PDA

View Full Version : Codex creep



DeadlySquirrel
07-12-2009, 19:56
ok, so does it actually exist? Is there any proof?

Cheers

Arakanis
07-12-2009, 19:57
No. And no.

You're welcome.

/thread.

xerxeshavelock
07-12-2009, 19:57
They go up, and down, and are also affected by changes in the core rules and missions.

puppetmaster24
07-12-2009, 20:02
it depends on your point of view.


It's scientific fact. there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.

Mannimarco
07-12-2009, 20:10
it exists, just ask anybody with a weaker codex playing one of the brand new shiny ones, the next time you see a dark angels player playing against space wolves or a necron player playing against orks ask them if such a thing exists

Stinkfoot
07-12-2009, 20:12
I think there certainly is codex creep and anybody who denies it is deluding themselves. That said, codex creep in 40K is a lot more mild than it is in Fantasy (I play both but am getting increasingly fed up with the out-of-control arms race that WHFB has become). If you look at versions of various books through time, it's pretty clear that each new book is more powerful than it's previous version (the only exception I can think of being Codex Chaos 3.5 vs. 4.0). As such, if armies were balanced back in 3rd edition then they're certainly not very balanced now - For example Necrons are using a 3rd edition book while Space Wolves have a brand new book that's clearly superior to their 3rd edition book (which was reasonably well balanced against Necrons).

nagash66
07-12-2009, 20:14
it exists, just ask anybody with a weaker codex playing one of the brand new shiny ones, the next time you see a dark angels player playing against space wolves or a necron player playing against orks ask them if such a thing exists

Necrons had a great codex before 5 ed. 5 ed made them bad not codex creep. As for DA a regular opotent of mine plays DA ( i play IG & BA) and all we can say is we just want what the smurfs got ( 3+ shields plzzz). And some small price changes.

I do not think 40k has evident codex creep, nothing like fantasy in any case.

xerxeshavelock
07-12-2009, 20:15
it exists, just ask anybody with a weaker codex playing one of the brand new shiny ones, the next time you see a dark angels player playing against space wolves or a necron player playing against orks ask them if such a thing exists

Yes, but was the Dark Angel codex weaker than the last codex? If so the trend goes down as well as up, no?

Or units that are strengthened by a core rules change, this can potentially make a codex stronger. There isnt a definitive "this codex will be stronger than the last one" which is what Codex Creep implies.

wolf40k
07-12-2009, 20:20
I think that each new codex introduces new rules, and the new rules just seem more powerful until people get the hang of dealing with them.

Arakanis
07-12-2009, 20:21
it exists, just ask anybody with a weaker codex playing one of the brand new shiny ones, the next time you see a dark angels player playing against space wolves or a necron player playing against orks ask them if such a thing exists

I play Dark Angels and I don't believe in Codex Creep.

Also, I used to play Necrons too, and they only suck now because of changes to the core rules, so no, codex creep is not real. It's just the excuse of whiners and bad players.

Bookwrak
07-12-2009, 20:22
ok, so does it actually exist? Is there any proof?

Cheers

Not really, no. Stuff changes, some of it for the better, some of it for the worse. I think that the original 3rd ed IG list could take on, and even beat the current IG codex.

I'd certainly say GW is encouraging more models on the table, but relative power levels have a certain amount of consistency. If creep was an undeniable factor than all of the old codexes would be at obvious and significant disadvantages, but armies like Witch Hunters are still quite strong, and problems that plague codices like Necrons are more from the fact that the rules have so many functional incongruities since they're two editions behind the times.

LonelyPath
07-12-2009, 20:30
it exists, just ask anybody with a weaker codex playing one of the brand new shiny ones, the next time you see a dark angels player playing against space wolves or a necron player playing against orks ask them if such a thing exists

My DA often face SW on the table and the battles are usually draws even with some rather large strategic blunders on my part.

Stinkfoot
07-12-2009, 20:30
I think that the original 3rd ed IG list could take on, and even beat the current IG codex.

This is nonsense. The new IG book, in addition to new toys, gives units free upgrades, point decreases, stat boosts and special abilities (all relative to the 3rd ed. 'dex). Add to that the fact that those new toys that didn't exist in the 3rd ed. book are commonly agreed to be some of the best units in the list. Honestly I think this is the best way to demonstrate that there is codex creep - with few exceptions new books will blow their older variants out of the water.

SPYDER68
07-12-2009, 20:34
This is nonsense. The new IG book, in addition to new toys, gives units free upgrades, point decreases, stat boosts and special abilities (all relative to the 3rd ed. 'dex). Add to that the fact that those new toys that didn't exist in the 3rd ed. book are commonly agreed to be some of the best units in the list. Honestly I think this is the best way to demonstrate that there is codex creep - with few exceptions new books will blow their older variants out of the water.

Its not nonsense at all..

I could make a list from the 3rd codex that could handle the new IG book and win...


I still prefer the old IG book in ways..

Bookwrak
07-12-2009, 20:41
This is nonsense.
Just going by that, I'm guessing that you started playing well after third edition was introduced.

There's actually a post in a different thread that sums it up quite well -


The 3rd ed. 'back of the rulebook' list had five point Plasma Guns and Lascannon that didn't cost a lot more... Five points heavy bolters and cheap powerfists availiable to everybody with wargear access, rough riders as powerfist delivery systems, stormtroopers resembling modern veterans with access to all these cheap weapons... It was one trick list, but powerful one.

As I recall, 3rd ed's original IG list pretty much dominated things until the proper codices were released, and with all the firepower it could bring to bear, even with all of its new toys, a current IG list would probably have a serious run for it's money.

Stinkfoot
07-12-2009, 20:43
Its not nonsense at all..

I could make a list from the 3rd codex that could handle the new IG book and win...


I still prefer the old IG book in ways..

Ok, enlighten me then. What about the old book made it more powerful than the current one?

Don't get me wrong, I've liked guard since I started playing 40K, and I didn't dislike the old book. I just think it's silly to say that 3rd edition IG > 5th edition IG. I don't think codex creep ruins the game even - I still enjoy playing 40K a lot. I just don't like it when people start throwing around things like "Codex creep is invented by whiners." That is, to be frank, a bunch of BS.

BTW, in response to Bookwrak - I started playing in 3rd edition, but after most of the 3rd edition codexes were released (I think codex Space Wolves, which were my first army, just came out when I picked up the game). I guess I never paid much attention to the lists in the rulebook, but nonetheless I already conceded that grossly overpowered lists (such as 3.5 Chaos) get scaled back on occasion. It doesn't disprove the general rule of code creep.

Blitz001
07-12-2009, 20:48
i think the better question to ask would be if codex creep exsits in the new 5th edition codexs. I mean of course new books that are made for 5th ed are going to be more powerful then books made in the last edition. Of course the Chaos book is the one exception to this.

But if this assumption is wrong o wells.

Badger[Fr]
07-12-2009, 20:50
Honestly I think this is the best way to demonstrate that there is codex creep
Hardly. The former IG and Ork Codices were grossly underpowered, and therefore needed these point drops.

But what about the Eldar (Craftworld Eldar, the horror)? Or Chaos? Or Sisters of Battle? (one of the oldest Codices, and yet still has one of the strongest builds)? Or Space Marines (a recent, and yet rather mediocre army)? And let's not mention Dark Eldar.


As such, if armies were balanced back in 3rd edition
They were not. If anything, the game is more balanced than it has ever been.


The 3rd ed. 'back of the rulebook' list had five point Plasma Guns and Lascannon that didn't cost a lot more...
And let's not mention the dirt cheap Wraithlords and Warlocks of the old Craftworld Eldar Codex. Codex Creep, you said?

incarna
07-12-2009, 20:55
Codex creep does exist. It’s observable.

For example – lets imagine a world where all the codexes were supposedly balanced against one another. The old Tau Codex is, for example, balanced against an Imperial Guard codex where tankst typically max 3 per army. That same Tau codex is balanced against an Ork codex where Nob Bikers are a figment of someone’s perverted imagination.

New Ork codex is released and the Tau codex is supposedly balanced against an army that can field 30 T4 boyz for 180 points, 2 squads of 10 biker nobz that count as troops, or a Special Character that can Waaagh for an automatic 6”? I don’t think so.

New Imperial Guard codex is released and the Tau codes is supposedly balanced against an army that can field more cheaper troops than it could before in addition to 3-large tank squads per Heavy slot for a grand total of 9 pie plates? I don’t think so.

There is one major exception in my opinion – the new Chaos Codex, although possessing a few heavy hitting combo’s, is less powerful than the entirety of the insane possibilities that existed in the previous. This, I think, is a function of how powerful that codex was and I sincerely hope that the next generation of that codex sees a return to that kind of varity and power so long as it’s balanced against other current books.

With that said, I think GW is working toward a codex “critical mass” where all codexes “creep” against one another with the long-term goal of achieving a set of armies that are practically balanced.

Ten years ago the idea of a 6-point ork or 5 point Imperial Guardsmen would have been insane. If you look at the overall design of both 40k and Fantasy, a 6, 5, or even 4 point model is not outside the realm of reason by any means – it’s the norm. I think the point value is accurately representative of the impact of an individual on a 1500 or 2000 point battlefield – especially in comparison to a 250 point Monolyth or 500+ point greater daemons (Fantasy).

I think that MOST Fantasy army books are well balanced against each other and 40k has to get where Fantasy is. The only way to do that without destabilizing the game is to “creep”. One day though, I think we will see a range of codexes within 40k that are generally well balanced and, as the lists are updated and tweaked over time, there will be fewer and fewer major differences from codex edition to edition.

40k is in a state of evolution and, with Chaos as an exception, I think every recently release codex has been a major improvement on its predecessor despite the fact that it may not be balanced against the older generation quite as thoroughly as it is balanced against the current generation.

Stinkfoot
07-12-2009, 20:55
;4194406']And let's not mention the dirt cheap Wraithlords and Warlocks of the old Craftworld Eldar Codex. Codex Creep, you said?

I remember Craftworld Eldar. Ulthwe isn't exactly the Codex Eldar list, though they were certainly powerful. I'm not sure I'd say they're more powerful than they are now though, as the current list lost the uber-foot counsel but they still have the invincible biker counsel plus a lot of of fun new toys and big improvements of units like Dire Avengers. By the way, the Wraithlord is still almost as good as it was in 3rd edition - the reason it's not spammed anymore is that the other heavy choices got better. I don't think that does much to disprove codex creep.

SPYDER68
07-12-2009, 20:58
I think that MOST Fantasy army books are well balanced against each other and 40k has to get where Fantasy is. The only way to do that without destabilizing the game is to “creep”. One day though, I think we will see a range of codexes within 40k that are generally well balanced and, as the lists are updated and tweaked over time, there will be fewer and fewer major differences from codex edition to edition.

40k is in a state of evolution and, with Chaos as an exception, I think every recently release codex has been a major improvement on its predecessor despite the fact that it may not be balanced against the older generation quite as thoroughly as it is balanced against the current generation.

