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.

So this is the first edition that i saw the beginning, and after seeing the Eldar codex it seems like there is a significant creep in power since the first codexes came out.

So do you guys think that this new Chapter approved will keep the balance between these new codexes coming out vs the earlier ones?

Is there codex creep? Yes, I believe so - seems almost impossible for GW not to do this.

However, the solution they've chosen is to cheapen units or make them better, which unfortunately means that it becomes a more killy arms race --- rather than reigning in more units which need a points increase/strength reduction.

I'd prefer the latter, personally.

Creep implies subtlety. This is full-on codex sprinting.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Creep implies subtlety. This is full-on codex sprinting.

Haha that's a good one. But I'm kind of wondering if this was all kind of planned, releasing the indexes, then pump out basically copy and pasted codexes with later more tweaked and looked at codexes and then have the actual rules in the chapter approved book to avoid the first few codexes being totally unbeatable

It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

Have you heard of the AM/IG codex?

Ya, it sort of got here first, and is better than the craftworld. But sure blame the runner up.

???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?

As long as AM is king then I don’t care to hear about creep too much, but there’s little doubt the latest handful of books are superior to vanilla marines, grey knights, etc.

Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.

So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.

Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.

Actually there's no inheritent reason why codex HAS to be more powerful. Power level can stay same while adding more options but there's no real reason units have to be more powerful except fixing underpowered units but conversely it should then result also nerfing too good units from index.

That is true, though I was thinking more in terms of synergies enabled through things such as chapter tactics and Stratagems, along with a full set of Warlord Traits and psychic powers where relevant.

All those things are not in the Index so therefore the Codexes will be somewhat more powerful by the existence of these additional options and synergies

Drake003 wrote:
Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.

So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.

Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.

I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.

I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies (AM/SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.

A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.

Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.

I dont think there is a lot of codex creep. If there is, it is relatively minor.

I don't see the Craftworld codex as being vastly better than Imperial Guard, DG, Chaos or Space Marines. And while the Imperial Guard codex was very strong, it has been mellowed a bit with the nerfs on plasma-scions, conscripts and commissars.

on the contrary, I find the AM codex to be the exception, rather than the rule (and even then, the units that were problematic in the codex were almost universally problematic in the index...and they saw nerfs in the codex.)

The stuff that's broken in 40k is almost universally either A) Forgeworld, or B ) in the indexes/interacting with the indexes.

Craftworlds, for instance, would be just fine, with maybe a couple builds using the Alaitoc trait being abusive, if it weren't for the existence of Ynnari and the fact that all the buffs and stratagems CWE get can be used with the broken Ynnari Word of the Pheonix reapers. You can say "OMG so many buffs!" all you like, but when its buffs to stuff like Falcons, which were and are still pretty bad, it's not a bad thing. If anything, a balance pass to SMs, CSMs, GK and Admech is needed analogous to what guard and eldar got.

So far, the only thing we've seen receive significant buffs in the codex having already been seen in the tournament was Dark Reapers, which are broken specifically because of their interaction with the Index Ynnari Word of the Pheonix power, letting them circumvent exactly what Ynnari are intended to be, a close range "high risk high reward" variant of Eldar. The Guard codex at worst kept things we'd seen in tournaments the same, at best nerfed them.

IMO, as soon as we see nerfs to Forgeworld Malefic Lords, Ynnari, Magnus, Arty carriages, etc, and codexes for the other Index factions, we can start looking at codex creep. Heck, if the CA rumors are true, they already are looking at codex creep, which would be awesome.

 Infantryman wrote:
It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

That would explain why the GK and AM codexes were so strong.

Wait, no they aren't, they're distinctly weaker than the codexes that came before them.

GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Creep implies subtlety. This is full-on codex sprinting.

lolwat?

Yeah, codex armies in general are superior to their equivalent index armies but it's not like Codex DG, Codex CM, Codex HA, Codex GK, Codex AM, Codex AsMil post-nerf, or Codex Craftworlds have come out and completely dominated everything else. Soup lists are still the overall strongest way to run Chaos or Imperium and the best standalone armies are still Harlequins and Adepta Sororitas.

