PDA

View Full Version : Codex Creep



Eldartank
07-04-2009, 01:45
I just started playing Warhammer 40,000 again (still not 100% used to the new 5th edition rules yet). Although I collected all the latest rulebooks and codices and glanced through them, I haven't played for a few years. I did spend lots of time collecting and painting new miniatures. I have a nice Crimson Fists army, and a nice Tyranid army, among others. After playing a game at my local game store, and reading through some of the codices, I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be quite the "codex creep" that was so prevalent in the 3rd Edition. Normal Codex Space Marines are actually worth playing again! I'm curious to see what others think, if they share my opinion or have a totally different view of things.

Note that I'm not looking for a debate. If you think the "codex creep" is far worse than 3rd edition, or if you think 40k is absolutely the worst game ever invented, I will totally respect your opinion since this is only a game, and I personally like what I see of this latest edition so far.

self biased
07-04-2009, 02:09
we'll see. so far the current trend starting with orks is that everything's broken.

ehlijen
07-04-2009, 02:16
Everything is broken, including any and all absolute statements :p.

For every codex, there's someone willing to shout 'broken'. Twice that many if it's the most recent one.

DarkMatter2
07-04-2009, 02:18
The new Guard codex looks to be about right IMHO.

RichBlake
07-04-2009, 02:19
I've never bought into "codex creep" as such. I think that there will always be an element of it as some sort of super unit from one codex will encourage designers to put something in that lets armies deal with that sort of problem. Not as a specific fix to a specific unit, but as a generally "you can take this to deal with this type of unit".

In 5th so far both the Space Marine and Ork codexes have been brilliant imo. A codex should work in such a way you can take pretty much any combination of units and get an OK army, there shouldn't be anything that if you ask someone should you take it you go "Nah it's useless".

The Imperial Guard one is looking pretty hot, there's certainly some scorchers in there. However it doesn't look to be quite so flexible as the Ork and SM versions. Time will tell though.

holmcross
07-04-2009, 02:34
Codecies far above the power curve: Eldar and Ork.
Codecies with one problematic build thats on par with Orks and Eldar: Chaos Space Marines

TheDarkDuke
07-04-2009, 04:11
I don't see any power creep in 40k. I don't see anywhere near the amount of hard as nails builds in 40k. The last bunch are all on equal terms and are creating a very awesome level playing field, they include: Eldar, CSM, Ork, SM and IG coming out look solid and on par, so in my books since they started their 5th ed books (Eldar and CSM clearly had 5th in mind, no matter the nay sayers). So in my books they are 4/4 soon to be 5/5 and things are clearly going in the right direction.

A1TEC
07-04-2009, 04:29
There are so many good differences with the new Codex: Space Marines

holanes
07-04-2009, 05:05
You are absolutely right about codex creep in 3rd edition. That stuff was crazy. I think though that it was a product of how dramatically they changed the game from 2nd edition. When 3rd edition came out everything changed dramatically, it's actually what made me come into the game to begin with and with 4th and 5th edition we really just saw 3rd ed Mk2 and Mk3. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I think that they also took steps to make the game more balanced as a whole by making the objectives more important.

Ubermensch Commander
07-04-2009, 05:49
Right about now, Codex balance is pretty damn good. Significantly superior to mid to late third edition. Orks have a slight edge, as they have a healthy selection o "underpriced for their capabilities" units, but nothing insurmountable. Other than that its relatively good. Granted some builds are quite weak (IE pure Grey Knights) or just scary (Certain Ork, Eldar, Space Marine, and CSM builds leap to mind) but no entire CODEX is particularly, ridiculously, weaker or stronger than the others.

Marneus Calgar
07-04-2009, 06:17
The new Guard codex looks to be about right IMHO.

Right, until the next codex comes in and blows everyone out of the water, leaving the Imperial Guard to be left behind once more. :rolleyes:

Gamesworkshop has a way of making a couple of armies much more powerful within the codex creep, forget about it a codex or two later, then keep going with the creep.

Nezmith
07-04-2009, 07:54
I never see codex creep so much as I see certain units in every army that are under priced for their ability on the table.

The_Outsider
07-04-2009, 08:26
Codex creep has been massively curbed down now that the dev cycle for a codex has what, doubled since codex eldar?

Despite what the internet will have you believe once they new IG codex coems out there are only really 3 codices that are massively behind when it comes to internal balance.

