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.

First off, this is not ment to be hash slinging about codex creep...I want to know WHY a more balanced approach to codex is impossible for GW...is it pure greed? Here's a lsit of things we could have done without that would have left plenty to make the various codexs unique...without twisting the guts of fun play:

First off, any character drivena bility that allows no invulnerables should go right out the window (looking at the SW trickster and GK Champion/crowe). These guys are not warp-driven magical by any means, so totally ignoring I+ saves is pretty lame.

Army Specific:

Unlimited use of Veterans in IG….it’s like there’s no normal IG anymore…

Counter Attack for Grey Hunters? Why? Giving them an extra attack was a big enough edge in cc. Making the toughness on a thunderwolf 5 (not 4(5)?). A armored shield that is a combat bike is weaker than a cyborg wolf? No…

Grey Knights; Get rid on the melta resistance for GK vehicles…what, they stole Necron living metal tech? It’s powerful enough they can shake of stuns with a paltry 10 leadership test… and limit the holy ammo to elites (like sternguard)…otherwise they’d issue psi ammo to everyone, not just GK's. Drop the +2 I on halberds to +1 for init 5..then some armies can actually get in some blows (with furious cahrge, for example) before the slaughter. A 2+I from a warding staff? 3+ is not good enough? Give a invul save vs rad grenades; these alone make taking IC’s worthless; Drop the no save of any kind ‘ vs crap that is Crowe’s insta-gimp ability. DON’T give their termys frag grenades, when no other termies in existence have the option (or give it to all of them…really WHY would GK suddenly get them?). ETC, ETC. They can be a great, WELL-BALANCED force

Limit the AP 2 spam for DE.

Limit the FNP bubble of a sang priest to just it’s squad, like a normal apothocary (still a huge edge for BA…apoth’s usually hang out in tiny squads, and rarely (if ever) in termy squads). Sang’s are prolific enough you don’t need a huge bubble. For that matter, the idea of carrying a meltagun on your jump troops is a BA invention?

Note that these few changes are enough to keep the ‘unique’ feel of these armies (Wolves get their wolfen and a lot ot other perks, BA still have fast vehicles and DOA, IG will always be vehicle heavy, etc etc). It would go a long way to makeing everyone's game more enjoyable and balanced.

Its the combination of new model sales + making previous popular army lists redundant.

GK are balanced, but I agree bout the DE

Get rid on the melta resistance for GK vehicles

What melta resistance are you talking about? The only vehicle with melta res is the stormraven aand the blood angels one has it too so it's nothing to do with grey knights.

this is not ment to be hash slinging about codex creep

I'm sorry but that is exactly what it is. Grey knights are a balanced army to play and are a lot more difficult to play than other marines due to really low model count.
And i disagree with what you say about DE.

Rocky1 wrote:

this is not ment to be hash slinging about codex creep

I'm sorry but that is exactly what it is. Grey knights are a balanced army to play and are a lot more difficult to play than other marines due to really low model count.
And i disagree with what you say about DE.

+1 agree with this. As soon as you started complaining about GK, DE and other armies and how they seem to have such an advantage over you, you're already starting to talk about codex creep.

As for why, model sales is always a potent-to-strong factor. But GW say it themselves often that they're first and foremost, a miniatures-producing company, and the game itself is secondary to that. I dont particularly agree with this sentiment, but them's the official words.

To be fair to the OP, some of the things he does mention are a little bit out there on the unsporting side, like characters that ignore all saves, and veteran guardsmen replacing all the normal ones. I feel that things like that go against the spirit of the game personally.

I think it's a resuot of GW's opaque and ponderous release schedule. The newer codecies are possibly gearing up for 6th, so they are bound to be different in power level. If codecies were released en mass, or at least close to each other, then power levels would, I think, feel more balanced.

Maybe they could reduce leaderships down. Everyone and their mother is leadership 9 or 10. Its like leadership doesn't even matter anymore.

I don't think it's intentional just to sell models. You see codex creep or it's equivalent in all kinds of things. I reamer every time D&D got a new book, everything was just slightly more powerful then what came before. Basically the value of different things changes.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Maybe they could reduce leaderships down. Everyone and their mother is leadership 9 or 10. Its like leadership doesn't even matter anymore.

