elites,we can only field 5 man squads of them. I can only field 45 Termies in a standard FOC,which is 9 units of 5 Termies,and only 6 of those units count as scoring. Wolves can field 6 10-man units of Termies as Troops,for 60 in a single FOC,and they all count as Troops. Not to mention your Storm Shields grant a 3+ Invulnerable as oppossed to DA's only granting a 4+ Invulnerable in CC only and your Cyclone Launchers are Heavy 2 instead of Heavy 1. We get a couple of advantages/trade-offs like Fearless vs Counter Attack/Acute Senses and Deathwing Assault vs Drop Pods,but SW's definately have the capability to pull off an all Termie army much better than we can...which is ironically why most Deathwing players do it in "Counts as Space Wolves" fashion,now. Mind you,I'm not bitter about it,because it seemed the direction GW wanted to take the line with the DA codex was uniform units and a lower cheese level,which nobody liked.

As for codex creep,I think it's actually pretty non-existant. I think most of the armies that have been redone in 5th have been as competitive with each other as anybody can reasonably expect. I do think that the power level of the codices has gone up somewhat in 5th compared to 4th,with 'nids being the lone exception so far. Of course,the 4th ed 'nid book was pretty much broken. Vanilla marines are now somewhat sub-optimal when compared to BA and SW,but not to the point of being uncompetitive. However,that's pretty much the way the Vanilla Marines have always been. They were basically obsolete as a power 'dex in 3rd as soon as the BA splat codex came out. There are obviously armies from previous editions that are struggling on the power scale,but this edition is truthfully the best one I've seen at keeping codices competitive with one another,although I've only been playing since the launch of 3rd.

I'm not a fan of it. There's no reason that a newly written codex can't be balanced to the older ones rather than introducing something so powerful that all other codex books become obsolete / underpowered.

If everything must get more powerful then do it every time the master rules change, not piecemeal though the life of a version.

Hmmm. Not gonna say what I voted, but I feel some of the older armies need updates before loyalist armies get their glory. I play Chaos, started with current 'dex so I don't know if it's broken or not. But I have tried to help someone with a Tau army, with current edition it's a little hard and they need a good update, better guns, or maybe a better BS, much better CC squads...Tau just need an update, along with 'Crons. There are other armies, but I can't think of them currently.

I dont like, there should always be a balance between all armies. Not that they all should have identical units and stats. But if something is lacking, make up for it in another category.

I think "creep" doesn't really matter as long as the rules still force you to play the army AS the army it was designed to be. Example, and this'll sound wierd, but it gets the point across: Say they came out suddenly with a new Imperial Guard Codex that made it so you could play Imperial Guard the like they were Space Marines. THAT'S BAD. Any army can win, if you can play it properly, anyway, so what's the big deal? Maybe it would make the game better if they balanced it more, yeah, but it's kind of fun to beat an overpowered army with a nerfed one. Oh, and I don't think they should nerf armies, just make the other ones a little better and maybe stop at that power level. If they took away the Space Marines' Power Armour and Boltguns and replaced them with cardboard and slingshots, I definitely wouldn't mind(well, same as Flak Armour and Lasguns, right?), but that would suck for Space Marines players and yeah, they would become whining, complaining b*****s for a while, just like when something gets nerfed in a computer game. And if this doesn't make any sense to anybody(my rambling, I mean), sorry for a scatter-brained paragraph of nonsense, I'm posting this anyway.

boo hoo...it's a game, don't whine about every little thing that you can, accept it and move on, I can only assume everyone is a big boy (or girl) I'm getting pretty sick of people complaining non-stop about the rules or new codices, it just drags on and on

My views are no matter what you do it is going to be hard to find someone that doesn't complain about something new that comes out. Alot of the time, the only reason people get upset is because they toss a monkey wrench into their perfect lists.

I love it. It makes me inclined to maybe try and start other armies.

i like it to an extent. i think it keeps the game moving and interesting. however there are some armies that i feel are unbalanced or too strong. but stuff like the newer nids codex was great.

Im not sure, it is cool but also bad at the same time.

I think that if they're going to make each army more powerful with each new codex they should release them all in batches instead of one at a time.