Aubec le noir
07-04-2009, 09:35
codices are what you make with them ! ;)

there are always players that like the "weapons race" and others that prefer fluff-armies.
it's only two ways to play this game, i don't criticize one nor the other.

But i prefer playing with guys with balanced armies than with the " best killer of the club", that's all.

I believe, though that GW made big amount of efforts to create balanced armies (in 40K and in Battle) those passing years, and even if the success of the process was not what was hoped, I salute them for the try.

Aubec:chrome:

Tyndmyr
07-04-2009, 09:44
Codecies far above the power curve: Eldar and Ork.
Codecies with one problematic build thats on par with Orks and Eldar: Chaos Space Marines

Great description of the metagame here. I'd add that marines didn't do half bad with their last codex either. They're not quite on the level of cheddar as a twin lash list, but the power level definitely increased from 4th.

Codex creep is alive and well, but it's not constant. Im curious to see how IG will change. I sincerely hope they end up with guardsmen cheaper than orks already, and have their kill point issues solved.

I'd say there are a few lists well behind in competivity. Daemonhunters are an obvious choice. You can somewhat mitigate this via allies, but the codex itself is underpowered. Dark eldar are massively overdue for some love. They have effective choices, mind you, but much of their stuff is...dated. Space wolves also have some issues, and dark angels have been quite superceded by the new SM codex. The only part of the codex with actual use is the deathwing.

the1stpip
07-04-2009, 10:15
I agree, most of the rcent codices (even DA befor the new SM codex) are pretty balanced. Ther are some broken units (nob bikers) but in general, there is no codex creep.

Hokiecow
07-04-2009, 11:02
I believe there is 'codex creep' in that there are too many to update and should be consolidated.

Also the older armies seem to have a lot of redudent units, ie Orks and Eldar. I like how newer codex have kept it fairly simple, ie Tau and Necrons.

Bunnahabhain
07-04-2009, 11:21
I believe their is 'codex creep' in that there are too many to update and should be consolidated.

Also the older armies seem to have a lot of redudent units, ie Orks and Eldar. I like how newer codex have kept it fairly simple, ie Tau and Necrons.

I'm trying to figure out if this is trolling or being ironic. I'm leaning towards irony at the moment, as the English is better than most trolls.

The Guard codex does look to have a couple really good units in it, but the real question is just how good the troops are, which is going to take some time to determine, as it's not as simple as the Ork one, where we went That stat line + furious charge + mob rules at 6pts = Wow.

The Guard infantry look to now rely on the interplay between the elements of the platoon, orders, officers and the support stuff. If this has been worked out and costed well, this will be a sledgehammer as powerful as the Eldar scalpel and as hard to use well.
If it's had too many mistakes made, it will be a confused and not awefully effective mess.

It's going to take some time to get out of old habits,a nd see what the new codex can really do.

If it's at a sensible level, ie rather better than the old one, then it looks as if Codex creep might have been halted for now.

Nostro
07-04-2009, 11:37
There is some kind of "general creep" ie the few latest codex are a bit over the older ones in terms of power, but they are pretty balanced against each other. You can't get anything on the very same power level but for now GW has done a pretty better job than they used to. Creep is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Biker nobs are powerful but OK, the only big gripe is the wound allocation abuse but if a unit isn't build as such it is just a powerful unit like another that is decently possible to deal with.

IG seems to be getting good but not overpowered, now if they get Nids (it's easy to OP a nid codex if you're not careful) on the same level (and removing biomorphs everywhere helps better control the power of the codex, experience has shown that too many options meant GW was completely unable to foresee powerful combinations players would find). Necrons lag clearly behind, Tau a little bit but not that much.

All in all they managed a decent power curve, now they removed IW pie plate bonanza or curbed down holofalcon spam.

Corrode
07-04-2009, 11:49
The disparity is more down to the lag time between updates that some armies are experiencing. Orks are quite powerful at the moment, but they were also written fairly recently and essentially designed with 5th edition in mind. CSM and Eldar are both similar, and I believe Chaos Daemons are 'gimmicky' but basically competitive? Marines seem to be coming up quite a lot as 'wow, this book is actually nicely balanced'. All the more recent codices work pretty well against each other (and Guard look to continue that trend), the ones that are suffering are Tau, Nids, and the 3rd edition codices. Tau seem to have always been weak, and Nids are fine with Nidzilla but suck as a horde.