I seriously hope your joking when you think Fantasy is more balanced then 40k is..

incarna
07-12-2009, 21:03
And on the issue of old Codex Eldar/Craftworld Eldar, and the Chaos Codex, I think those are largely exceptions to the rule of codex creep.

Anyone can find exceptions in the rule of ANY series of developments but it’s important to judge a trend based on its overall context.

“Man is progressing in knowledge and understanding every day you say? HA! I beg to differ and I site Exhibit A: This mentally handicapped person!”

“Computers are advancing continuously!? HA! Look at this brand new Windows Vista that EVERYONE hates!”

The Chaos codex was, in my opinion, was an attempt to correct a severe game imbalance that ended up going overboard.

The Craftworld Eldar codex was, in my opinion, a mistake that needed correcting – and that’s coming from someone who’s first army ever was an Alaitoc Ranger Disruption army.

Now that those huge roadblocks are out of the way to balanced 40k development, 40k codex can creep against one another without threat of destabilizing the entire game.

incarna
07-12-2009, 21:05
I seriously hope your joking when you think Fantasy is more balanced then 40k is..

I am not joking. Fantasy, over the course of it’s life, seemed to be largely balanced. I think that current imbalances (Fanatsy is by no means perfect) are a result of a movement toward long-term balance within the context of a new release happening next year.

Sure you can cite examples of Dark Elves rolling over Ogre Kingdoms but, for the life of the edition, the game did seem largely balanced as a whole.

SPYDER68
07-12-2009, 21:07
I am not joking. Fantasy, over the course of it’s life, seemed to be largely balanced. I think that current imbalances (Fanatsy is by no means perfect) are a result of a movement toward long-term balance within the context of a new release happening next year.

Sure you can cite examples of Dark Elves rolling over Ogre Kingdoms but, for the life of the edition, the game did seem largely balanced as a whole.

Im not going to start / keep going witht he whole fantasy is unbalanced more then 40k..

its just not worth it..

Bookwrak
07-12-2009, 21:16
Codex creep does exist. It’s observable.

With that said, I think GW is working toward a codex “critical mass” where all codexes “creep” against one another with the long-term goal of achieving a set of armies that are practically balanced.

You just completely contradicted yourself. 'Power Creep' has a very concrete definition - each subsequent release in a game system is observably stronger than the previous one. Applied to 40k, that's been handily disproven in this thread alone, much less all the other ones on the topic.

What most people like Incarna are mistakenly calling 'creep' is simply the fact that the strength of armies varies, a situation that is further exacerbated by changes in the design philosophy from edition to edition that can completely change the functioning of a codex without any other changes taking place.

Necrons have become essentially the weakest army in the game not because every codex after them was each a step higher on the power scale (observable by the fact that they were a very strong army in 3rd ed, and remained quite competitive through 4th) but because changes to the ruleset itself has amplified their weaknesses without offering any further advantages.

40K has yet to be affected by any clear cut power creep. Lists vary in power due to changes in game design and philosophy, but there is no steady creep upwards in terms of power levels.

Badger[Fr]
07-12-2009, 21:27
For example – lets imagine a world where all the codexes were supposedly balanced against one another. The old Tau Codex is, for example, balanced against an Imperial Guard codex where tankst typically max 3 per army. That same Tau codex is balanced against an Ork codex where Nob Bikers are a figment of someone’s perverted imagination.
Edition change is to blame. The current Tau Codex heavily depends on 4th Edition mechanisms (be it Fish of Fury or LoS blocking terrain), and its lackluster troops and KP heavy builds do not help with the new missions. In that regard, Necrons are even worse, as Bookwrak accurately pointed out. On the other hand, Dark Eldar and Sisters of Battle are still competitive. If anything, SoB are even stronger than they used to be.


Ten years ago the idea of a 6-point ork or 5 point Imperial Guardsmen would have been insane.
Ironically, the 3rd Edition book featured 5 points Guardsmen. With 5 points Plasma Guns. And 15 points Lascannons. And Power Fists. Should I say more?

But then, for no reason, GW decided that cheap Guardsmen were to blame for the IG brokenness, and raised their point cost... but kept the dirt cheap Special Weapons, and gave the IG a free army-wide deep striking ability. As a consequence, nobody ever fielded Guardsmen, and instead spammed special weapons and armour (Leman Russes and Hellhounds were cheaper as well).

I still fail to understand why GW took so long to realize that dirt-cheap Power Fists, Lascannons, Extra Armour and Plasma Guns make no sense in terms of game balance.

Ozendorph
07-12-2009, 21:54
Stats go up over time. I remember well the Weapon Skill arms-race of 2nd edition.

IJW
07-12-2009, 22:09
Stats go up over time.
They also go down over time, if you're looking back beyond 3rd edition.

Dead Man Walking
07-12-2009, 22:16
Thanks for bringing this up -again-, what we need more of on warseer is more hate.:eyebrows:

EmperorEternalXIX
07-12-2009, 22:27
This is nonsense. The new IG book, in addition to new toys, gives units free upgrades, point decreases, stat boosts and special abilities (all relative to the 3rd ed. 'dex). Add to that the fact that those new toys that didn't exist in the 3rd ed. book are commonly agreed to be some of the best units in the list. Honestly I think this is the best way to demonstrate that there is codex creep - with few exceptions new books will blow their older variants out of the water. For what it's worth, the old IG codex could spam deep striking infantry and get standing 3+ cover saves.

The only thing that I thought was completely unneccessary in the new guard book was the Leman Russ "Shoot everything you want because Guardsmen are the most level headed turret and sponson drivers who feel no fear and are so well trained and coordinated that they can have an entire basketball team's worth of guys in here manning this stuff like a well oiled machine" rule.

That was already the best vehicle in the game, it was needlessly improved.


40K has yet to be affected by any clear cut power creep. Lists vary in power due to changes in game design and philosophy, but there is no steady creep upwards in terms of power levels. This is the honest truth. I played a game yesterday that was doubles versus Eldar and Tau and my shiny new Space Wolves were mostly off the table by turn 3, leaving my tyranid partner to do his damnedest before getting astronomically lucky and helping one of my handful of remaining models (4, to be exact) fire off a Plasma Pistol into a Wave Serpent's tail pipe for the narrow win.

Of the four armies involved in that game, mine got smashed the worst and put up the least fight relative to the others. I think most of these armies are still quite capable. Look at the Sisters or DE; they are still quite powerful enough to be winning armies.

Ozendorph
07-12-2009, 22:27
They also go down over time, if you're looking back beyond 3rd edition.

Every edition is sort of a "do-over" for the devs...like hitting the reset button. Then slowly, the numbers begin to escalate. It's like an OS with a bad memory leak :)

Lord Inquisitor
07-12-2009, 23:01
The answer is (of course) "its complicated".

Codex Creep can and does occur. Particularly when a codex is brand new (not a new edition of an old codex) or by an inexperienced developer, one can see it happening.

Part of the reason for this is simple. You have playtesters (usually experienced players) who are given the new list and play it against their existing lists. Almost certainly therefore, they will be more experienced with the existing lists than with the new list, so if you playtest for a 50% win/loss ratio with the new list this is probably going to leave it being more powerful once released as players get fully experienced with the new list and use it to it's full potential. The other big reason is obviously how experienced the writer is and whether all of the combos can be anticipated and loopholes closed.

Games Workshop (despite what conspiracy theorists would have you believe) do try to achieve balance in their game systems. Sometimes new models seem suspiciously overpowered, which lends the cynics to say that this is a deliberate marketing ploy but there are so many counter-examples that I don't find it convincing. When the last Chaos Codex was released, we saw new Terminators (which are indeed awesome) but we also saw Chaos Spawn and Possessed as their big marketing push and it is hard to imagine could have been made less attractive as choices.

Usually when a codex goes through a new edition, one finds that the stuff that's too powerful gets toned down (starcannon, wraithlords) and stuff that's never used gets better or cheaper (dire avengers, wraithguard). Often there is the slingshot effect, where, in an attempt to make something really naff attractive it gets so good its overpowered (e.g. stormshields), while the suspiciously good stuff gets nerfed, but overall, codecies have been moving towards greater balance.

What I do see, both for 40K and for Fantasy is Special Rules Creep. Since Space Marines in 40K and certainly the new Skaven army book, codecies and army books have been getting more and more complicated, with the vast majority of units having their own unique special rules beyond USRs. The Imperial Guard and Skaven books are dripping in special rules. I do wonder whether this is simply an effect of the influx of new, inexperienced designers (much as people bitch about it, the Chaos Codex is a very elegantly designed book) or whether this is a concious decision. I mean, kids like their special rules - but an elegant wargame is a simple one. Space Hulk is cool and has the minimum rules required. 40k and Fantasy need necessarily to be more complicated, but this is a new push towards excessive rulage. I'm concerned that whatever tactical simplicity these games have is getting lost under a crushing weight of exceptions and complications.

Corrode
07-12-2009, 23:16
I am not joking. Fantasy, over the course of it’s life, seemed to be largely balanced. I think that current imbalances (Fanatsy is by no means perfect) are a result of a movement toward long-term balance within the context of a new release happening next year.

Sure you can cite examples of Dark Elves rolling over Ogre Kingdoms but, for the life of the edition, the game did seem largely balanced as a whole.

This is exactly what 40k is doing, and nothing like what Fantasy is doing. The books most often complained about in Fantasy are Daemons, Dark Elves and Vampire Counts - which came relatively early in this edition. Warriors of Chaos, Lizardmen, and Skaven are all relatively balanced (compared to the Big Three) and attract far less complaint; all three also came later.

The people complaining about 'codex creep' and then comparing 5th edition books to 3rd edition books are completely missing the point. Codex creep applies within the context of an edition + the last bit of the previous one (i.e. the point that the designers started saying 'let's build it with the next edition in mind'). Given this, 40k is pretty balanced - everything from Eldar+ tends to fare pretty well against each other. Tau are weaker than they should be because they're quite heavily dependent on 4th edition rules, Necrons are weak because 5th edition changed the game in ways which interfered with their basic rules (gauss as anti-tank is pretty laughable when you can only glance). Daemon Hunters are simply suffering from philosophy changes (transports in 5th are cheap and plentiful, elite troops weaker because rate of fire is more prevalent, etc.). Witch Hunters and Dark Eldar can be absolutely filthy - the same things which weakened their 3rd-edition brethren have worked heavily in their favour.

e2055261
07-12-2009, 23:32
I think it's more of a case of the older codexes not being updated to the 5th edition rules. The newer codexes seem to be on a par with each other. I think GW needs to develop each of the codex rules simultaneously to get a proper balance. Perhaps they should think about releasing rules for every race in some sort of compendium and come out with the models over time to do away with the apparent disparity between armies abilities and points costs. A hard cover book similar in size and cost to the rulebook. They could still come out with specific codexes with fluff, modelling guides, etc over time. I think that people would still buy them...

That said, there does seem to be a high number of units these days with special rules.

Bunnahabhain
07-12-2009, 23:51
Yes, it exists, and will as long as GW insist on their strategy of periodic codex releases. Codex imbalance is a better name than codex creep, as it's not a simple, one way trend, in just the same way the climate change is a much better term than global warming.