It keeps me on y toes, I have to change my play tactics and my lists after freshly facing these new threats so far, and funny enough, I've had to face each single one that came out, and usually I'll lose or draw the first match, get a look at what ridiculously awesome rules I am up against, and rethink my strategy against said army for next time, which has yet to fail me, but, game on tomorrow, lets see how it goes. Time to hit up the nids. WAAAAGH!!!!!!!!!
A.K.A. keep 'em comin.

I like it when it is actually needed, and I do like to see the occassional new unit coming out of the blue which can change the dynamic of the game sometimes. However I think it's utter bull to do so when nothing new is required and the previous codex was fine as is.

Codices should be used to balance out an army from changes in the game/other codices and to bring a few new things to keep people interested and exciting.

When it becomes an escalation war, it gets to a point where the game becomes crap and collapses under itself.

...seen it happen before....

I've seen it happen in RPGs and seen CCGs go that way though admittedly, the CCG didn't collapse but it's still a crap game compared to what it used to be.

The changes keep the game fluid, but they need to make sure older codex aren't left completely in the dust, perhaps with Mini-dexes to keep it balanced

If it's only a little, I don't mind one book being a bit more powerful that another, you can't right all codexes to be perfectly equal unless you are a genius.

But the difference between the Necrons and the Wolves is just silly.

To me it seems more realistic that one force would be more powerful than the other for at least a brief time during a galactic struggle. I really don't have this ever seeking desire for perfect rules in my hobby. I want to have fun, and while I'd rather win, if my marines get beat by some new army codex it's usually due to my ignorance of the new codex opposed to the new codex being broke in some way. But some gamers have a very hard time admitting this. If you want strict parity in a table top system you'd probably be more happy with a PP system. If you want a more pure and wide open table top experience then GW is the way to go.

Its a hobby for, perfekt rules arent gonna happen any day soon, so why moan and groan about it

No idea what that is

Ailaros wrote:I don't believe codex creep exists. If it did, then all codecies would get irrevocably better, and older ones would always be much worse. Case in point, remember how many elder players were really pissed off when they got their new codex? Clearly codex creep and eldar feeling nerfed conflict. Likewise, the new chaos codex was universally derided when it came out. Codex creep implies that the new codex is always the most powerful, while it is widely awknoledged that chaos BECAME a 2nd tier army
when their new codex came out.

Anpu42 wrote:I think that they are just getting Better not More Powerful.

I agree with this. It's not that codecies are stronger, it's just that they're cleaner, and more appropriate to the rules edition that they're in. For example, the new guard codex isn't cheesy. All they did was throw in more specialist options, and re-work it so that it was appropriate to 5th. ed. rules. Likewise, Necron don't suck just because it's old (DE and =I= are both older and aren't as crappy), but because their rules and play-style is fundamentally mismatched to 5th ed rules.

I think that what really drives the illusion of codex creep is jealousy. People see that a new codex got shiney new toys that their codex doesn't have and they immediately cry cheese at the top of their lungs. I mean, just look at how much noise was made when space wolves came out because people just looked at the new priest abilities? Why isn't space wolves the uber army of 40k as all the screaming implied? Because the space wolves actually got a bad new codex and people were only so focused on what priests could do that their army couldn't that they lost sight of the codex as a whole.

Are some codecies stronger than others? Yes. Is it because every codex is always stronger than the one before it? I really don't think the data can be read in any other way but "no".

This. I think the concept of codex creep kicked in when we went from the 4th edition design philosophy to the 5th edition design philosophy. It wasn't an issue of 'codex creep' it was a change in design philosophy which resulted in more powerful units, etc. because they wanted to keep things interesting. It was really only 'codex creep' for the first 3 codecies or so of 5th, after that the power level kind of plateaued as more books were brought up to that level and some of the design choices began to make sense in the context of other books.

I think over powered armies are unfair on real armies.

Codex Creep doesn't necessarily mean that every new codex will be better than the one before it. In regards to the newer codices, neither Nids nor DE seem particularly overpowered.