Except for tau - their LD SUCKS!

Marines aside I don't think dark eldar generally should have ld 8 and then 9 with the sgt upgrade. 7->8 would be more reasonable all round

Even as a guard player I think IG vets are too good. If they were going to make them troops, I think they should have been limited to only 2 special weapons, make them 80 points a squad and lower the cost of thier doctrins. However the guard did need another troop option, being limited to infantry platoons was not a lot of fun either, and armoured fist squads were not very good.

OP, almost everything you mentioned really does just sound like you are upset your codex hasn't gotten an update.

You seem to be looking at things in a vacuum. Lukas? 155 point model which can only be taken in a unit no one ever takes. Crowe's ability? It's a psychic test (which can be hooded) AND it requires a roll to hit. Also, it means that he is already DEAD. Darklight spam for DE? in case you haven't noticed, it's the only way for them to reliably kill tanks. I don't see you complaining about the AP1 spam that is meltaguns. T5 Thunderwolves? This is exactly the same as the Juggernaut from the Chaos Daemons codex.

I can't say I understand all of the things that they did with the GK book, but I will say they are quite balanced. Some others have done the math for various tournaments, but GK are over-represented, but they still aren't exactly winning everything.

In short: the 5th edition codices (except Tyranids) are very well balanced among themselves. I don't care what you play, I guarantee you have something in your dex that will let you compete. If you're not taking them because you don't like that unit, suck it up.

It’s a common misconception that grey Knights are perceived to be balanced due to a low body count. This was true for the previous book but not the current as a good portion of the current book is under-costed. With the entire army having hammerhand and force weapons, basic GK marines costing 20pts and psycannons costing 10pts, it’s pretty easy to squeeze in a lot of (very effective) bodies into a list. I don’t think any other book can pack that much beef into their lists (and don’t say its GK, they’re supposed to be able to).

It’s pretty much a universally agreed statement on dakka that GW focuses more on model sales than balance, otherwise we’d see less power creep, more errata and white dwarf rules. What’s partially to blame is that he rules design in 5th has been a little sloppy over previous editions in my opinion. The “toy shop factor” of the current books are a bit much (especially Matt Ward codices) with a single upgrade often granting a plethora of special abilities. Having extra tooled out books generally means more overall balance issue (especially when codices aren’t properly balanced against each other).

Boss Grabnutz wrote:
Limit the AP 2 spam for DE.

Pfff....HAHAHAHAHAH

Seriously, DE is, has been and always will be the AP2 spam army. That's like saying reduce the 3+ saves of a Space Marine army.

This isn't suggestions for 'balancing' the game, it's just someone bitching that they can't win. No ignoring Invs? What the feth does that?

First thing to address the OP, do you include fantasy army books in your statement? If so, I completely disagree with you. 8th edition has been perfectly balanced, with competitive books that each have their own differences, but balance nicely. I'm sure once 6th hits, this will be the norm for 40k as well (opinion). They are capable of making balanced books-it is not an "impossibility," as you put it. If anything, you can argue that many things coming out are of equal power (BA, IG, SW, GK, De) and this may be the current power setting. Last I checked, only Tyranids, out of the last 6 books, have been considered "crap." 5 out of 6 is not too bad-demanding 100% perfection is foolish. Yes, the current books are more powerful than previous books. But when new rules, new editions and new models come out, this will happen. From a business standpoint it makes sense-otherwise old players who already own old, useful models will not buy anything new. New, stronger models are needed to keep the cash flowing. Expect the rest of the army books coming out to meet the standards of those 5 in parentheses.