Wrt the 3rd edition codices - let's be honest, if they didn't suck there'd probably be something horribly broken about them. They're playable, and in the case of DE and Sisters quite powerful with some builds, but they're not great and they shouldn't be. Let's face it, if a Codex is still top-tier 2 editions after the edition it was supposedly optimised for, then there might just have been something wrong with it (or it's like Sisters and lucked out with the new template rules, whichever :P) Whatever the case, I honestly believe that when GW finally gets around to updating those last few armies from 3rd that need it (and maybe bringing Tau and Nids into line too) we'll see a pretty excellently balanced metagame emerge.

Oh, and when they nerf Nob bikers to the ground, that too.

samiens
07-04-2009, 12:29
Its pretty balanced overall- even a weaker codex like DA only pay less than 20 points more for a tactical squad and have some neat combinations available. Some of the rules differences that are emerging (like storm shields) are pretty wierd but in terms of the metagame its all relatively balanced with a few minor exceptions. The problems now are the unpercieved combinations or unit builds that overpower a list to a certain extent- back then whole armies were vastly more powerful whatever you did.

Saim-Hann Lord
07-04-2009, 13:11
Firstly...codex creep? I started mid 4th Edition so have no idea what this means.

As for the codex's I would say they can be broken very easily. It just depends on the player. For example...when the SM codex came out practically everyone started to field that Crimson Fist character just for the orbital bombardment (if that's the ability he gives) despite them not having a Crimson Fist army...ever.

Basically people were leaving the fluff behind and taking what they wanted to gain the advantage on their opponent.

When the Eldar codex came out I struggled with it at first but afterwards I was on top destroying everyone.
When the Chaos Space Marines came out everyone was getting beat by them.
When the Space Marines came out everyone was getting beat by them.
When the Orcs came out everyone was getting beat by them.

It's because everything is so new and shiny you're going to get such a wide variety to the lists that the opponents really don't know what to expect. Therefore they get caught out and lose. Only to bitch and whine about how it's overpowered.

Once the gamers of the new codex have a few practice runs with their lists and find what they're happy with then you get a more even game as your opponents have a better idea of what to expect.

Azhrarn
07-04-2009, 13:28
The new Guard codex looks to be about right IMHO.

For the most part I think you're right. With one notable exception.
Master of the Fleet adds +1 to your reserve rolls, you can take 2 of them. (presumably by taking 2 command HQs, apparently legal, BoLS mentions it in their latest piece).
+2 to reserve rolls effectively takes Daemons out of the battle against IG.
In general you'll be stuck with about half your army until turn 4-5 when it all shows up. Your first wave will most likely be dead by then, the rest is picked off piece-meal.

The only chance you have (and I'm not even sure if this would work) would be to throw ALL of your first wave at the Command HQs to desperately try and take out the Masters of the Fleet to reduce the penalty or even remove it.

Every other reserve heavy army can choose not to deploy in that fashion, avoiding the issue, but Daemons can't avoid it, and will probably be slaughtered because of it. I'm guessing someone didn't think of Daemons when this little toy was dreamed up.

Captain Micha
07-04-2009, 13:33
I'm pretty sure the guy that made Daemons, didn't think too hard when making that codex in the first place.

For all the infinite variations of chaos... it seems that Daemons are as uniform apparently as Necrons.

Azhrarn
07-04-2009, 14:00
I'm pretty sure the guy that made Daemons, didn't think too hard when making that codex in the first place.

For all the infinite variations of chaos... it seems that Daemons are as uniform apparently as Necrons.

In what sense? The list is quite flexible, min-maxed it is pretty samey ofcourse, but all armies tend to have that.
You can do fun things and still be quite effective.

Captain Micha
07-04-2009, 14:03
I don't know, I guess I was expecting the amount of units that Codex Eldar, Orks or even space marines have in their codexs.

There's what 17 units total in that codex? (Been a while since I looked though so keep that in mind)

SPYDER68
07-04-2009, 14:08
This thread again ? :P

Azhrarn
07-04-2009, 14:17
I don't know, I guess I was expecting the amount of units that Codex Eldar, Orks or even space marines have in their codexs.

There's what 17 units total in that codex? (Been a while since I looked though so keep that in mind)

7 Greater Daemons (3 Characters, 4 "generic")
8 Heralds (4 Characters, 4 "generic")
4 Elites (one of each god)
5 Troops (one of each god + nurglings)
3 Fast Attack (not entirely sure on this number)
2 Heavy Support (Prince and Soulgrinder)

29 units, not bad tbh. :D
Characters are all legal in normal lists, can take 2 heralds per HQ choice, even the character ones.