It's a combination of unintended consequences of:
Edition changes
Unexpected combinations of units( 'we didn't think of double lash' syndrome)
and the eternal disparity between CC and shooting, and MCs, vehicles and infantry

Short of a whole new rules set, with all armies written together, and the model release cycle decoupled from the rules one, codex creep isn't going anywhere

EmperorEternalXIX
08-12-2009, 05:44
Games Workshop (despite what conspiracy theorists would have you believe) do try to achieve balance in their game systems. Sometimes new models seem suspiciously overpowered, which lends the cynics to say that this is a deliberate marketing ploy but there are so many counter-examples that I don't find it convincing. When the last Chaos Codex was released, we saw new Terminators (which are indeed awesome) but we also saw Chaos Spawn and Possessed as their big marketing push and it is hard to imagine could have been made less attractive as choices. I often remark how amazed I am at GW's model releases to accompany codex releases.

Dozens of independent model retailers are making a fortune off of Thunderwolf-like models. The Ironclad Dreadnought's late arrival has ensured that in my area even people who field him wouldn't purchase him, since they'd already converted some of their own. I have not seen a Vulkan model that was NOT a converted one yet. The same went for the Land Speeder Storm. All of these would have sold like hot cakes.

Then there are the even weirder cases, like deciding that Vanguard Veterans with jump packs were going to be an incredibly popular choice and making sure that they hit the shelves first. I don't get it, I'll never get it, and I doubt if they will stop any time soon.

A lot of people accuse GW of just being out to make a buck and not caring about the game, but I don't believe that for a second. If they were out for money and nothing else the space wolves wouldn't have gotten new terminators, they would have gotten thunderwolves and fenrisian wolves, for example.

noobzilla
08-12-2009, 05:48
Sigh... AGAIN?! I'm really quite sick of these codex creep threads.

Deetwo
08-12-2009, 05:52
Codex: Chaos Daemons disagrees with your codex creep... As does Dark Angels.
Just compare either of these to the Eldar or CSM books.

Looking at the releases from wikipedia, Orks were released january 2008 and they are more powerful than any book released since then.

Saying codex creep exists is just a statement of ignorance.

Xelloss
08-12-2009, 07:37
As I stated in a previous thread, it's more like an edition creep than an actual codex creep... Codices in 5th edition are more over-the-top than the previous ones, but are somewhat balanced between each others.
The real problem doesn't seems "codex creep" but more like "weak playtesting", that leads to broken units (like the more notorious nob bikers), broken combos (lash + obliterators), useless units (spawns), finally-not-so-good units (stormtroopers at 16pts), etc...
Most of these problems could be easily solved with a point cost revision (increase of too good units/combos, decrease of useless choices) - in other world using first print codices as a playtesting feedback they should have done before (I don't understand GW management on this point, my engineer school classes taught me nowadays client feedback is the way to go in project development...).

big squig
08-12-2009, 07:54
For the most part, this edition has been balanced IMO. I think there's a couple unbalanced units like nobz and marine characters, but mostly balanced.

I think orks, eldar, marines, and guard are all about equal while I find chaos and daemons to be slightly weaker. I think space wolves are a bit OTT, but nothing major.

shabbadoo
08-12-2009, 07:57
Not a lot of codex creep recently, as it is dependent upon a single rules set to really judge it. For now we have Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and Space Wolves. All of those codexes are competitive with each other. Not a single one of them utterly annihilates the others in all instances. One can argue about the efficacy of individual unit choices, but overall, armies made from those codexes will bash the snot out of each other fairly evenly.

big squig
08-12-2009, 08:09
What I do see, both for 40K and for Fantasy is Special Rules Creep. Since Space Marines in 40K and certainly the new Skaven army book, codecies and army books have been getting more and more complicated, with the vast majority of units having their own unique special rules beyond USRs. The Imperial Guard and Skaven books are dripping in special rules. I do wonder whether this is simply an effect of the influx of new, inexperienced designers (much as people bitch about it, the Chaos Codex is a very elegantly designed book) or whether this is a concious decision. I mean, kids like their special rules - but an elegant wargame is a simple one. Space Hulk is cool and has the minimum rules required. 40k and Fantasy need necessarily to be more complicated, but this is a new push towards excessive rulage. I'm concerned that whatever tactical simplicity these games have is getting lost under a crushing weight of exceptions and complications.

I don't think I could agree with this statement any more than I already do. It really disturbs me how much more complex the new codexs are getting. A lot of of units are getting layers and layers of needless rules. The Eldar, Orks, and Chaos codexs is a perfect examples of well made codexs. They are simple, they are flexible, can create any craftworld/clan/legion without any rules, have well thought out special characters that don't make standard characters redundant, and focus on USRs over exclusive rules.

To me, the space wolf codex is currently the biggest offender. Why do blood claws need an exclusive special rule for charging furiously into combat when there's furious charge? Why do wolf scouts need an exclusive special rule for flanking behind enemy lines when there's outflank? Why can long fangs split fire to represent their age and wisdom when they already have a LD boost? Why do space wolves get special lightning claws when there's already rules for lightning claws?

It's ok to give armies flavor and feel, but all the above cases fit the space wolves' fiction even with USRs. There was no reason to make a bunch of exclusive rules. It's just bad design.

IJW
08-12-2009, 09:05
It's worth pointing out that most of the Space Wolf special rules you're complaining about have existed in similar form since they first got a codex in 2nd edition, so it's not exactly a new thing...

P.S. I also agree with Lord Inquisitor to some extent, but 40k has NEVER been an elegant wargame and it never will be! Like Chaos and Evil always points out, an elegant wargame wouldn't fit the target market.

Bunnahabhain
08-12-2009, 09:12
An elegant wargame might fit the target market, I don't know if it's ever been tried. It certainly hasn't by GW.
Other than Space Hulk and Blood bowl, of course...

IJW
08-12-2009, 09:13
Good point Bunnahabhain... and some versions of Epic were both a core game and reasonably elegant.

big squig
08-12-2009, 09:26
It's worth pointing out that most of the Space Wolf special rules you're complaining about have existed in similar form since they first got a codex in 2nd edition, so it's not exactly a new thing...

That is worth pointing out. Just means GW missed an opportunity to clean things up.

freddieyu
08-12-2009, 09:29
I am not joking. Fantasy, over the course of it’s life, seemed to be largely balanced. I think that current imbalances (Fanatsy is by no means perfect) are a result of a movement toward long-term balance within the context of a new release happening next year.

Sure you can cite examples of Dark Elves rolling over Ogre Kingdoms but, for the life of the edition, the game did seem largely balanced as a whole.

well, the etc has severe comp restrictions, and still the restricted armies won. 40k has no need for restrictions. Nuff said.

I play BOTH whfb and 40k, since 1998. 6th Ed whfb and the books then were balanced. Now..????? Which is sad since 7th Ed rules are solid, and it took a few books to screw that.

40k now has a much better environment. I hope the release of 8th Ed in FB fixes things, (crosses fingers)

freddieyu
08-12-2009, 09:31
That is worth pointing out. Just means GW missed an opportunity to clean things up.

SW are not overpowered. They are just another way to play marines. In the end they are still marines, still susceptible to a battle cannon round.

Badger[Fr]
08-12-2009, 09:39
The only thing that I thought was completely unneccessary in the new guard book was the Leman Russ "Shoot everything you want because Guardsmen are the most level headed turret and sponson drivers who feel no fear and are so well trained and coordinated that they can have an entire basketball team's worth of guys in here manning this stuff like a well oiled machine" rule.
It's hardly overpowered, but I do agree that Lumbering Behemot wasn't needed. Though, the pointless restriction on Ordnance Weapons should have been trashed, as it renders Sponson and Hull weapons all but useless.



That was already the best vehicle in the game, it was needlessly improved.

Compared to nigh unkillable 4th Edition Falcons that either moved 36" a turn or moved 12" and fired 10 shots, the infamous Necron Monolith, or the current Hammerhead with its in-built 4+ Cover save, the Leman isn't that impressive. It remains a reliable and cost efficient vehicle, as it should be, but isn't game breaking either. If anything, Chimeras are far worse.


I don't think I could agree with this statement any more than I already do. It really disturbs me how much more complex the new codexs are getting. A lot of of units are getting layers and layers of needless rules. The Eldar, Orks, and Chaos codexs is a perfect examples of well made codexs. They are simple, they are flexible, can create any craftworld/clan/legion without any rules, have well thought out special characters that don't make standard characters redundant, and focus on USRs over exclusive rules.
I think the outrage caused by the previous Chaos and Dark Angel Codices is to blame. As if internal balance has anything to do with special rules...

Xelloss
08-12-2009, 10:08
SW are not overpowered.
Though they are clearly underpriced. If not, how could one explain GH and BC for 15pts each ?

Badger[Fr]
08-12-2009, 10:25
Though they are clearly underpriced. If not, how could one explain GH and BC for 15pts each ?

A couple of underpriced units and fancy psychic powers do not make an entire army overpowered. Warseer users like to complain about particular units, but more often than not, fail to consider the army as a whole.

Vaktathi
08-12-2009, 10:28
I play Dark Angels and I don't believe in Codex Creep.

Also, I used to play Necrons too, and they only suck now because of changes to the core rules, so no, codex creep is not real. It's just the excuse of whiners and bad players.

I'm not gonna lie here, being able to pack into a 1750 IG list what used to need a 2300pt army makes me disbelieve this assertion.

ThePope
08-12-2009, 10:30
Yes it does exist, here it is (how has anyone not done this yet!!!??)

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/common/xLargeProductImage.jsp?mWidth=873px&mURL=/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m730025a_60030106003_ENGCodexTyranids_873x627.jpg&mAlt=Codex%3A+Tyranids&mHeight=627px

Corrode
08-12-2009, 10:55
I'm not gonna lie here, being able to pack into a 1750 IG list what used to need a 2300pt army makes me disbelieve this assertion.

How on earth has the change in IG from 'weak list with overpriced units' to 'competitive, well-balanced and well-costed' been 'codex creep'? If we based our assertions of OMG CREEP on whether or not a new book was better than the old version then 99% of cases (besides Eldar and Chaos 4.0) would see us whining and screaming.

Actually, that sounds pretty much like Warseer.

freddieyu
08-12-2009, 11:37
Of course it exists. Now in 40k does it exist so much so things become imbalanced? At this point no. Thus codex creep exists (so far) in a good way to make the armies more fun to play and with more options. I expect the same from the nids, dark eldar, blood angels, necrons, tau, etc. In the future, but my hope is that it shall be reasonable and I expect the IG to be able to fight them on decent terms.

SPYDER68
08-12-2009, 13:23
I still haven't lost to mech vets with my Blood angels...

So far from what ive seen.. Wolves are strong.. but not Overpowered...

Codex Creep ? Meh

40k is rather balanced for the newer books.. Soon as Necrons, Dark Eldar, Inquisition, Tyranids and Blood angels get books.. itll be even better.