Forgeworld has done far more to unbalance the game than the codexes have. And for the emperors sake dude, do you even remember Codex: Necrons? Or the old Codex CWE? THAT was codex sprinting. This is a leisurely sunday afternoon stroll where the codexes are even kind enough to wait for everyone else to catch up a bit, whether through chapter approved or non-threatening codexes like GK and DG.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.

GW is a figurine company, not a games company.

M.

That would explain why the GK and AM codexes were so strong.

Wait, no they aren't, they're distinctly weaker than the codexes that came before them.

GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.

Yup I've always said this GW has never done creep for dollars, it is always random.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.

This ^^

GW couldn't balance a see-saw never mind a complex game system.

the_scotsman wrote:
on the contrary, I find the AM codex to be the exception, rather than the rule (and even then, the units that were problematic in the codex were almost universally problematic in the index...and they saw nerfs in the codex.)

The stuff that's broken in 40k is almost universally either A) Forgeworld, or B ) in the indexes/interacting with the indexes.

Craftworlds, for instance, would be just fine, with maybe a couple builds using the Alaitoc trait being abusive, if it weren't for the existence of Ynnari and the fact that all the buffs and stratagems CWE get can be used with the broken Ynnari Word of the Pheonix reapers. You can say "OMG so many buffs!" all you like, but when its buffs to stuff like Falcons, which were and are still pretty bad, it's not a bad thing. If anything, a balance pass to SMs, CSMs, GK and Admech is needed analogous to what guard and eldar got.

So far, the only thing we've seen receive significant buffs in the codex having already been seen in the tournament was Dark Reapers, which are broken specifically because of their interaction with the Index Ynnari Word of the Pheonix power, letting them circumvent exactly what Ynnari are intended to be, a close range "high risk high reward" variant of Eldar. The Guard codex at worst kept things we'd seen in tournaments the same, at best nerfed them.

IMO, as soon as we see nerfs to Forgeworld Malefic Lords, Ynnari, Magnus, Arty carriages, etc, and codexes for the other Index factions, we can start looking at codex creep. Heck, if the CA rumors are true, they already are looking at codex creep, which would be awesome.

Voice of reason. Well written.

One book does not mean a trend.

The first book in the edition - SM - clearly came out before DG, AdMech, or GK. All those are worse. In fact, it's squarely middle-of-the-road.

The imbalance between the top (IG or CWE) and bottom (GK) is dissapointing. But it's nowhere near as bad as 6th or 7th - at any time in those editions.

I much preferred the balance of the Indexes (even if they hosed my second favorite unit - the Dire Avenger). The codexes are bringing some interesting things. And the balance is closer than most editions I've seen between codexes. But it's too bad that balance is getting worse, even among the most recent publications.

But to say it's clear that each new Dex is better is flat out wrong. Even in the small sample set, there are clear counterexamples.

On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture." This isn't exactly new: 4th ed Codex Tyranids could easily have been called Codex: Carnifex because it was clear where most of the options and attention went. And this is a relatively benign example.

And of course, for every 7e Eldar, you have a Khorne Daemonkin (or Cadia: An AM Supplement, or Waaagh Ghazgkull, both which came after). For every 8e Guard, an 8e Grey Knights. It could easily be a mix of factors, from certain writers having "favorites" (don't get a Space Wolf fanboy to write Thousand Sons - Wrath of Magnus was a trainwreck, and by the same author of the relatively well-received Genestealer Cults codex), to marketing getting in the way (hence the axing of "no model" options in codexes).

Breng77 wrote:

Drake003 wrote:
Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.

So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.

Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.

I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.

I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies (AM/SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.

A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.

Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.

Guard came before Eldar but after AdMech and Death Guard, and are the only book to receive a significant FAQ/Errata in the form of completely destroying one unit based upon its interactions with another unit--and the problematic unit in question(Conscripts) had already received a toning down from its Index to Codex iterations.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture." This isn't exactly new: 4th ed Codex Tyranids could easily have been called Codex: Carnifex because it was clear where most of the options and attention went. And this is a relatively benign example.