Grand Master Raziel
07-04-2009, 17:19
Well, for the most part, I think that dexes are fairly well balanced at this point. The SM dex has a few things that make me raise my eyebrow, but they're more thematic than anything else (I have thematic issues with the Thunderfire Cannon, and with the breakdown of Veterans into Vanguards/Sternguards). Everyone goes on about Orks, but in the half-dozen or so games I've played against them since that book has come out, I've won all but one of them. Haven't played against anyone using the dreaded Nob Biker unit, though, nor against anyone pulling shenanigans with Nobz and the wound allocation rules, so there you go. Chaos has got one uber-power-build, but anyone who actually plays it in casual gaming reveals themselves for exactly the kind of player they are.

I am viewing the upcoming IG dex with a certain amount of trepidation, though. I'm willing to wait until it's released to see how things actually shake out, but some of the stronger rumors have me concerned. I'm a bit concerned about the idea of being able to have squadrons of Leman Russes, though I suppose that's offset by the rumored increase in cost of the things, plus the fact that squadroned vehicles treat Immobilized results as Destroyed results. The rumored "Lumbering Behemoth" rule is also an eyebrow-raiser if it allows Russes to fire ordnance+all the other guns that are mounted on them in the same turn.

What's really getting me, though, is that anti-armor variant of the Valkyrie that's supposed to be coming out, the one armed with three TLLCs. I can't help but compare that thing to the SM/CSM tri-las Predator and say to myself, "Jesus Christ! What are they thinking?" Consider: for a (rumored) 130pts, IG players are getting themselves a platform with comparable armor to a Predator (12/12/10 instead of 13/11/10), comparable firepower (3 BS3 TLLCs yielding almost exactly the same results as 2 BS4 LCs and one BS4 TLLC), better ability to move-and-fire (can move 6" and fire everything, or 12" and fire one weapon as opposed to getting to fire one weapon if it moves 6" and nothing if it moves 12"), better overall mobility (fast skimmer as opposed to not-fast ground tank), troop-carrying capability, it's a Fast Attack choice instead of a Heavy Support choice, and it's (going to be, if the rumors hold) 35pts cheaper to boot! :wtf: I can imagine Eldar players getting a little bent out of shape, too, as the Valkyrie and its variants compare quite favorably to Wave Serpents, Falcons, and Fire Prisms, and IG players can take them but also have a healthy compliment of pie plate-slinging ground tanks.

Captain Micha
07-04-2009, 17:22
The Predator sucks anyway though :p

Always Devastators and Land Raiders Marines have no other Heavy Support choices.

Compare it to a Devastator squad and it's not so bad (Yes I know the Devastators cost especially with transport.. but they are infinitely more durable)

Also I'm betting the Valk/Vendetta are the new standard for Skimmers (We'll know for sure once the Tau get their badly needed update).

Them taking up an FA slot though means no RR which is a staple to a good Guard Army (in this poster's opinion) or no Sentinels (which are cheap and are easily ignored on the battlefield... even as they out kill my tanks!), or worse yet no Hounds/Dogs.

The Valk/Vendetta also has the draw back of being a Baneblade sized model, and is on a flyer base versus a skimmer base. There's no where for it to run and no where to hide. They seem fantastic till you realize that something that big is a natural Fire Magnet and unlike say Land Raiders, Russes or Monoliths it does go down easy. Personally of the two I feel the Valk is the best as it can be given a Large Blast Ap5 Defensive Weapon

Also Land Raiders compare favorably to fire prisms at this point as well thanks to that new POTMS rule... *head desk* and well being Av14

I don't think you'll see many squadroned Russes due to it making them so easy to pop. They also are very expensive so having just 2 is still going to be the smart choice (mine are going to cost 190 each at least!). Thanks to Lumbering they have also become a High Priority Target. (fortunately they have real side armor now at least)

now one thing you should be eyebrow raising at is the Squadroned Basilisk.... imagine what that will do. The thing's already fragile so you really aren't losing anything for squading them in my opinion and they are parked behind LOS blocking terrain anyway.

Orks are disgusting by the way. I've only seen them lose one game. and that was because we were doing a team game vs, Gaunt shield Nid Zilla, and a Gunline Tau. With me using my crons on Spearhead. ... yeah... it was like watching two armies pound one guy.. and he still took out alot of the nids stuff.