And amazingly.. those books will be in the next 2-3 years in the release schedule

incarna
08-12-2009, 13:34
You just completely contradicted yourself. 'Power Creep' has a very concrete definition - each subsequent release in a game system is observably stronger than the previous one.
I did not contradict myself. You missed my point – and your concrete definition of power creep is too rigid to account for exceptions in a trend such as the Chaos and Craftworld Eldar codexes.



Applied to 40k, that's been handily disproven in this thread alone, much less all the other ones on the topic.
I do not see any concrete argument within this thread that disproves codex creep. Simply saying something has been “handily disproven” doesn’t make it so.


What most people like Incarna are mistakenly calling 'creep' is simply the fact that the strength of armies varies, a situation that is further exacerbated by changes in the design philosophy from edition to edition that can completely change the functioning of a codex without any other changes taking place.
That’s not what I’m referring to at all. I’m referring to the process of each subsequent release of a codex being more and more powerful. I believe the reason GW is doing this is for three reasons – to accurately represent a unit within the context of the codex (5 Point Guardsman compared to a 150 point tank), to accurately represent a unit within the context of the game (5 point Guardsman compared to a 6 point Ork), and to arrive at a point of balance between all codexes without destabilizing the game as a whole – a balance that was not previously present.

In order to get where GW wants to be in regard to codex balance it must take baby steps – anything else will destabilize the game. Eventually (perhaps soon) we will no longer see a rise in the power of a codex as it’s released.



Necrons have become essentially the weakest army in the game not because every codex after them was each a step higher on the power scale (observable by the fact that they were a very strong army in 3rd ed, and remained quite competitive through 4th) but because changes to the ruleset itself has amplified their weaknesses without offering any further advantages.
The issue you’re referring to is only half the picture. The Necron codex certainly does struggle in this edition of the game. However, when it was originally written it was balanced against the OLD ork codex, OLD Imperial Guard codex, and OLD Space marine codex.


40K has yet to be affected by any clear cut power creep. Lists vary in power due to changes in game design and philosophy, but there is no steady creep upwards in terms of power levels.
I partially agree with you. I see the predominant form of power creep being in sweeping point reductions. Sure, an Imperial Guardsman in this current codex may be no stronger than he was in the previous – but he is cheaper and that is largely how power creep manifests. With that said – Space Marines now have AP 3 heavy flamer landraiders which they didn’t before and though the prices of the various landraiders might be similar, the added versatility and ability to fill niches is also a form of power creep.

incarna
08-12-2009, 13:48
How on earth has the change in IG from 'weak list with overpriced units' to 'competitive, well-balanced and well-costed' been 'codex creep'? If we based our assertions of OMG CREEP on whether or not a new book was better than the old version then 99% of cases (besides Eldar and Chaos 4.0) would see us whining and screaming.

Actually, that sounds pretty much like Warseer.

Changing the codex from a “week list with overpriced units” to a “competitive well-balanced and well-costed” codex couldn’t HELP but creep against other codexes.

If I’m an Eldar player and my current codex is balanced against the previous IG, Ork, Space Marine, Space Wolf, and soon to be Tyranid codex, than when those codexes are released with sweeping point reductions, new units, added versatility – regardless of whether or not they’re balanced against one another, they’re still heads above me – I can still compete but my ability to do so is diminished with every subsequent release.

Soon I will be stuck with Dual jetlock councils as my only competitive list in the whole codex. I don’t feel too bad though – I could be Dark Eldar, Tau, or Necrons.

MVBrandt
08-12-2009, 13:52
I think Codex Creep is a) not nearly as big a deal as it is in Fantasy, by the nature of the game, and b) generally misunderstood in its impacts.

While the argument can be made that things in, say, the new Guard codex are a little inappropriately costed, i.e. Chimeras and Valkyrie/Vendetta transports, I don't think it's that one codex is more POWERFUL than the prior ones that causes the creep.

EVERY codex out there, as far back as Dark Eldar, *can* create at least one very powerful, VERY competitive list that can compete at the higher tournament levels with any codex out there. That's fact. I'm happy to Vassal anyone who disagrees any number of times, to try and work out an understanding.

This fact is one that some people will dispute, but some people also swear Nob Bikers are one of the best units in the game, and I personally disagree wholeheartedly. Passing on disagreements that won't be resolved due to the nature of the internets (while holding out a Vassal challenge to anyone at any time), here's where I think codex creep ACTUALLY arises from ...

The Necrons, as an example, a very old codex, have basically one really strong build. Treble monolith with lots of warriors and a couple of other tricks ... some people will toss in a c'tan, some people will use a pair of destroyer warscythe rez lords; whatever.

The Guard codex, a super new one ... it probably has 40 POWERFUL all comers tourney level builds, and even more than that in subtle variations. They can do all kinds of things, and do them well; straken supported close assault / melta guard, outflanking guard, vendetta heavy air cav guard, artillery / leafblower guard, guardmobspam, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

When you are game planning an "all comers" list, you can generally go "alright, Necrons ... I need to be able to tackle three monoliths and maybe a c'tan, and some warriors ... can I do that? yes? great, ok my list is necron proofed." If some necron brings a DIFFERENt list than that, you'll be able to handle it also, b/c it's not going to be an "optimum" necron list. Same can be said for a lot of other codices, even semi recent ones. But what about balancing your all comers to tackle guard? Well, heck, there's enough guard lists that it's FAR more difficult to really build your list to tackle any of them.

For my own part, I listbuild with the intent that whatever army I run up against, I can table it ... mech and/or seer eldar, various "strong" dark eldar builds, nob bikers and mechspam orks, various marine tricks and builds, blah blah blah. I struggle probably more than against any other type ... vs. Guard. Why? Huge variety of dangerous combinations. Anyway, rambly a little ... I think that if you think that any codices are NONCOMPETITIVE as a result of power creep (even demonhunters), you're probably not vetted enough at the game, or haven't tried enough variations, or maybe you're just too tied to older styles of playing the specific codex. Whatev, again happy to vassal w/ whoever.

BUT, to say there's no creep at all is equally "wrong" ... in the sense that the newer codices are far more optimized for the current ruleset, and as a general rule have been built with FAR more variety in terms of what builds are competitive (perhaps as a direct result of being written more to the current ruleset).

My $.02


PS - One thing that probably does bug a lot of people is the variance in marine costs. Watching the average marine get more abilities and get cheaper with every dex release has GOT to be infuriating. I would only suggest that attaching yourself to fluff for purity's sake instantly removes you from the discussion of pure power creep. From the p.o.v. of a very irreverent gamer who enjoys the fluff, but doesn't kill himself by being super attached to it, if you really *hate* how badly your dark angels play, use them with the marine or wolf codices ... build your own imaginative fluff to explain it (b/c that's all fluff really is, is imagination, none of it is based off some kind of real world 40k universe), and be competitive until your own codices get updated. In terms of marine codices, GW definitely has a mess on its hands, and that's something that you really can't work around without a little imagination and succumbing to the use of the newer rules.

Corrode
08-12-2009, 14:02
Changing the codex from a “week list with overpriced units” to a “competitive well-balanced and well-costed” codex couldn’t HELP but creep against other codexes.

If I’m an Eldar player and my current codex is balanced against the previous IG, Ork, Space Marine, Space Wolf, and soon to be Tyranid codex, than when those codexes are released with sweeping point reductions, new units, added versatility – regardless of whether or not they’re balanced against one another, they’re still heads above me – I can still compete but my ability to do so is diminished with every subsequent release.

Soon I will be stuck with Dual jetlock councils as my only competitive list in the whole codex. I don’t feel too bad though – I could be Dark Eldar, Tau, or Necrons.

That only works if all codices at Point A were balanced against each other (as in each had an equal chance of beating the other) and then at Point B we find that some codices, post-update, are now objectively better than those codices still at Point A.

In real life, however, the codices at Point A were fairly unbalanced, especially in the context of a new edition which often put individual codices two editions behind the core rules. Changing the Guard codex from one that was 'ok' under 3rd to 'good' under 5th does not represent 'power creep', instead it's rebalancing to meet the expectations of a new edition.

To work with your example, Eldar were, at Point A, slightly weaker (as an overall book) than those codices released afterwards (particularly Orks and Space Marines according to INTERNETZ WISDOM). However, they were also significantly stronger than the Imperial Guard. At Point B, the Imperial Guard are now most likely slightly stronger than Eldar, being on a level with Space Marines et al. The overall power gap is reduced, even if in the short-term one codex is slightly weaker. This is why I refer to it as rebalancing - if the Guard were objectively better than everything that came before them, they would be creeping.

You also ignored my other point, which is that Witch Hunters and Dark Eldar are very powerful in this edition, arguably more so than in previous editions, because they play to the strengths of that army. Witch Hunters were balanced against 3rd edition codices, but are just as powerful as 5th edition codices because the mechanics happen to work in their favour. Would you say that Witch Hunters represent power creep because they're better than books they were balanced against (like the Necrons) even though at the time of release they didn't significantly change the power dynamic of the game?

TheShadowCow
08-12-2009, 14:08
Yes/no (context dependant), and yes/no depending on what you think evidence for it looks like (and how much you're willing to attribute to other factors).

What is certain is that "all codicies are balanced, it's players that make imbalanced lists" is a daft sentiment.

AndrewGPaul
08-12-2009, 14:43
It's worth pointing out that most of the Space Wolf special rules you're complaining about have existed in similar form since they first got a codex in 2nd edition, so it's not exactly a new thing...

In the 2nd edition Codex, Blood Clws, Long Fangs and Wolf Scouts had no extra special rules other than the army-wide enhanced senses rule. Blood Claws were no better in melee than Assault Marines, Wolf Scouts were no better at infiltration than any other Chapters' Scouts (and were still Marines-in-training) and every unit could split fire - at least between the nearest infantry and the nearest vehicle, to the Long Fangs didn't need a special rule for that. Four Marines with BS5 all armed with a heavy weapon with a targeter were plenty. :)

hendybadger
08-12-2009, 14:46
This is my view.
If you are worried about 'Codex Creep' then you are playing either too seriously or the wrong game.
Any army can be built to take on any other. In many different ways.
And lighten up! Its a fun game!

IJW
08-12-2009, 14:47
My mistake, I sold off my 2nd ed codex about a year ago so couldn't check.

Lord Inquisitor
08-12-2009, 15:28
Dozens of independent model retailers are making a fortune off of Thunderwolf-like models. The Ironclad Dreadnought's late arrival has ensured that in my area even people who field him wouldn't purchase him, since they'd already converted some of their own. I have not seen a Vulkan model that was NOT a converted one yet. The same went for the Land Speeder Storm. All of these would have sold like hot cakes.
You are absolutely correct. Of course, part of this is due to a new philosophy of not just putting the entries that they will be able to release immediately into the codex, which isn't something I'm entirely opposed to. I think I'd rather they put all of the entries into the book so I can convert my own. But I in no way disagree with what you're saying - I'm sure gamezone (as but one example) are making a mint with their Seekers of not-Slaanesh-honest.


Then there are the even weirder cases, like deciding that Vanguard Veterans with jump packs were going to be an incredibly popular choice and making sure that they hit the shelves first. I don't get it, I'll never get it, and I doubt if they will stop any time soon.
I wonder about that. How well did these things sell? I'm sure there are a lot of kids out there who love the kick-**** nature of the Vanguard despite their poor performance for their points.