Now, I'm not apologizing for GW, I'm quite pissed at some of their decisions, and I don't get on my knees for them, as some people do. But I do feel that here they are receiving unjust accusations-I'm a middle of the fence, areas of grey (not black vs white) kinda guy. I can see both sides of the argument, and I will defend GW if I feel they deserve it, and I will throw my pitchfork and lantern at them when they screw up. I'm what would happen if HBMC and Kanluwen had a love child....Man, I'm waiting for them to put their differences aside and kick my donkey for THAT one


edit-To give credit to the complaints though, it would be appropriate of GW to errata some of the old stuff to fix it. Oh, wait....they did for DA and BT to bring them in line with other marines. It's harder to do it for the xenos, as they don't have other comparable armies to match up (except Eldar-let's get on that, ok GW?)

I agree with what timetowaste said...

and as a side note...if all the armies are now becoming "OP" wont the game be balanced???

The whole errata thing for BT and BA still proves the model sales argument. GW really focused on Space Marine sales during 5th and the fact that BT and DA were the only factions to receive a balance update sort of proves this.

That being said, players have been asking for balance errata for all the older factions for years. Considering the drastic change in design and balance between 4th and 5th edition codices which is the cause of the balance issues in the first place, it’s strikes me odd that GW never release errata for the older books to make them up to 5th edition standards (something like a simple points cost tweak is all that was needed)

I wouldn't say FAQs are geared to help sales as well. Look at Tyranids. If they wanted to help sales, they wouldn't have released that FAQ.

You can claim they're pushing Space Marine sales all you want, but deliberately sabotaging an entire line that has historically sold quite well is stupid.

@Loki
My comment was focused on the balance errata ala BT and DA and not the general rules FAQs they release for the codices. Even then the rules FAQs that they write aren’t exactly the best quality.

In regards to the SM release comment, I’m not saying that it is an effective strategy (as I agree with your Tyranid statement) but rather what I have merely noticed as the general pattern during fifth. The majority of codex and non codex releases have been primarily Space Marine affiliated and it was somewhat odd that only BT and DA were the only factions to get balance errata (other factions just getting general FAQs).

It’s probably not a case of pushing more sales in general (as there are better ways of doing this as per your Tyranids statement) but perhaps a greater focus on SM sales than previous releases. This is just speculation on my part and by no means I’m condoning any strategy that GW is doing.

The only codex creep I see is imperial guard still killing everyone, long fangs being too cheap, and henchman greyknight spam.

Everything else is fine. At least, everything that's 5th ed is fine... *sniff...

juraigamer wrote:long fangs being too cheap

Surely you mean Space Wolves being too cheap.

Hah no I'm not bitching at all about my codex (mostly orks) being updated. I think it's a fine codex that does not need a big upgrade (well, maybe some psychic protection, but that's not such a huge thing). And I don't have a problem winning, with more W than L in the appropriate column. I'm just wondering why they don't think more on game balance. The Thunderwolves for example. Players would still take them, no problem, even with 4(5), because of their great str in other areas (rending, 12" charge, etc etc...you want Cyborg feel..give them a 5+ inv naturally). A las cannon that can drop a landraider should be able to drop a big dog. Someone mentioned blood crusher T5...that gets balanced by their weaker Invuln save comapred to storm shields. And really, daemons have enough problems not getting their first half of their army shredded by a gun line anyway. I'd just like to know why for example a halberd is not +1...no it's got to be +2 so those Slannesh creeps or anyone with furious charge still dies first. That's just one example of not thinking about design, just the $. I play a lot of tourneys just like a lot of you, and what I wonder at is why all armies are not having a lot closer balance in placings. Thinking about reasoanble gear when writing a codex for all armies would be the ideal, yet they ignore it. Would you not prefer to look across the table and say "Hrmmm Tyranids...this is going to be a great fight!" than "Bleh...why did I bother playing necrons vs yet more bandwagon knights"...and leave your ego out when you reply.

You're forgetting those SS Thunderwolves are running at around 80 points each without weapons. Bloodcrushers are ~50 and come with power weapons.

You're forgetting you mgith lose them to deep strike, won't necissarily get them the turn you want, and they are much easier to torrent.

The codex imbalance between the pre-Ork and post-Ork codices is arguably one of the biggest problems plaguing the game. While you could argue that the 5e codices are balanced, and even here I see problems, the disparity in power between 5e codices and anything released before codex Orkz is undeniable. These older codices and armies are still part of the game, and GW has spent far too long neglecting races such as Necrons, Eldar, and Tau. Players using these armies should not have to wait year after year for codex updates while playing this game at a severe handicap against the many new, superpowered IoM codices.

