PDA

View Full Version : Powercreep; opinions of the game



Johnmclane
22-08-2012, 23:08
Hi Guys!

When played lately I realised (and have been for some time) that I think the whole game system is going to somewhat break.
Here's why:

I met a Space wolf player with my Dark Eldar. Both quite new and shiny codexes (And , mark this, This is not a whinethread about the powers of different armies, and please keep it that way.)

He seized the initative once and I seized once. Both games were in effect over after that first half of the first turn. The first time he destroyed so much it was impossible to recover, the second I did the same to him. We both played armies with loads of long range heavy weapons.

Well, that's the background. This is my following thoughts.

GW release a codex, call them Army Red. They are really good and people play them. Then they release C: Army blue, and they are a little better. Then they release C: Army Brown, and they are not better than the last codex. Not that many people get into that army, because many people buy for the models and fluff, but if there's just one way to build an army or they suck, they know they'll be stuck with that dex för years. Do you want to invest hundreds of pounds, euros and dollars in something that struggle to win from the start... probably buy the codex and some units to try it out. Then shelf it and wait for the next cool thing.

This is probably known by all on these forums. And by GW so when they release new stuff and especially new units the just up their capabilities some. And they do that every time. And sometimes they nerf some units.
Does this keep the game balanced ? Well, in a way I think , i a strange cycle.

But when every army gets more killing power, the first turn and being able to strike in some "other" way (deepstrike, outflank) makes an unbalanced difference. If you can, by a very high percentage, cripple the opponents army in one turn , that one turn becomes all that matters. That makes the game quite uninteresting.

What do you guys think?

Omniassiah
22-08-2012, 23:24
It's why they introduced so many random elements in the game in 6th. But the problem isn't even with the codexes its with the fact that the rules themselves have increased the amount of damage units can do significantly since 3rd edition. Rapid fire has went from a significantly reduced profile if you moved (1 shot at 12") to the full profile. Assaults only those in B2B could swing with full attacks and special weapons everyone else got a single base str attack to Everyone with in 2" of a friendly model in base to base getting full profile attacks. Movement had increased across the board since third not just in model speed (which got increased to with run) to overall army speed from everyone and their brother getting the equivalent of a fast speeder.

Now on the other side what have they added defensively to that game? effectively nothing. So you get more and more a race where it is purely a matter of who can roll better sooner. because there really is nothing you can do to increase the survivability of your troops. it's why you saw transports dominating 5th with its troops only scoring. Anything you can do to allow your troops to avoid a single turn of fire is significantly beneficial.

Johnmclane
22-08-2012, 23:33
I think they'll have a hard time reverting that. unless they make every sixth ed codex really different and replace alll armies codex's real fast :)

Omniassiah
22-08-2012, 23:46
they could do it with some defensive options for infantry but that would have to wait till 7th.

althathir
23-08-2012, 00:15
Well three things about the intial scenario jump out at me

1) both crippling turns happened when 1 of you seized. This tends to imply both of you were trying to deploy really aggressively for your first turn (which part of the reason for sieze is to punish you for this). There is and should be risk/reward element to that strategy.

2) you both loaded up on long range weapons, meaning you were both going for the alpha strike. If you didn't cripple them when they were out of position (as soon as you seized if they were aggressively deployed) than you did a bad job designing you list. So on this front you both did well IMO.

3) neither one of you was really relying on reserves (if you were it wouldn't have been crippling).

Basically what i'm trying to say is that both of you went all in on getting the first turn, and when it was seized you had to deal with the consequences. Its not sixth ed making 40k fall apart.

MasterDecoy
23-08-2012, 00:34
This basically

Well three things about the intial scenario jump out at me

1) both crippling turns happened when 1 of you seized. This tends to imply both of you were trying to deploy really aggressively for your first turn (which part of the reason for sieze is to punish you for this). There is and should be risk/reward element to that strategy.

2) you both loaded up on long range weapons, meaning you were both going for the alpha strike. If you didn't cripple them when they were out of position (as soon as you seized if they were aggressively deployed) than you did a bad job designing you list. So on this front you both did well IMO.

3) neither one of you was really relying on reserves (if you were it wouldn't have been crippling).

Basically what i'm trying to say is that both of you went all in on getting the first turn, and when it was seized you had to deal with the consequences. Its not sixth ed making 40k fall apart.


Every single one of my 6th edition games (go with about a dozen now) have resulted in little to no casualty's until the end of turn 3, don't get me wrong, lots of stuff die after that, but generally its been about setting up fire positions and assaults without getting mauled.

althathir
23-08-2012, 01:08
This basically



Every single one of my 6th edition games (go with about a dozen now) have resulted in little to no casualty's until the end of turn 3, don't get me wrong, lots of stuff die after that, but generally its been about setting up fire positions and assaults without getting mauled.

Yeah for me too, with the exception of a game where I forgot DE had night vision and tried to advance, and ate a ton of dark lance shots.

Hedgehobbit
23-08-2012, 03:48
I went to Origins in1993. It was my first big gaming convention. The number one topic of conversation among 40k players: power creep.