Hokiecow
07-04-2009, 18:20
I'm trying to figure out if this is trolling or being ironic. I'm leaning towards irony at the moment, as the English is better than most trolls.


Trolling!? :wtf:

My point is there are too many codices that is takes forever to update them when new rules come out.

My second point is some codices have TONS-O-UINITS that it takes longer to update AND the units are just redundant unnecessary, there simply there to sell models.

Neftus
07-04-2009, 18:24
The Predator sucks anyway though :p

Always Devastators and Land Raiders Marines have no other Heavy Support choices.

Compare it to a Devastator squad and it's not so bad (Yes I know the Devastators cost especially with transport.. but they are infinitely more durable)


Predators are great, they're dirt cheap for what they do. The Tri-las is expensive but you don't have to take it, double las, auto cannon does just fine instead. 120 pts for 3 long range BS4 AT weapons on a 13 AV body. It'll eat transports all game; save the big stuff for the meltas.

Devastators are generally seeing less love because we can get the same heavy weapons through cheaper and better means (Tacticals, Bikes, Dreads, and Preds) I'd much rather take sterngaurd over devastators, and I wouldn't ever take sterngaurd.

The_Outsider
07-04-2009, 18:32
Trolling!? :wtf:

My point is there are too many codices that is takes forever to update them when new rules come out.

My second point is some codices have TONS-O-UINITS that it takes longer to update AND the units are just redundant unnecessary, there simply there to sell models.

How your post is worded (especially when using the term "new" next to necrons and tau) suggest you could be using old codices, unlike the new eldar and ork ones the old ones had what, starcannon spam and boy spam and nothing else?

Captain Micha
07-04-2009, 18:50
Predators are great, they're dirt cheap for what they do. The Tri-las is expensive but you don't have to take it, double las, auto cannon does just fine instead. 120 pts for 3 long range BS4 AT weapons on a 13 AV body. It'll eat transports all game; save the big stuff for the meltas.

Devastators are generally seeing less love because we can get the same heavy weapons through cheaper and better means (Tacticals, Bikes, Dreads, and Preds) I'd much rather take sterngaurd over devastators, and I wouldn't ever take sterngaurd.

I'd much rather fork over the pts to guarantee that my heavy guns won't be easily silenced like a pred's can be. But to each their own I suppose.

Nexus Trimean
07-04-2009, 19:54
now one thing you should be eyebrow raising at is the Squadroned Basilisk.... imagine what that will do. The thing's already fragile so you really aren't losing anything for squading them in my opinion and they are parked behind LOS blocking terrain anyway.

I wouldn't be too worried about that, Basilisk's in pairs, have to be deployed at opposite ends of the table to be effective, Thus covering each other's 36 in Minimum Range, and thus also cannot be in a squadron. also, if they are stationary like that they are very vulnerable to flank marching.

ReveredChaplainDrake
07-04-2009, 20:00
Firstly...codex creep? I started mid 4th Edition so have no idea what this means.
When GW releases successively powerful codecies, one right after the other, and each is more powerful than their predecessor.


As for the codex's I would say they can be broken very easily. It just depends on the player. For example...when the SM codex came out practically everyone started to field that Crimson Fist character just for the orbital bombardment (if that's the ability he gives) despite them not having a Crimson Fist army...ever.
All Chapter Masters can Orbital Bombard. The reason everyone started fielding Pedro Kantor wasn't the orbit bombing, nor even the scoring Sternguard shenanigans, but the +1 attack halo. Since, TBH, his Chapter Tactic kinda' sucks, most players who really aspire to cheese it use Kantor + 5x TH/SS Termies + Vulkan Hestan (his chapter tactic makes Thunder Hammers re-roll to hit) so you could get Termies with a ton of Thunder Hammer attacks that also re-roll to hit.


When the Eldar codex came out I struggled with it at first but afterwards I was on top destroying everyone.
When the Chaos Space Marines came out everyone was getting beat by them.
When the Space Marines came out everyone was getting beat by them.
When the Orcs came out everyone was getting beat by them.

It's because everything is so new and shiny you're going to get such a wide variety to the lists that the opponents really don't know what to expect. Therefore they get caught out and lose. Only to bitch and whine about how it's overpowered.