What is really starting to alienate me is just the insane amount of attention the IoM and the Space Marines have been given in 5e. At the moment, 5 of the 7 codices 5e released are IoM codices, the remaining two Space Marine codices enjoyed FAQs that gave them some of the more powerful Space Marine toys, and the Sisters of Battle received a white dwarf codex. The Sisters of Battle codex being gak notwithstanding, all Imperial factions have enjoyed some manner of update, while Xenos and Chaos seem to have been forgotten. And of the updated codices, the four most powerful are arguably IG, SW, BA and GK, all IoM armies, while DE is the only army that pretends to compete with these codices on a competitive level(incidentally, there is a BoLS article today on the top 6 armies to play to win, and DE are the only non-IoM army to make it on that list). If I didn't know better, I would say that GW is trying to alienate there Xenos players, who get to sit with outdated codices as they watch GW release wave after wave of powerful models and rules for the IoM.

The lack of errata and releases for non IOM armies was one of the reasons why I quit GW in the first place (the other reasons being the ROW embargo and overall rules quality).

Boss Grabnutz’s post regarding rules design and “not thinking of the bigger picture” is essentially spot and I’ve personally noticed this in particular with the some of the newer books like BA and GK. There’s a lot of powerful/cheap units/upgrades in these books that don’t seem take into account how they would affect other armies (e.g. like how army wide force weapons would affect nids). Wargear/units in general seem to be fairly inconsistent as far as power and pricing in concerned (and I think this is partly because the current writers don’t follow any sort of formal template/formula and partly because Matt Ward is insane). That being said, any balance issues could easily be solved with errata (which GW appears to be unwilling to do).

I agree that there are at least one or two things in each of the newer codices that clearly were written without regard to how they would interact with other armies, but I think some of you aren't seeing the bigger picture.

The fifth edition codices are being written for this ruleset. They are being rewritten to work better within the current system. I understand that a lot of sisters players are upset because they didn't get a ROFLSTOMP army in their WD codex. If I understand it properly, neither did BA. I have played against sisters twice since their WD came out, and I have hardly been underwhelmed by them.

I see a lot of complaining about the fifth edition codices all being overpowered compared to the older ones...they're supposed to be. Part of that is pure model sales, and part of that is that they are just being adjusted for the new(ish at this point) edition. Personally, I really hope that 6th is much farther off than rumored, because I want to watch everyone freak out about how OP Necrons and Sisters and Eldar are first

I say balance with slight codex creep.


My reason: In the fluff, Pink Horrors split into 2 blue Horrors When Killed. According the GW, this is not represented ingame "for Player's Sanity".

If they really just wanted to sell models mindlessly without any idea of balance, they would have incorporated the horrors splitting into the game, which would sell three times as many horror squads.

-Loki- wrote:

juraigamer wrote:long fangs being too cheap

Surely you mean Space Wolves being too cheap.

Ok I'll give you that.

Also I forget to mention transport spam. Damn it to the 5th layer of hell.

Imagine what the game would be like if space wolves were priced right, imperial guard didn't shoot your models back into their carrying case as well as they currently do, grey knights couldn't run mass battle psychers, and running transports was actually dangerous.

I see a lot of complaining about the fifth edition codices all being overpowered compared to the older ones...they're supposed to be.

And they really shouldn't be. There is no reason why the codex power level needed to go up in 5e. And if it indeed was absolutely necessary to boost the power level, GW has spent way too much time bringing the codices up to date, and has given the IoM way to much attention as compared to Xenos. We are what, three years into 5e, and exactly two Xenos codices have been updated, because heaven help us if we didn't update four separate codices to explain just how awesome Space Marines are. The result is that we have a game, at least at the competitive level, that is dominated by a handful of armies, mostly IoM factions, while many armies have been shelved to collect dust because they can't compete with the 5e codices and aren't receiving any support from GW. Its an absolutely terrible way to support the hobby and treat 40k players.