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.

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!