P.S. I also agree with Lord Inquisitor to some extent, but 40k has NEVER been an elegant wargame and it never will be! Like Chaos and Evil always points out, an elegant wargame wouldn't fit the target market.
Indeed (surprised C&E hasn't been along to say that himself!), as I've said, I don't know whether this is a concious thing or not. I know when I was a kid I loved special rules and units with funky unique traits that did horrible things to the enemy. Maybe they're being shrewd, and providing the sort of gaming experience their "target market" desires.

GrogDaTyrant
08-12-2009, 15:55
Any army can be built to take on any other. In many different ways.

Actually, this is not necessarily true. Certain armies have a plethora of options and wepaonry available that allow them to be specially built to take on specific armies. Others don't. Many armies in the game do not have the ability to specifically taylor their lists through weapon options and will typically end up focused more as a 'take-all-comers' list no matter what. The armies that are most renowned for having the options and weaponry capable of being focused towards fighting specific opponents are IG, Marines (all kinds), Eldar, Chaos, and to a lesser extent Tau.

Armies like Necrons, Tyranids, and Orks are not capable of being focused towards fighting specific armies unless you make broad sweeping unit changes in your list. Orks are a prime example as Rokkits and Big Shootas perform almost identical against MEQ with no cover saves, and will always rely on PKs to actually kill vehicles.


And lighten up! Its a fun game!

And this... this is what more people need to realize. These games are meant to be fun. Preferably with plenty of beer and pretzels.

Bookwrak
08-12-2009, 17:21
your concrete definition of power creep is too rigid to account for exceptions in a trend such as the Chaos and Craftworld Eldar codexes.

*facepalm*
If the only way for an argument you're backing to meet a definition is to change the definition so that it meets your argument, then there's probably something wrong with your argument. :evilgrin:


That’s not what I’m referring to at all. I’m referring to the process of each subsequent release of a codex being more and more powerful.
Which you have utterly failed to show as happening, a stance that has been completely demolished by quite a few separate posts in this thread. You do remember the part where the original 3rd ed IG list was mentioned, yes?

SPYDER68
08-12-2009, 17:26
I own 10x Vanguard Vets

I dont use them as Vanguards though.. i just love the models

incarna
08-12-2009, 17:43
That only works if all codices at Point A were balanced against each other (as in each had an equal chance of beating the other) and then at Point B we find that some codices, post-update, are now objectively better than those codices still at Point A.

In real life, however, the codices at Point A were fairly unbalanced, especially in the context of a new edition which often put individual codices two editions behind the core rules. Changing the Guard codex from one that was 'ok' under 3rd to 'good' under 5th does not represent 'power creep', instead it's rebalancing to meet the expectations of a new edition.

To work with your example, Eldar were, at Point A, slightly weaker (as an overall book) than those codices released afterwards (particularly Orks and Space Marines according to INTERNETZ WISDOM). However, they were also significantly stronger than the Imperial Guard. At Point B, the Imperial Guard are now most likely slightly stronger than Eldar, being on a level with Space Marines et al. The overall power gap is reduced, even if in the short-term one codex is slightly weaker. This is why I refer to it as rebalancing - if the Guard were objectively better than everything that came before them, they would be creeping.
Essentially we’re both describing a game of codex leapfrog which is – in my opinion, pretty much what codex creep is. If you accept the idea that the codexes WERE balanced against one another – than my argument holds true. If you accept the idea that codexes WERE NOT balanced against each other than you’re conceding to an imbalance that existed largely DUE to codex creep requiring correction with MORE codex creep or – and I think we both have the same hope – an eventual achievement of balance across all codexes even if those that are not updated must suffer from creep until they are.

You also ignored my other point, which is that Witch Hunters and Dark Eldar are very powerful in this edition, arguably more so than in previous editions, because they play to the strengths of that army. Witch Hunters were balanced against 3rd edition codices, but are just as powerful as 5th edition codices because the mechanics happen to work in their favour. Would you say that Witch Hunters represent power creep because they're better than books they were balanced against (like the Necrons) even though at the time of release they didn't significantly change the power dynamic of the game?
I didn’t address this point because I don’t agree with its premise; that Dark Eldar and Witch Hunters are more powerful in 5th ed. The units within the codex are inherently built upon a theoretical balance between the previous generation of codexes. Whatever advantages 5th ed provided them are not significant enough to overcome the strength of current codexes compared to their and lists from other out of date codexes buit to compete with current codexes.

This may be anecdotal as well but my observations of Witch Hunters and Dark Eldar games support my position. I have yet to observe a Dark Eldar or Witch Hunters army successfully capitalize on 5th ed.

incarna
08-12-2009, 17:51
*facepalm*
If the only way for an argument you're backing to meet a definition is to change the definition so that it meets your argument, then there's probably something wrong with your argument. :evilgrin:
That’s not what I’m doing. You presented a rigid definition of codex creep which doesn’t apply:

“Codex Creep: The phenomenon in which a newly released codex is ALWAYS more powerful than its predecessor and, in turn, more powerful than older codexes that were theoretically balanced against it.”

I’m trying to explain to you the real definition of codex creep so you’re better able to engage in the discussion:

“Codex Creep; the phenomenon in which a newly release codex TENDS to be more powerful than its predecessor and, in turn, more powerful than older codexes that were theoretically balanced against it.”

You’re attempting to use exceptions to argue a rule which is an inherent fallacy in your positioning.


Which you have utterly failed to show as happening, a stance that has been completely demolished by quite a few separate posts in this thread. You do remember the part where the original 3rd ed IG list was mentioned, yes?
Have I failed UTTERLY? I think you’re not opened to the legitimacy of the arguments that I’ve presented AND you’re too quick to call Florida before the votes are in.

Badger[Fr]
08-12-2009, 18:08
“Codex Creep; the phenomenon in which a newly release codex TENDS to be more powerful than its predecessor and, in turn, more powerful than older codexes that were theoretically balanced against it.”
You are assuming Codices were balanced within the same ruleset, and you couldn't be more wrong. If anything, 3rd and 4th Edition were widely known for their utter lack of balance. The Chaos and Eldar Codices were hardly the only mistakes.



You’re attempting to use exceptions to argue a rule which is an inherent fallacy in your positioning.
But how many armies actually follow this rule? When there are more exceptions than armies going by said rule, it is quite obvious the rule is wrong in the first place.

GrogDaTyrant
08-12-2009, 18:21
This may be anecdotal as well but my observations of Witch Hunters and Dark Eldar games support my position. I have yet to observe a Dark Eldar or Witch Hunters army successfully capitalize on 5th ed.

Sisters capitalize on what is effectively Stubborn, for super-cheap per Sergeant/HQ, that effects units nearby as well. There's also something to say about the liberal application of flamers, and how much they benefit the new rules (combi flamer, flamer, and Heavy Flamer in the same unit...).

incarna
08-12-2009, 18:46
;4197060']You are assuming Codices were balanced within the same ruleset, and you couldn't be more wrong. If anything, 3rd and 4th Edition were widely known for their utter lack of balance. The Chaos and Eldar Codices were hardly the only mistakes.
That assumption is not a necessary component of my argument. If codexes were not balanced, than the imbalance existed largely as a result of codex creep: one codex leapfrogging over the other in an attempt to achieve balance that was unsuccessful. If the codexes were balanced (I would agree with you that they tended to NOT be balanced) sweeping point reductions, vehicle squadrons, and various other elements imply codex creep – one could argue that those things are not explicitly codex creep but an element of balance necessary in the new generation of codexes. That argument is fair, and one I can certainly see merit in, but one that can not be argued for or against with certainty until all codexes are updated for 5th ed. I believe that once that happens we will see more balance within the game than we ever have before – but there will still be an issue of “younger” codexes creeping over older ones which will have to be corrected. In an IDEAL world that correction will be made to increase OR decrease the power of the codexes with velvet gloves (ala Codex IG) but there’s always a chance that those corrections will be made with a sledgehammer (ala Codex Chaos Space marines) – CURRENTLY, it looks to me like corrections are being made with a velvet sledgehammer. We’re moving in the right direction towards balance but we won’t achieve it with this current generation of codexes.



;4197060']But how many armies actually follow this rule? When there are more exceptions than armies going by said rule, it is quite obvious the rule is wrong in the first place.
So far, across the life of the game as far as long as I’ve been playing, 3rd ed and beyond has only had two exceptions to the rule of codex creep: Craftworld Eldar and Chaos Space Marines.

incarna
08-12-2009, 18:53
Sisters capitalize on what is effectively Stubborn, for super-cheap per Sergeant/HQ, that effects units nearby as well. There's also something to say about the liberal application of flamers, and how much they benefit the new rules (combi flamer, flamer, and Heavy Flamer in the same unit...).

I’m not disagreeing with you. What I meant to say was, in the games in which I’ve seen Dark Eldar and Witch Hunters participate, I have yet to see the “buffs” 5th ed has given them overcome their shortcomings. I have personally tabled the last two Witch Hunter armies that I’ve played against – though I wouldn’t necessarily say that’s a fair comparison since a flamer-heavy army isn’t going to exactly run circles around Mechnized Eldar.

The games in which I’ve observed Dark Eldar and Witch Hunters lists explicitly attempt to capitalize on any 5th ed advantages have been woefully unsuccessful.

But like I said, that’s anecdotal. I tend to feel that the pure age of the Dark Eldar and Witch Hunter codex is enough to make the armies fall outside the context of game balance – heck, the Witch hunters codex still references minor psychic powers.

Vaktathi
08-12-2009, 18:57
How on earth has the change in IG from 'weak list with overpriced units' to 'competitive, well-balanced and well-costed' been 'codex creep'? If we based our assertions of OMG CREEP on whether or not a new book was better than the old version then 99% of cases (besides Eldar and Chaos 4.0) would see us whining and screaming.

Actually, that sounds pretty much like Warseer.

Is creep not the gradual increase in power level of new codex's? The IG book is great, but I definitely think it also represents a pretty fair amount of creep in terms of power level, especially compared to the SM codex that came before it.

SPYDER68
08-12-2009, 19:01
Everytime i see Creep.. it makes me think of Starcraft and the Creep colony things to building more onto...


The newer version will be stronger.. if its not whats the point of re doing the army.

GrogDaTyrant
08-12-2009, 19:21
I’m not disagreeing with you. What I meant to say was, in the games in which I’ve seen Dark Eldar and Witch Hunters participate, I have yet to see the “buffs” 5th ed has given them overcome their shortcomings. I have personally tabled the last two Witch Hunter armies that I’ve played against – though I wouldn’t necessarily say that’s a fair comparison since a flamer-heavy army isn’t going to exactly run circles around Mechnized Eldar.

Yeah, I'd say Mech Eldar would be an exception, not the standard to judge the Witch Hunters by. Yes, the codex is bloody old and mentions Minor Psychic powers. But they've been performing quite well in my area.