Once the gamers of the new codex have a few practice runs with their lists and find what they're happy with then you get a more even game as your opponents have a better idea of what to expect.
First off, you forgot Daemons entirely, the true first 5th ed Codex. Second, the Daemon codex illustrates the problem better. Daemons were largely whined about as being super-overpowered when they came out. However, when 5th hit, a lot of their ridiculousness got curbed to reasonableness. Nowadays, Daemons are not considered a superpower army. The Orks, on the other hand, are not falling. In fact, they're getting even better in the sense that they don't care about some of the truly outrageous enemy stuff as much as other armies do. Something outrageous will have to come out to make Orks look normal. Unfortunately, that's just the kind of thing GW promised they'd do when they said something like "if you thought the Ork codex was crazy, you'll hate the Guard codex".

Marneus Calgar
07-04-2009, 20:13
Unfortunately, that's just the kind of thing GW promised they'd do when they said something like "if you thought the Ork codex was crazy, you'll hate the Guard codex".

Which I am still waiting for. There is not much in the Guard codex which shows that they are going to be a super power army. They will be better off than the current one, but still a super power (like the Orks) they will not be.

Poseidal
07-04-2009, 20:20
I can imagine Eldar players getting a little bent out of shape, too, as the Valkyrie and its variants compare quite favorably to Wave Serpents,
Just for comparison, 145 points will buy you a TL-Brightlance Waveserpent with Extra Armour (Spirit Stones). It has one TL Brightlance and a TL Shuriken Catapult (useless really) and can carry 12 and has the same armour as a valk + energy shield.

How does the Valk compare?

Bloodknight
08-04-2009, 09:29
Easy. The Valk is a giant model without Eldar or Tau survivability upgrades. I predict the time a Valk will be on the table to be either 1 turn (move on table, fire once, get shot down) or two turns (move on table, drop off Stormtroopers, rely on cover save for turn 2. Turn 2, shoot once, get killed). Seriously, that model is nowhere to hide. I am still not sure if I want one - maybe one because it looks good. But plan with it? No way.

Poseidal
08-04-2009, 09:51
I can see the hugeness taking it's toll, but the Serpent there doesn't include anything more than Extra Armour (which the Valk has apparently). Taking the other two will push it to 180 points and it can't take a holofield at all.

Vehicles should not pay for upgrades they 'can' (or can't in this case) take, but pay for them with the upgrade.

Is the energy shield and smaller size profile worth that much? In an army where the context of it is 'status quo' rather than unusual so you would expect it to be cheaper?

Gloom
08-04-2009, 10:39
I really have to disagree with the idea that the eldar codex still holds its own since 5th ed hit. I played a mechanized eldar list and almost all of my medium range firepower came from my wave serpents' TL-Scatter Lasers. With the changes to defensive weapons they became useless as weapons platforms for the first two turns of most games so my expensive elites and now critical troops were always being swarmed to death by my enemies since I could never kill enough to make a difference with just falcons (which themselves suffered alot from the changes to defensive weapons).

I'm not saying the codex is super underpowered but almost my entire list was invalidated. If I would have started eldar in 5th ed I would have built my force completely differently. Now the 2500pts of eldar models I have just sit in their cases unused because I find skimmers not worth using under the new rules. I'd rather have the limitations but safety of tracks and heavy armor than the maneuverability and speed of grav engines now. I know that game balance is the reason but the idea of super advanced tech being less favorable than antiquated tech in a sci-fi setting just rubs me the wrong way.

AmBlam
08-04-2009, 19:23
I really have to disagree with the idea that the eldar codex still holds its own since 5th ed hit. I played a mechanized eldar list and almost all of my medium range firepower came from my wave serpents' TL-Scatter Lasers. With the changes to defensive weapons they became useless as weapons platforms for the first two turns of most games so my expensive elites and now critical troops were always being swarmed to death by my enemies since I could never kill enough to make a difference with just falcons (which themselves suffered alot from the changes to defensive weapons).

I'm not saying the codex is super underpowered but almost my entire list was invalidated. If I would have started eldar in 5th ed I would have built my force completely differently. Now the 2500pts of eldar models I have just sit in their cases unused because I find skimmers not worth using under the new rules. I'd rather have the limitations but safety of tracks and heavy armor than the maneuverability and speed of grav engines now. I know that game balance is the reason but the idea of super advanced tech being less favorable than antiquated tech in a sci-fi setting just rubs me the wrong way.

