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.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, but definitely more marines than previous Aussie games it seems. There shouldn't really be anything stopping DG from performing well ( if they're OP ) regardless of the meta though.

Then again...a Kustom Stompa went 3-2...

That's also a lot of TFCs considering they've been "nerfed". And I agree with Sasori, Death Guard aren't OP. Good, yes, OP, no.

Any chance of a link with the full lists? Was that #6 finishing DG army with or without Mortarion?

Sorry that should read TWC. Doh. Thunderwolves swinging high efficiency weapons and cranking out hits. Though I expect we'll see a comeback for Tremor Shells and WW Suppression fire to land more strike last and movement effects.

With Morty. 2x8 PM, 40 Pox in total (15/15/10 - maybe too small?), 5 BL, 3 Shrouds, PBC, and characters.

I didn't read the whole thread, but the history of 9th so far shows a quite significant and pronounced codex creep. In the past, I would have said that GW was too incompetent to manage deliberately raising the power level on each new codex to whale the FOTM crowd, but this feels different, like a quite deliberate and measured upping of the stakes.

I suppose we'll have a pretty good indication once we see the DE book, given how pretty much everything so far has been marines of one variety or another, and modern GW loves itself that power armor. If the DE book raises the power level up another notch, it's going to become very hard to say we aren't in an era of deliberate codex creep.

Codex creep is a bit different than overpowering new models, though. They've been all over the place with those, and that's continued through the 9th releases. It seems like a "flip a coin, if heads, make it ridiculous, if tails, make it meh" more than a concerted plan to overpower new models to sell them.

I don't think GW does this, at least not in a consistent fashion. As some new stuff comes out awful, some stuff has sucked forever and some things drop middle of the road or worse. If GW tries to make stuff OP to sell they must be terrible game designers because they often fail.

So No, I don't think DG are OP they are just the new flavor and DA are shaping up pretty good as well.


Edit: I do think codex creep can be real but even this if they do it with a purpose sometimes they just fail at often.

Codex creep exists since forever in 40k but sometimes people overreact mostly because they hadn't figured out how to adapt to the new stuff. I remember when 8th Drukhari codex was released everyone freaked out and immediately elevated that faction at top tier 1. In fact that codex has never been OP, just good at most, players simply needed to adapt.

Sometimes when people scream OP!!! to something new they simply need to play more games, learn how to play better, and adapt to things they're not familiar with.

I've no idea about the real potential of the DG codex, I haven't played since early dec and probably won't play until summer. But looking at the rules, DG codex doesn't look OP compared to all the other 9th edition books.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I didn't read the whole thread, but the history of 9th so far shows a quite significant and pronounced codex creep. In the past, I would have said that GW was too incompetent to manage deliberately raising the power level on each new codex to whale the FOTM crowd, but this feels different, like a quite deliberate and measured upping of the stakes.

Please elaborate on that.

Where do you see newer releases (overall) stronger than older ones? On a percentage level, how much stronger are Death Guard compared to Blood Angels and Necrons, for example?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I didn't read the whole thread, but the history of 9th so far shows a quite significant and pronounced codex creep. In the past, I would have said that GW was too incompetent to manage deliberately raising the power level on each new codex to whale the FOTM crowd, but this feels different, like a quite deliberate and measured upping of the stakes.

I don't think we have enough data points to draw that conclusion. So far, in terms of full Codices, we've had SM, Necrons and DG, with 3 (soon to be 4) SM Supplements. SM and Necrons released simultaneously and I don't think anyone is destroying the tournament scene with Deathwatch right now, for example. The consensus seems to be Necrons are pretty good, roughly equivalent to SM and we haven't seen enough of DG in action to know if they're OP or not.

Do you have any examples of this "significant and pronounced codex creep"?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I didn't read the whole thread, but the history of 9th so far shows a quite significant and pronounced codex creep. In the past, I would have said that GW was too incompetent to manage deliberately raising the power level on each new codex to whale the FOTM crowd, but this feels different, like a quite deliberate and measured upping of the stakes.

Does it? I think DG will be great as meta-spoilers, but I don't think they're going to be a top faction when it's all said and done. I have some issues with the way the 'Cron dex was done, but over-all, I think the three main codexes are well balanced (I don't know gak about most of the marine supplements so if there are issues there let me know). I think CORE is being mishandled, I think we're seeing the typical problems (typical since 8th ed anyway) of Marines playing a slightly different game than everyone else, but honestly, I don't think the books are that far off from one another. I would have agreed with you a few days ago, but the more I think about it, the less I agree.

Where do you see creep?