Badger[Fr]
08-12-2009, 19:29
If codexes were not balanced, than the imbalance existed largely as a result of codex creep: one codex leapfrogging over the other in an attempt to achieve balance that was unsuccessful.
Such an assumption is groundless, as the newer Codices were not necessarily the most powerful. If anything, 3.5 IG and Daemon Hunters were amongst the latest 3rd Edition Codices, whereas Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Craftworld Eldar predated them by at least 3 years.

More often than not, lack of playtesting and poorly thought design decisions were to blame. Two armies that shared the very same book could very well be utterly unbalanced in regard to each other.


So far, across the life of the game as far as long as I’ve been playing, 3rd ed and beyond has only had two exceptions to the rule of codex creep: Craftworld Eldar and Chaos Space Marines.
But what about Dark Angels? Blood Angels? 3rd Edition Imperial Guard? Let's not mention Codices that were underpowered from the very beginning (3.5 IG, Daemon Hunters, or 3rd Edition Ork, as an exemple) or designed in such way that newer Editions hardly changed their power level (Dark Eldar and Witch Hunters), which are also exceptions to Codex Creep...

Corrode
08-12-2009, 19:31
Is creep not the gradual increase in power level of new codex's? The IG book is great, but I definitely think it also represents a pretty fair amount of creep in terms of power level, especially compared to the SM codex that came before it.

Being rebalanced upwards to be on an equal footing with other armies, when you started below the average power level, is rebalancing, not creep. Personally I've played the new Guard 5 times, with my ****** Ork list and my pretty good Marine list, and I've drawn 2 and won 3. The amount of tanks and firepower a strong IG list can kick out is quite scary, but it's only gamebreaking if you've forgotten 5th edition exists.

Vaktathi
08-12-2009, 19:48
Being rebalanced upwards to be on an equal footing with other armies, when you started below the average power level, is rebalancing, not creep. Personally I've played the new Guard 5 times, with my ****** Ork list and my pretty good Marine list, and I've drawn 2 and won 3. The amount of tanks and firepower a strong IG list can kick out is quite scary, but it's only gamebreaking if you've forgotten 5th edition exists.

With the 1750 list I'm currently running, and have been since about august playing genreally 2-4 games a week, I've won the last 5 store events, and only lost one game with it so far (1850 KP game against Fateweaver/Bloodcrusher wound allocation build with rerollable saves that ended turn 5, and we still tied on VP's) although I've drawn a good number of games. It's been pretty silly.

Likewise, I've seen a several of SM players take up SW's with pretty much identical lists, with point to spare and killier troops as a result, and otherwise little difference in the army lists.

incarna
08-12-2009, 20:00
;4197300']Such an assumption is groundless, as the newer Codices were not necessarily the most powerful. If anything, 3.5 IG and Daemon Hunters were amongst the latest 3rd Edition Codices, whereas Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Craftworld Eldar predated them by at least 3 years.

More often than not, lack of playtesting and poorly thought design decisions were to blame. Two armies that shared the very same book could very well be utterly unbalanced in regard to each other.
I think our discussion may be experiencing a disconnect because *I* considered the 3.5 IG codex to be among the most powerful codexes of the time. A well built guard army was ALWAYS a contender in tournaments in my area and, if it didn’t win, was always at the top of the pack as far as ranking went. Again – anecdotally my personal IG army could hold it’s own at 1500 points against 2000 points and went undefeated over the course of it’s life against comparable point size armies with the sole exception of an all-mounted dedicated Khorn army from the old Chaos codex and a drop pod marine army from whatever codex first featured drop pods. – even still the games were close.

As for Daemon Hunters – at the time of release the codex did hit very very hard. Just because it wasn’t more powerfull than the defunct-shortly-thereafter craftworld elder codex doesn’t mean it didn’t creep over the bulk of other codexes.



;4197300']But what about Dark Angels? Blood Angels? 3rd Edition Imperial Guard? Let's not mention Codices that were underpowered from the very beginning (3.5 IG, Daemon Hunters, or 3rd Edition Ork, as an exemple) or designed in such way that newer Editions hardly changed their power level (Dark Eldar and Witch Hunters), which are also exceptions to Codex Creep...
Again, we may be having a disconnect. I felt both Dark Angels and Blood Angels were codexes that added power to an already relatively powerful SM codex of the era. Their incorporation was EXPLICITLY an addition of power. As for 3rd ed IG, you already know my feelings on how profound an upgrade the 3.5 dex was. As for Orks, I think they’re a shining example of codex creep where the army became neigh unplayable over the life of 3rd and 4th ed until the release of this past codex due to codex creep – but a boost from codex armegeddon made it JUST compeditive enough to keep up with the pack.

Mortez Freeters
08-12-2009, 20:27
Codex creep is by far the best way to sell models. If you don't think GW makes new codices slightly more powerful more powerful than the last, please explain to me how they intend to make money. I'm listening.

incarna
08-12-2009, 21:15
Codex creep is by far the best way to sell models. If you don't think GW makes new codices slightly more powerful more powerful than the last, please explain to me how they intend to make money. I'm listening.

I do believe that codex creep exists but I do not ascribe to this philosophy. The print overhead and overstock loss alone is enough to make perpetual codex releases cost prohibitive.

Codex creep is, in my opinion, partially intentional as a tool to drive the game as a whole to where it needs to be eventually resulting in balance as each codex is revised less and less drastically with balance as a goal. It’s also partially accidental: GW is not infallible and it’s impossible to account for every minute detail.

Darth Vader isn’t sitting at the head of GW’s accounting department drumming his fingers on his desk as he chuckles to himself: “I will achieve hobby world domination by releasing one codex after another, each more powerful than the one before to drive model sales!”

Corrode
08-12-2009, 21:26
Again, we may be having a disconnect. I felt both Dark Angels and Blood Angels were codexes that added power to an already relatively powerful SM codex of the era. Their incorporation was EXPLICITLY an addition of power. As for 3rd ed IG, you already know my feelings on how profound an upgrade the 3.5 dex was. As for Orks, I think they’re a shining example of codex creep where the army became neigh unplayable over the life of 3rd and 4th ed until the release of this past codex due to codex creep – but a boost from codex armegeddon made it JUST compeditive enough to keep up with the pack.

The disconnect is because you're not paying attention to the codex release order. Blood Angels were the 3rd codex released in 3rd edition, and Dark Angels were 5th. By the logic of 'codex creep' the Dark Angels should have been the more powerful codex, but the BA, in fact, were much stronger, and continued to be very strong throughout the edition's life whilst other, later codices, which by all rights should have suffered creep, were less powerful. The point that's being made is that BA, an early codex, were very powerful while Daemonhunters (as an example) were a late codex which wasn't significantly more powerful.

Bunnahabhain
08-12-2009, 22:02
Codex creep is by far the best way to sell models. If you don't think GW makes new codices slightly more powerful more powerful than the last, please explain to me how they intend to make money. I'm listening.

Producing a good, easy to learn and use, flexible, balanced rules system with tactical depth that supports all current armies well, and leaves room for further, as yet unthought of units and/or armies.
This would be a powerful tool in keeping players involved and spending, rather than getting fed up with poor rules and leaving.

Producing good, sensibly priced models that make people want to buy them for the model alone, regardless of the rules for them.

Emphasizing that converting models is a part of the hobby, and promoting sensible conversions to fill gaps in ranges i.e. the ones that require 2 plastic boxes to build the unit, not bits from 5 metal ones....

All ways to sell more models without codex creep.

RichBlake
09-12-2009, 01:17
I don't buy into codex creep.

Let's just set some common terms here:

"Codex Creep" to me specifically means that codexes get progressively stronger. In this way Codex A is released and is better then all/most previous codexes. When Codex B is released it surpasses all previous codexes, including Codex A etc.

There is also a seperate idea that the newer codexes are more powerful then the older ones. This isn't a strict linear thing, merely there are two groups "old" and "new".

The idea of codex creep, imo, is totally unfounded. If it were true then the top Codex would currently be Space Wolves, followed by: Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Orks, Eldar. However if I were to rank the armies (competitively) I'd say the order is probably: Chaos Daemons, Orks, Space Marines/Space Wolves, Eldar, Sisters of Battle. Imperial Guard are good now, but not better then SM, Eldar, SoB or Daemons (thinking in terms of lists available, with good players they can beat anyone).

The second idea, that new is better than old, is more accurate. The top codexes generally are "newer" with the exception of SoB and Daemons. Imperial Guard are a better codex then most others too. This, however, comes from the new design philosophies and the fact older books were written for the army in question to behave in a different set of rules.

I really don't buy into the whole codex creep theory, I believe a good player with a good list can nearly always triumph over a bad player with a great list. However some codexes do find it hard to put together a sufficiently good list to let a good player take advantage of that.

CKO
09-12-2009, 02:44
I dont think their is codex creep, I do believe that new codexes are better in the current edition, as the rules are made with 5th edition rules in mind.

Zulais
09-12-2009, 03:27
Codex Creep are Games Workshop players conspiracy theories.

Xelloss
09-12-2009, 08:43
IMHO what people call codex creep is just that GW is utterly unable to understand the real power level of a codex (not that I say this is easy). Sometimes it hits higher, sometimes it hits lower. The last codices seems to reflect that (SM - IG - SW)

incarna
09-12-2009, 13:02
The disconnect is because you're not paying attention to the codex release order. Blood Angels were the 3rd codex released in 3rd edition, and Dark Angels were 5th. By the logic of 'codex creep' the Dark Angels should have been the more powerful codex, but the BA, in fact, were much stronger, and continued to be very strong throughout the edition's life whilst other, later codices, which by all rights should have suffered creep, were less powerful. The point that's being made is that BA, an early codex, were very powerful while Daemonhunters (as an example) were a late codex which wasn't significantly more powerful.\

I never considered either the Blood Angels codex or Dark Angels codex to be particularly powerful.

Bloodknight
09-12-2009, 13:08
Well, the BA basically invented the Rhino Rush.

Lord Inquisitor
09-12-2009, 13:27
\

I never considered either the Blood Angels codex or Dark Angels codex to be particularly powerful.

I think we're talking here about the 3rd edition BA codex, the one that was basically Codex: Space Marines with a bunch of free stuff like Furious Charge at no effectively real disadvantage.

incarna
09-12-2009, 13:51
I think we're talking here about the 3rd edition BA codex, the one that was basically Codex: Space Marines with a bunch of free stuff like Furious Charge at no effectively real disadvantage.

Isn’t that an example of codex creep then?

I vaguely remember the DA codex but, I will concede for the moment that it was less powerful than the BA codex but MORE powerful than Vanilla CSM. Isn’t that still an upward power trend even if the line graph doesn’t rise consistency, over time the overall trend is more power?

Bookwrak
09-12-2009, 14:33
Given that it was stronger than a number of the codicies that came after it, no.

You seem to have a remarkable difficultly in wrapping your brain around what 'codex creep' means.

incarna
09-12-2009, 15:15
Given that it was stronger than a number of the codicies that came after it, no.

You seem to have a remarkable difficultly in wrapping your brain around what 'codex creep' means.

I understand exactly what it means.