I completely disagree Eldar skimmer is OP for the simple reason it spams vechiles that can only be hurt by heavy support and even then not reliably.

If you have last turn you can simply hide skimmers 24-36 inches away from victory locations and auto contest them on the possible last turn and you'll probably survive even if the game continues.

Eldar were the 2nd most succesful army in the US GTs if I am not mistaken so the builds are there. Though how skimmer they are IDK.

brassangel
08-04-2009, 19:49
Everything is broken, including any and all absolute statements :p.

For every codex, there's someone willing to shout 'broken'. Twice that many if it's the most recent one.

Are you absolutely sure? Saying there are no absolutes is a statement of absolute certainty, which disqualifies the argument all together. It's why every atheist looks like a ***** in a debate; they say there are no absolutes, but then proclaim with absolute certainty about what does and doesn't exist.

Anyway, "codex creep" isn't so bad in 40k, as even the ancient books like Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Space Wolves are still playable. In 40k, it's usually an issue of players adjusting to whatever the new army is, as well as unfamiliar special rules. Once the shock value of the new, unfamiliar stuff wears off, the army tends to balance itself out. To really see what creep is all about, play Warhammer Fantasy. Tomb Kings are worthless, while Vampire Counts and Daemons can be/usually are completely and utterly broken. Not to mention they have a wider variety of playable units, drastic ranges of flexibility, and more fluffy army books.

Mojaco
08-04-2009, 20:04
Anyway, "codex creep" isn't so bad in 40k, as even the ancient books like Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Space Wolves are still playable. In 40k, it's usually an issue of players adjusting to whatever the new army is, as well as unfamiliar special rules. Once the shock value of the new, unfamiliar stuff wears off, the army tends to balance itself out. To really see what creep is all about, play Warhammer Fantasy. Tomb Kings are worthless, while Vampire Counts and Daemons can be/usually are completely and utterly broken. Not to mention they have a wider variety of playable units, drastic ranges of flexibility, and more fluffy army books.

QFT. Codex creep believers always use one or two books that got better or that are currently the most powerful army. But for every power creep example there's a counter-example. Daemons were new once, but definately not the top at release. Neither were Dark Angels, Space Marines, etc.

40k is currently very balanced. The list of broken stuff was huge, but now only 2 Ork builds and dual-lash are almost universally considered broken.

Demonrich
08-04-2009, 21:13
Are you absolutely sure? Saying there are no absolutes is a statement of absolute certainty, which disqualifies the argument all together. It's why every atheist looks like a ***** in a debate; they say there are no absolutes, but then proclaim with absolute certainty about what does and doesn't exist.

Anyway, "codex creep" isn't so bad in 40k, as even the ancient books like Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Space Wolves are still playable. In 40k, it's usually an issue of players adjusting to whatever the new army is, as well as unfamiliar special rules. Once the shock value of the new, unfamiliar stuff wears off, the army tends to balance itself out. To really see what creep is all about, play Warhammer Fantasy. Tomb Kings are worthless, while Vampire Counts and Daemons can be/usually are completely and utterly broken. Not to mention they have a wider variety of playable units, drastic ranges of flexibility, and more fluffy army books.

While I agree with you regarding codex creep in 40k, your uneducated and derogatory comment regarding atheists was completely puerile and uncalled for.

SpaceRatCatcher
09-04-2009, 01:59
While I agree with you regarding codex creep in 40k, your uneducated and derogatory comment regarding atheists was completely puerile and uncalled for.

Not to mention nonsensical. I read it several times and could not figure out what he was talking about. Also, the poster he was responding to was obviously joking about the absolute statements thing...

mughi3
09-04-2009, 10:48
Is there codex creep?
Yes-
However it has more to do with GW shoddy rules writing and coherency isssues.


The new ork codex made orks viable in 4th/5th

The marines got a boost but they are still just marines-lots of options but no single trick build that stand out.

Mech eldar are still powerful if you know how to use your specialists and choose the right unit types-prisms and serpents are now better than falcons for example.


One of the biggest codex creep issues involves marines-they got lots of rules upgrades that made them fairly balanaced against other 5th ed armies. the problem is in the fact that many of the non-codex marine dexes got shafted on the new rules with no updates (black templar, blood angels, dark angels) while some got parts or all of the new rules (space wolves, grey knights)

So you end up with identical units from 2 different marine books set up exactly the same but one costs more and has worse rules than the other giving the non-C:SM player a starting handicap.


