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.

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.