You seem to think that because EVERY codex that is released is not ALWAYS more powerful than the one before and ALWAYS more pwoerfull than all other existing codexes that codex creep is a figment of peoples imaginations.

What codex creep REALY means – and please try to comprehend this – is an UPWARD TREND in the power of codexes.

The stock market goes up and down every day – heck, it goes up and down every few MINUTES. But day to day, there’s either an upward TREND or downward TREND even if there are instances where a day is down. Do you understand that?

Was the 3rd Ed Blood Angels codex more powerful than the Space Marine codex it was built upon? Was the Dark Angels codex more powerful than the Space Marine codex it was built upon but somewhat less powerful than the BA codex? Ok – that’s an upward TREND which was furthered by Codex Armageddon.

People argue that the Witch Hunters and Demon Hunters codexes were weaker – but they were, at their core, supplements to a Space marine and Imperial guard codex. The added versatility and new units added POWER – an upward TREND.

The Necron codex was, at the time of release, among the most powerful codexes in existence. Even before the release of 5th ed it’s strength was waining compared to more recently released codexes.

The original Tau codex was arguable average for the context of the game at the time. The current Tau Empires codex was ALSO average for the context of the game during its release – but was not only more powerful than it’s predecessor, but gave rise to the powerful Fish of Fury tactic which was extremely competitive.

CSM codex previous to this one was not the first CSM codex – and it was far more powerful than its predecessor. And though it DID catch a nerf in this past release, the trend in power is still, through the game as a whole an UPWARD one.

The CURRENT elder codex is more powerful than its predecessor – but you probably wouldn’t know that because, at the time, everyone played Craftworld armies which DID have broken rules. Again, the trend is UPWARD.

Have subsequent releases of the IG codex been more powerful than the predecessors?

Have subsequent releases of the SM codex been more powerful than the predecessors?

I’ll leave DE out of it because it’s honestly been too long for me to even remember.

It’s an easy concept to understand. When the new Tyranid codex comes out next month we will almost CERTAINLY see an increase in power. Whether this power relative to the IG, Ork, Space Wolf, or Space Marine codex is less or greater is IRRELIVANT – it STILL represents a gradual upward trend in the power of the codex. Whether this is a result of deliberate power creep, poor play testing, or a perpetual attempt to attain balance is irrelevant. The NEXT codex that is released will be developed within the context of that “raised bar”. This trend will repeat and repeat. THIS IS CODEX CREEP!

Here’s a mathematical formula to illustrate my point. The “power” of a given codex is represented by a variable such as ‘A’ and the AVERAGE power of armies within the game will be represented with a variable ‘X’.

Today the CONTEXT of ALL of 40k is represented by the following codexes:
Space Marines = A, Space Wolves = B, Orks = C, Imperial Guard = D, Necrons = E, Tau = F, Dark Eldar = G, Eldar = H, Witch Hunters = I, Demon Hunters = J, Chaos Space Marines = K, Chaos Daemons = L, and Tyranids = M – maybe I’m forgetting something but it doesn’t matter. Here’s the formula.

(A + B + C + D + E + F + G + H + I + J + K + L + M) / 13 = X
X = the standard by which all future codexes will be balanced.

In January, when the new Nid codex comes out the formula changes like SO

(A + B + C + D + E + F + G + H + I + J + K + L + (M+1)) / 13 = X
X gets SLIGHTLY larger because the new Nid codex is not only more powerful in relation to its predecessor, it’s more powerful in relationship to all existing codexes.

When the NEXT codex comes out, it too will almost certainly be more powerful than its predecessor. It MAY be less powerful than the IG codex or the Ork codex, but that isn’t relevant – it still represents an increase in codex power and an increase in X – the standard by which all future codexes are balanced against one another.

It can’t possibly be as difficult to comprehend as you’re making it out to be.

Revlid
09-12-2009, 15:21
Current Marines > Old Marines
Current Tau > Old Tau
Current Orks > Old Orks
Current Eldar > Old Eldar
Current Guard > Old Guard
Current Wolves > Old Wolves
Current Chaos Marines => Old Chaos Marines (it's a near thing)
New Tyranids > Old Tyranids

Fairly conclusive evidence, imo.

I'm not saying it's a hugely bad thing, mind. How else are designers supposed to stick in all the new tricks and shiny gadgets that get us so excited about a new book?

RichBlake
09-12-2009, 15:45
I understand exactly what it means.

You seem to think that because EVERY codex that is released is not ALWAYS more powerful than the one before and ALWAYS more pwoerfull than all other existing codexes that codex creep is a figment of peoples imaginations.

What codex creep REALY means – and please try to comprehend this – is an UPWARD TREND in the power of codexes.


I'm sorry but this argument is just silly. Codex creep isn't the idea of an upward trend at all, the only plausible definition of codex creep is the last codex released is better then those before it.

In WFB I'm almost inclined to agree it's happening as imo WoC < VC < DE < Skaven, with Daemons being the odd one thrown in. However in 40K it is not so, the codexes are percieved to be more powerful then their previous incarnations, but I'd argue this is more to do with the rules and how they can be used.

Example:

Everyone says 3rd edition Guard was worse then the new codex, I'm inclined to agree. However, Guardsmen at 6 points a model were still dirt cheap and since enemy units couldn't see through your units for 60 points you bought a big fleshy curtain that allowed other stuff to advance. Additionally cover saves were less prevelent and less powerful, meaning their big guns could decimate almost everything. Also add in that hardly anything had eternal warrior and the Guard comparativley cheap lascannons and ordnance was actually quite good.

When 4th ed came out Guard got weakened. Target priority, something that allows you to shoot through other units as long as you passed a leadership test, instantly made old tactics less viable. In 5th edition the loads of cover saves boosted guard infantry but made their big guns less effective.

The strength of a codex can not be compared really to it's new version fairly. The only way you could do it is compare the position any given army was in in the rules edition that it was released in.

In this case in 3rd edition Guard were near the top but not on it, in 4th they sunk a little lower then that, being mediocre at best, in 5th They've gone back to being near the top but not on it.

In fact, according to your logic, codex creep is inevtiable as GW come up with new ideas and units as every codex will add new tactical options.

GrogDaTyrant
09-12-2009, 15:46
Current Orks > Old Orks

Fairly conclusive evidence, imo.


Sorry, gotta disagree here. As a long time Ork player, myself and a few others in my area have proved time and again that we can make stronger lists with the old codex, even if you leave out the Choppa rules. Some things are definitely better in the new codex (like Nobs, Warbikes, Battlewagons, Shootas, Kanz, etc.). But there are numerous downgrades from the previous codex and Armaggeddon Codex as well, such as Zzap Guns, Looted Vehicles, 'Ard Boyz not being 0-1, and more.

If anything, I'd say the Current Orks are = to the Old Orks. At least, in the hands of an expirienced Ork player.

aka_mythos
09-12-2009, 15:52
Codex creep is by far the best way to sell models. If you don't think GW makes new codices slightly more powerful more powerful than the last, please explain to me how they intend to make money. I'm listening.

I think what it boils down to is codex creep only really happens because GW changes unit characteristics not so much to balance the game but to promote the new models. What was good before is made weaker so something new is the "best thing".

I don't think GW intentionally makes each army "better" but that through promoting model sales unintentionally do so.

incarna
09-12-2009, 15:55
I'm sorry but this argument is just silly. Codex creep isn't the idea of an upward trend at all, the only plausible definition of codex creep is the last codex released is better then those before it.

Why is it silly and why is the definition I’ve set forth inplausable?

My definition of what codex creep is and your definition of what codex creep is are exclusive. This argument will go in circles because we’re essentially arguing from two separate premises. Anecdotally, In all the years I’ve been playing I've never encountered anyone face-to-face with whom I've discussed the issues of codex creep with that has ascribed to your definition of codex creep.

I thought it was broadly accepted that codex creep represented the gradual upward trend in codex power relative to both itself and the game as a whole.

RichBlake
09-12-2009, 16:31
Why is it silly and why is the definition I’ve set forth inplausable?

It's silly because the definition is far too broad to actually mean anything OTHER than anecdotal evidence, which is what you're basing you're entire argument on. I'm not suggesting you write a paper on it, it just lacks even the resemblance of "scientific method".

Firstly you are trying to define a term as "things are better then they were before". There are several problems with this:

1) How are you measuring if they are better? The perceptions of the hobbyists or based off where the codexes come in the tournament results world wide?

If you are simply going to go off your own or a handful of other players personal experiences this will be plagued by false assumptions, or at best accurate assumptions made without any real proof.

The latter seems more appealing as it is empirical and you can't argue with facts however it does place too much focus on particular lists that are possible within the codex as a whole (example: nob bikers). If you define the power level of a codex by the most powerful list that can be written rather than the average strength of any given list then this is fine.

2) How will you compare it to the last version of the codex? Some sort of "codex fight off" or simply comparing the answer from number 1 with this codex to the answer from the last version?

The comparison between this codex version and the previous one is important to even hope to prove your version of codex creep correct. However your only option for even half proving this is to look at the tournament results you did for number 1, however this will be plagued by variables as described in question 3. Any game between the two codexes will be unfair as the older army was never written with ANY of the new items in mind, nor was it even written with some of the core concepts of 40K these days (true LoS for example).

3) How, in your proposition, have you accounted for the variables that have effect over the codex that cannot be consider by looking at the codex alone? Examples include changes in rule sets, the comparative strength of the other codexes and even GW design philosophy at the time. A codex that was crap in 3rd may be awesome in 5th, and vice versa.

How can you tell that this codex is better than the last (and other different codexes) if you don't have the lack of all these variables? The fact that the Necrons in 4th ed made a poor showing at tournaments for example could be less to do with the quality of the Necron codex and more to do with perhaps unbalanced OTHER codexes.

Basically your version of codex creep is daft because either you're talking literally "This codex will be more powerful, even fractionally, then the old one" in which case you are correct as any new units bolsters the codex by even a fraction as it's another option. However such an assumption is silly because it's like me informing you that the sun will rise: it's inevitable and it will prove nothing.

OR you mean there is a significance increase in power in which case even if you managed to create some sort of method to measure relative power levels AND account for all the variables I don't think you'd find there is ever a significant increase comparatively.



I thought it was broadly accepted that codex creep represented the gradual upward trend in codex power relative to both itself and the game as a whole.

Well I was always under the impression Codex Creep was specifically the arms race mentality where a games designer produce army A and releases that nothing is as powerful, so creates army B which is equal or more powerful and usually includes a unit capable of dealing with army A's mega-unit-of-win.

The idea that all codexes get more powerful is also a non-issue, if all codexes get more powerful then, assuming an equal starting position, apart from the in between time where some haven't caught up they shall all be equal again at some point. This sort of makes the point irrelevant.

Example:

I have 5 codexes that are strength 1.
I make 2 of those codexes strength 1.1 (10% more powerful than the "average")
I then make ANOTHER strength 1.1 (10% more powerful), however as the average is now 1.1 it's fair to say that I no longer have three codexes at 1.1 and two at 1, instead I should say I have three codexes at 1 and two at 0.9 (10% UNDER average)
Those codexes are then increased by 10% and I once again have 5 codexes at strength 1 (average).