And of course, for every 7e Eldar, you have a Khorne Daemonkin (or Cadia: An AM Supplement, or Waaagh Ghazgkull, both which came after). For every 8e Guard, an 8e Grey Knights. It could easily be a mix of factors, from certain writers having "favorites" (don't get a Space Wolf fanboy to write Thousand Sons - Wrath of Magnus was a trainwreck, and by the same author of the relatively well-received Genestealer Cults codex), to marketing getting in the way (hence the axing of "no model" options in codexes).

You think "no model no rules" is a marketing decision? To me, it smacks of a legal decision that they're shoving down marketing's throat and making them polish the turd. To me, the "units with rules no models can still be in indexes" seems to be a concession to quiet the passionate fans. If this were old GW, had that decision come down from on high, everything would be gone, like it or not, Finecast/Codex Dark Eldar Style.

Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).

it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.

MarkM wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.

This ^^

GW couldn't balance a see-saw never mind a complex game system.

How dare you sir. They cannot balance the bubble in a level... the see-saw is way to big and complex it has moving parts

the_scotsman wrote:

Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).

it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.

I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.

If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Drake003 wrote:
Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.

So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.

Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.

I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.

I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies (AM/SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.

A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.

Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.

Guard came before Eldar but after AdMech and Death Guard, and are the only book to receive a significant FAQ/Errata in the form of completely destroying one unit based upon its interactions with another unit--and the problematic unit in question(Conscripts) had already received a toning down from its Index to Codex iterations.

Not sure what your point is specifically. That it is a newer book that got a ton of buffs to many units (and some nerfs to other units), rather than the SM or CSM dex (first 2) that had little change from their indices?

I definitely agree the CWE changes were surface-level.

Nothing really got more interesting. Nothing changed significatnly, aside from points. Their attributes/traits/stratagems are mostly uninspired.

Serviceable work, but nothing wonderful/special.

Mostly it was points changes.

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).

it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.

I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.

If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".

Cruddace wrote the 5e guard book and it was "tide of tanks" so I'm not really sure that your argument holds water. It is more of an issue of the edition favoring certain types of units.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Drake003 wrote:
Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.

So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.

Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.

I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.

I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies (AM/SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.

A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.

Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.

Guard came before Eldar but after AdMech and Death Guard, and are the only book to receive a significant FAQ/Errata in the form of completely destroying one unit based upon its interactions with another unit--and the problematic unit in question(Conscripts) had already received a toning down from its Index to Codex iterations.

Not sure what your point is specifically. That it is a newer book that got a ton of buffs to many units (and some nerfs to other units), rather than the SM or CSM dex (first 2) that had little change from their indices?

You said that Chaos and Imperium armies(AM/SM) were doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Was just making it abundantly clear that while SM and CSM were early drops, the Guard book is under a month old and has experienced some of the most dramatic rules changes outside of going from Index->Codex and gaining your <Legion>, <Chapter>, etc rules.

Guard dropped on October 7th. The Commissar gutting and FW Index FAQ were both on October 22nd, fixing the weird interaction between Carriages/Emplacements and Master of Ordnance and completely killing any use for Commissars outside of Conscript Hordes...the whole problem the idiots were trying to fix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).

it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.

I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.

If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".

Cruddace wrote the 5e guard book and it was "tide of tanks" so I'm not really sure that your argument holds water. It is more of an issue of the edition favoring certain types of units.

When the feth was it ever "tide of tanks"? You must have played a different 5e than I did, because all I ever saw whined about was Leafblower Guard.

Leafblower was essentially a tide of armored vehicles, so unless you are someone who thinks only Russes are tanks, it was tide of tanks.

5th ed guard was Mech veterans, Mantacores, Vendettas, hydras, colossus etc. Certainly not "tide of bodies" at the very least. I basically never saw blobs of infantry from guard in 5th.