Only when you have two codices that were released at different times, but are markedly similar, can you really observe creep. You see it in Codex Space Wolves and Codex Blood Angels compared to Codex Space Marines. Competitively speaking, there is literally zero reason to run Codex: Space Marines unless you really want to run Vulkan Marines or Biker Marines, which are both fairly underwhelming.

I don't buy the "they're just different" argument in regards to BA specifically. What does Codex Space Marines have that Codex Blood Angels does not? Meanwhile, BA get scoring assault squads, every unit has a 1/6 chance of raging, Fast Rhino/Razor platforms which can be bought with rebates, and superior dreads, cheaper Devastators, and Storm Ravens. I would buy the "they're just different" argument if BA simply switched Assault and Tactical squads from Fast Attack to Troops. I would buy it if they didn't have EVERY unit in Codex Space Marines (Sternguard for example?). But as it is, you can take almost any army from Codex Space Marines and, using Codex Blood Angels, run it cheaper, faster, and better in H2H.

To me codex creep is good because it incentivised new armies which are good and exiting to play

But it needs to be in moderation

Me assaulting space wolves with their 3 attacks (being charged with their counterattack) and my 2 (vanilla marines) is plain wrong

BA getting fast vehicles and moving AC/LC preds 6 each turn to get side armour whereas I need to use dreads is frustrating

Special characters in particular need attention not to unbalance the game

I have never played a SW army that did not have Njal - that says something

For me - no names characters is essential. I would prefer they stayed in apoc - logan and njal at 1750? please.

I have a mixed opinion on Codex Creep. On the one hand it keeps the game fresh and interesting. There's always new strategies, armies, and models hitting the scene.

On the other hand though I don't like when some armies become completely eclipsed by new rules.

Codex Creep is in the mind of the beholder. AND it really boils down to people understanding how to play new armies, and people figuring out how to stop those armies.

It really comes to the people playing. THIS is a hobby. No one is forcing you to play against the Thunderwolf spam army, or the all razorback/predator blood angel douche. If you choose to play that person, you should not be upset with the list. Play people you will have FUN playing against!

I think that adding new units and vehicles is a good thing, but overall play style needs to remain in one constant for an army, I don't like how power and stats keep changing either.

I don't get that question...

I personally like the addition of any new codex. My only concern is that each Codex is made to be more powerful than the last. It makes sense, but I feel GW could benefit, as could the game, if they focused less on making armies stronger and instead focus on making armies more tactical.

New abilities, new units, re-imagined rules that do not make an army over powered because of the abilities, but give the army a new lease on battfield life because of what they now have the ability to do.

For example, I LOVE the idea of the Necron Megalith. Spawns units for Necrons, or possibly splits into Monoliths. Cheesy, probably! Overpowered, possibly! But it give the Necrons something that is unique to them and also makes the game more interesting. How can my GK's combat spawning Ron's each turn?

I LOVE 40k, but I just wish they focus would shift from ridiculousness of combat power and focus more on tactical prowess of each army.

I don't have any issue with giving an older amry some new rules that really gives them some love. I don't care for the extreme that it has gone to sometimes where the mere faction choice can determine the outcome of the game. I keep thinking and hoping I'm wrong about that, though.

My only dislike about it is making that old model you bought for the awesomeness of the last codex only so-so, so that you need that next big item to be super competitive. Eldar Falcons and Tyranid Carnifexes, I'm looking at you!

Clearly, they're still playable, just so lackluster compared to newer options. Give some power back to old units, too!

Calgarstrong wrote:Codex Creep is in the mind of the beholder. AND it really boils down to people understanding how to play new armies, and people figuring out how to stop those armies.

It really comes to the people playing. THIS is a hobby. No one is forcing you to play against the Thunderwolf spam army, or the all razorback/predator blood angel douche. If you choose to play that person, you should not be upset with the list. Play people you will have FUN playing against!

Unless you live somewhere where those people make up a substantial amount of only a scant handful in your area. Or the only people your schedule syncs up with. Then you're screwed.

There are plenty of people in this situation. Codex Creep increases the amount of power imbalance between different armies, thus increasing the probability that the games you play will become more imbalanced in one person's favour, and less fun. Thus tarnishing your experience of the hobby.