I know that all the codexes aren't that scientifically balanced, and some are brought out more often then others, but the power level of a codex is entirely comparative. Without an opponent to play and defeat the army isn't powerful at all, it produces nothing. So you need an opponent to play to test the strength. If the opponent has the same army then the discussion is pointless, so they need a different one. Eventually, all codexes will restore to a sort of equilibrium, so the idea of codex creep is less about codex creep and more about the staggered release dates.

incarna
09-12-2009, 17:34
It's silly because the definition is far too broad to actually mean anything OTHER than anecdotal evidence, which is what you're basing you're entire argument on. I'm not suggesting you write a paper on it, it just lacks even the resemblance of "scientific method".

Firstly you are trying to define a term as "things are better then they were before". There are several problems with this:
The entire discussion is partially anecdotal: “The current Chaos Codex is less powerful than its predecessor.” And partially scientific: “An Imperial Guardsman in the current codex costs less than an Imperial Guardsmen in the preceding codex.” The context of this entire discussion is neither explicitly scientific nor explicitly anecdotal – it’s essentially a Value Debate. My definition of codex creep is not broad in the slightest – it’s pretty specific: an upward trend in the power of a codex as compared to its predecessor and other current codexes. That is by no means broad and I think most would agree there are two codexes – The current Chaos Codex and the now defunct Craftworld Eldar codex which are exceptions to that definition. That doesn’t invalidate the definition, it just represents exceptions.


1) How are you measuring if they are better? The perceptions of the hobbyists or based off where the codexes come in the tournament results world wide?

If you are simply going to go off your own or a handful of other players personal experiences this will be plagued by false assumptions, or at best accurate assumptions made without any real proof.

The latter seems more appealing as it is empirical and you can't argue with facts however it does place too much focus on particular lists that are possible within the codex as a whole (example: nob bikers). If you define the power level of a codex by the most powerful list that can be written rather than the average strength of any given list then this is fine.
The measure of something being better is both scientific and unscientific. For example, a 5-point Imperial Guardsmen with the same stats of a 6-point Imperial Guardsmen is more powerful because the overall army benefits from being able to fit more within a given point limit. It is both scientific and unscientific to say that the addition of IG tank squadrons are more powerful than when they didn’t exist before because – while you can fit more tanks into your army per slot, your vehicles are also more vulnerable - it isn’t really provable or disprovable but I think most people would agree that tank squadrons are a power boost and those arguments can be partially supported with evidence. It is unscientific to say that the chaos codex of today is less powerful than its predecessor. I think most people would agree that that IS the case but there is no way to empirically prove or disprove that statement.


2) How will you compare it to the last version of the codex? Some sort of "codex fight off" or simply comparing the answer from number 1 with this codex to the answer from the last version?

The comparison between this codex version and the previous one is important to even hope to prove your version of codex creep correct. However your only option for even half proving this is to look at the tournament results you did for number 1, however this will be plagued by variables as described in question 3. Any game between the two codexes will be unfair as the older army was never written with ANY of the new items in mind, nor was it even written with some of the core concepts of 40K these days (true LoS for example).
I think the comparisons are made through a variety of ways. First – the stat line compared to the point value of a given unit (the reduction in the cost of an ork from one codex to the other). Second – the addition of new powers/rules/tricks (the advent of Space Marines ability to split squads). Third – the addition of new units which add versatility to the army (Valkyrie/Vendetta for example).



3) How, in your proposition, have you accounted for the variables that have effect over the codex that cannot be consider by looking at the codex alone? Examples include changes in rule sets, the comparative strength of the other codexes and even GW design philosophy at the time. A codex that was crap in 3rd may be awesome in 5th, and vice versa.

How can you tell that this codex is better than the last (and other different codexes) if you don't have the lack of all these variables? The fact that the Necrons in 4th ed made a poor showing at tournaments for example could be less to do with the quality of the Necron codex and more to do with perhaps unbalanced OTHER codexes.
A change in GW’s design philosophy is irrelevant. A codex that is in print is in print and whatever GW’s design philosophy was, is, or becomes has to value when comparing the RESULTS of what they’ve produced. Rules sets are a relivant variable and there’s two components of that issue. First, the game rules are a forward trend. The context of the game is what it is. A codex designed within the current edition will likely be much more powerful on its face than a codex designed for a previous edition. Second, the variance isn’t severe enough to destabilize the game as a whole. It certainly adds a destabilizing element but all codexes in print are playable within the current 40k context.

Basically your version of codex creep is daft because either you're talking literally "This codex will be more powerful, even fractionally, then the old one" in which case you are correct as any new units bolsters the codex by even a fraction as it's another option. However such an assumption is silly because it's like me informing you that the sun will rise: it's inevitable and it will prove nothing.

OR you mean there is a significance increase in power in which case even if you managed to create some sort of method to measure relative power levels AND account for all the variables I don't think you'd find there is ever a significant increase comparatively.
You’re mischaracterizing my position. But even so, my position holds true. The sun WILL rise tomorrow just as it is likely that each release of each codex will be more powerful than the one before and, as a result, will raise the base line power level of the game as a whole. There may be exceptions, but the trend will continue until GW arrives at the closest thing to balance possible. Point adjustments and new rules will fall by the way side and the only thing change in a codexes power will be the release of new units. While this is an element of creep – it’s impact is less significant than the other two.



Well I was always under the impression Codex Creep was specifically the arms race mentality where a games designer produce army A and releases that nothing is as powerful, so creates army B which is equal or more powerful and usually includes a unit capable of dealing with army A's mega-unit-of-win.
I’ve never felt that that was the definition and I don’t know anyone who does.

The idea that all codexes get more powerful is also a non-issue, if all codexes get more powerful then, assuming an equal starting position, apart from the in between time where some haven't caught up they shall all be equal again at some point. This sort of makes the point irrelevant.

Example:

I have 5 codexes that are strength 1.
I make 2 of those codexes strength 1.1 (10% more powerful than the "average")
I then make ANOTHER strength 1.1 (10% more powerful), however as the average is now 1.1 it's fair to say that I no longer have three codexes at 1.1 and two at 1, instead I should say I have three codexes at 1 and two at 0.9 (10% UNDER average)
Those codexes are then increased by 10% and I once again have 5 codexes at strength 1 (average).
Your formula is flawed as it represents the power of a codex as a percent instead of a value. If I and 4 of my friends each have $100 and I somehow obtain $110, than my friends don’t somehow go down to $97.50 – they STAY at $100. I am “more powerful” than my friends because I can but more stuff.

I know that all the codexes aren't that scientifically balanced, and some are brought out more often then others, but the power level of a codex is entirely comparative. Without an opponent to play and defeat the army isn't powerful at all, it produces nothing. So you need an opponent to play to test the strength. If the opponent has the same army then the discussion is pointless, so they need a different one. Eventually, all codexes will restore to a sort of equilibrium, so the idea of codex creep is less about codex creep and more about the staggered release dates.

The issue of codex creep in my mind is about GW’s eventual arrival at balance. In the meantime, the older codexes will suffer while younger codexes reign supreme.

IJW
09-12-2009, 19:43
the addition of new powers/rules/tricks (the advent of Space Marines ability to split squads)
I know this is a minor nit-pick, but new? Combat Squads for Marines goes back something like 17 years - it's not new at all but simply the return of an old rule.

Badger[Fr]
10-12-2009, 16:05
The issue is, a straight comparison between two Codices that were designed under different rulesets doesn't make any sense. While newer Codices tend on average to perform better than their predecessors, it does not necessarily mean Codex Creep is at work. Discrepancies between the current ruleset and older Codices are unavoidable and will on average favour the most recent armies, regardless of the so-called race to arms. As an exemple, Necrons would have still remained competitive, or at least playable, weren't it for the change to Close Combat rules and the new Vehicle Damage table.

Actually, has anyone ever wondered how well 5th Edition Codices would perform under the 4th Edition ruleset? How well would a Mechanized IG fare against a SM gunline, a Chaos Terminator army, or an Eldar flying circus? I still think the strenght of one's army eventually depends on how well said army works within the current ruleset and metagame.

Moreover, while new units may add versatility to an existing army, the unavoidable nerf or loss of special rules, wargear items, and no-brainer units may very well do more harm than good overall. As an exemple, the Imperial Guard used to be able to field all-deepstriking, all-infiltrating armies, and the Space Marines Codex featured several nifty tricks as well (infiltrating Devastator squads, min-maxed Special and Heavy Weapons everywhere, dirt-cheap wargear, and let's not mention the loss of Traits).

jsullivanlaw
10-12-2009, 16:58
The idea that all codexes get more powerful is also a non-issue, if all codexes get more powerful then, assuming an equal starting position, apart from the in between time where some haven't caught up they shall all be equal again at some point. This sort of makes the point irrelevant.



And what if we don't play marines???? Marines get tons of updates but a lot of armies just don't get updated every decade.

Partisan Rimmo
10-12-2009, 17:11
Oh my word! This is the question you should never ask!!


You want my opinion?? It's impossible to tell if there's codex creep or not till about two or three months after it's been released. And by that point, everyone's forgotten that codex to complain about something else, so no one really cares.

As soon as a new codex is released, the reactionaries scream 'AAARGH! CODEX CREEP!', the traditionalists shout 'AAAGH! REACTIONARIES ARE IDIOTS!', and anyone actually trying to make a careful enquiry will get precisely nowhere.

It's an emotional issue. I'm of the opinion that generally it doesn't exist. Sometimes, power levels do need to be increased, because of an edition change. But every time a codex gets changed, the subtle, hidden but very powerful strats from the old one disappear so that everyone has to start the process of breaking it again from scratch. And that's what people fail to notice. For example, people complain the new Guard codex is overpowered, but if I had to play a tournament tomorrow I'd do better with the old codex than the new one, because I knew EXACTLY where that one let me get more than I should.

Regardless, I can hear the internet taking a collecting intake of breath reading to break the sound barrier with their whining once the stats for the Trygon hit us....

...and yes, I'm aware that metaphor made no sense....

RichBlake
10-12-2009, 17:46
And what if we don't play marines???? Marines get tons of updates but a lot of armies just don't get updated every decade.



Really? A LOT of armies havent been updated for 10 years? Let's see now, how many armies haven't been updated since 1999/2000.... hmm that would be Dark Eldar and.... no-one.

Yeah dark Eldar have been screwed over, yes Necrons have been waiting nearly a decade (8 years in 2010) and after those two you have DH and WH I think.

Marines went 4 years without a codex, true it's less time then everyone else but everyone seems to be under the impression the Marines get a new codex every year. I don't play marines, but assuming marines don't get a codex for ANOTHER 4 years then fter next year there will be very few marine releases.

bigcheese76
12-12-2009, 14:48
I think that each new codex introduces new rules, and the new rules just seem more powerful until people get the hang of dealing with them.

Id agree with this.
But also I have to say the current Guard codex seems alot more powerful than the old one but then when I was still using the old one it seemed fairly underpowered compared to all the other codexes, especially marines but there GW favourites so they'll always be powerful.