There is already evil gleams in the eyes of IG players looking at an air-cav valkyrie list. i expect that to fully become the next cry caled "Broken" or "cheese" build.

I love the fact valks are in the codex, i just wish the had used the FW flyer rules as is, adding some needed game variety, instead of trying to make them super skimmers of doom.

Lord Solar Plexus
09-04-2009, 11:16
For the most part I think you're right. With one notable exception.
Master of the Fleet adds +1 to your reserve rolls, you can take 2 of them. (presumably by taking 2 command HQs, apparently legal, BoLS mentions it in their latest piece).
+2 to reserve rolls effectively takes Daemons out of the battle against IG.

I don't think many people would invest in a second Master, or a second HQCS at that. It's a considerable overhead for a tactic that only works against Daemons and to some extent, Marines, and is useless against everyone else (although the second HQCS will extent number and radius of orders).



First off, you forgot Daemons entirely, the true first 5th ed Codex. Second, the Daemon codex illustrates the problem better. Daemons were largely whined about as being super-overpowered when they came out. However, when 5th hit, a lot of their ridiculousness got curbed to reasonableness. Nowadays, Daemons are not considered a superpower army. The Orks, on the other hand, are not falling.

I'll have to disagree. Both are very decent codices, and both are quite strong. As an IG player, I think my chances against Daemons are currently a little below non-existant. Against Orks though it'll be much much closer, even with the current dex.


Easy. The Valk is a giant model without Eldar or Tau survivability upgrades. ... Seriously, that model is nowhere to hide. I am still not sure if I want one - maybe one because it looks good. But plan with it? No way.

What he says.

RichBlake
09-04-2009, 12:11
I'll have to disagree. Both are very decent codices, and both are quite strong. As an IG player, I think my chances against Daemons are currently a little below non-existant. Against Orks though it'll be much much closer, even with the current dex.



Agreed, the only unbeaten list that has had a decent amount of games in my club is a nasty daemons list I helped put together (the player refuses to play my Grey Knights though :( ).

Saying that no-one has used a nob biker list.

Poseidal
09-04-2009, 12:59
What he says.

I've addressed that though. While I agree on the size footprint, I don't agree on the defensive upgrades (because they both have Extra Armour and nothing else; you don't pay for upgrades that you CANNOT take like Holofields that aren't an option for Serpents).

Or do you say that all pre-IG2009 fast skimmers are overpriced?

Remember, if you want to say it in the 'context' of the army, that actually supports Eldar getting the cheaper vehicles.

Toe Cutter
09-04-2009, 14:14
Surely wave serpents cost more on a model vs model comparison because they are a huge force multiplier for units such as banshees, fire dragons and harlequins. The same cannot reasonably be said about most things you can put into a valkyrie. Also, the same guard units can be put in a chimera for less than half the cost and be outflanked so the manoueverability of the valkyrie isn't as necessary for the guard.

freddieyu
09-04-2009, 15:01
I agree, most of the rcent codices (even DA befor the new SM codex) are pretty balanced. Ther are some broken units (nob bikers) but in general, there is no codex creep.

Agreed.....everything in general is OK...SA FAR....(unlike WHFB, where there is a DEFINITE army book creep starting with the Vampire counts..magichammer all over again..)

40K: IG, SM, witch and daemonhunters, eldar, orks, necrons...and I have all the other codexes too......

And a savvy player can handle them nob bikers, the dice gods willing of course....

freddieyu
09-04-2009, 15:08
I've played against a good Chaos Daemon player in my community, pretty talented kid, and the I like the Daemon codex, takes guts to play. It is an army that wins big or loses big. I lost to him initially, but luckily I won against him where it counted (in a tournament)...but I assume the next time it can easily go the other way......

As of now I think there is really no UBER POWER 40k dex, but rather some underpowered ones (the older ones like necrons, which will soon be remedied, but Dark Eldar are still strong, that revision some years ago gave that list ooommphh, and with the focus on objectives DE can compete)

Ravenous
10-04-2009, 00:11
we'll see. so far the current trend starting with orks is that everything's broken.

Its true, during a recent Q and A they mentioned the goal of the new books is to make everything broken so you dont need to worry about balance.

Its the warmachine approach to things.

The_Outsider
10-04-2009, 00:23
A good chunk of codex creep is people forgetting how old some of these codices are (the eldar is a good 4 years old now factoring dev time) as well as the usual idiocy spread on warseer.