Also popular: "this game is too expensive" and "where did all these annoying kids come from"

onidemon
23-08-2012, 04:25
I went to Origins in1993. It was my first big gaming convention. The number one topic of conversation among 40k players: power creep.

Also popular: "this game is too expensive" and "where did all these annoying kids come from"

What? That can't be right, I was a kid in 1993 when I first took an interest in the game, and back then I'd hang around the tables and ask pointless questions and touch people's models all the time, and I don't remember seeing any annoying kids around!

Mikial
23-08-2012, 04:58
I can see what you're saying, but there are still many armies that make the kind of first turn you are describing impossible. Demons for example. My marines can kill a lot of demons in the first shooting turn or two, but once they are able to close into cc . . . it's all over. My wife and I just finished a game tonight where that very thing happened. Yeah, I killed a lot the first couple of shooting phases at least those that were on the table. but then, the rest of them teleported in and overwhelmed the firing line.

The new overwatch fire on charging units is not that decisive when you figure only 1 out of 6 shots will even hit, and then you have to wound them. Put this against Bloodcrushers with T5 and 2 wounds each and it is not a good bet for S4 weapons.

Hawkkf
23-08-2012, 05:14
Power creep has always been a problem for GW games. It has been noted in the past where rules descisions were affected by the corporate types making demands on either release dates or what the want to sell to make more money. Also, to be fair, balancing multiple varied factions internally and with each other can be difficult as many things are not directly comparable across multiple army styles.

That being said, in the past there seems to be no baseline for codex power. It all seems to be at the authors whim. For example a plasma cannon in various imperial faction ranges between 20pts, 25pts, and 30pts. If an author were to make an identical weapon for a non-imperial army the price could easily be 10pts or 40pts. Another issue is they are so caught up on secrecy their play testing pool has to be very limited. I would like to think they would take the top tournament winners, some long time players, and some brand new players and bring them to HQ and have them play test for a time frame to get a perspective of how the various player types deal with the new items. This of course would probably never happen which leaves the limited (i assume) play testing group.

They have done a good job of balancing whfb 8th army books. I think most of the 8th ed books are relatively internally and externally balanced (bear in mind I havent played against most of them yet personally). I think the key to good sales was that they gave viable and fluff oriented options so people could build a reasonably themed army and not get hosed. That reduces the corporate need for power creep if the book keeps you buying.

As far as 6th edition 40k goes we have to wait for the first official codex or two to come out to see what directio they will go. Going by necrons.. they seem very overpowered compared to 5th edition codexes. This may come from being caught between two editions, or it could be setting the bar for the power level in 6th. Its just too early to tell. One positive thing is that the background opened up to allow multiple army themes (even if most were not well recieved). Unfortnately, the codex still seems to have models I never see anyone take and models that are on almost every battlefield.

So heres to hoping that the 6th ed codexes will have both balance and viable thematic options....

insectum7
23-08-2012, 05:37
@ OP, my first instinct is to tell you to use more terrain.

The sort of scenario you describe had reared it's head in every edition, at any time that armies are able to load up on heavy weapons and their opponents don't have enough cover. In 5th and 6th the "sieze initiative" mechanic has thrown an extra variable in there to try and mitigate over aggressive deployment, but really it sounds like you ought to have a better table set up.

Chem-Dog
23-08-2012, 06:32
Sounds like you were both set up to take maximum advantage of the first turn and each got your tails whipped when you didn't get it. Part of the beauty of the chance to seize is the way it should, theoretically, reign in the worst excesses of deploying and knowing who is going first.
As both instances proved to be largely carbon copies of each other with the Siezed initiative effectively deciding who won, I'd say it suggests a pretty balanced system. No you won't grab the first go all the time, but a little bit of caution for when it does get pulled out from under you can't hurt.

OgreBattle
23-08-2012, 06:46
Now on the other side what have they added defensively to that game?

a literal fortress.

TheDungen
23-08-2012, 07:09
you need more terrain, simple as that.

Johnmclane
23-08-2012, 08:00
Oh, I have more terrain than most when we play. Check my sig. Last posts in the terrain thing is the board we play. Would count as cities of death for most and a quite cluttered one.

The sieze was unfortunate for both. But that shows that a new codex have the capability to cripple an army in one turn.
I had one game in sixth so far that have gone the full game lenght, would make it around 12% going past turn three.
That would say we play in a WAAC environment but we only have one player that build list like that, and he's playing tyranids.

insectum7
23-08-2012, 08:26
Oh, I have more terrain than most when we play. Check my sig. Last posts in the terrain thing is the board we play. Would count as cities of death for most and a quite cluttered one.

The sieze was unfortunate for both. But that shows that a new codex have the capability to cripple an army in one turn.
I had one game in sixth so far that have gone the full game lenght, would make it around 12% going past turn three.
That would say we play in a WAAC environment but we only have one player that build list like that, and he's playing tyranids.


Nice looking board, but that's actually kinda "sparse" from a 'cross-the-board LOS way of looking at it. In no way am I saying that the sort of terrain I prefer is "better", but I'm used to playing with a lot more low-level, troop level cover types of obstacles. When I've played in city environments, there's usually a lot more craters, razorwire barricades, low walls, crates and things around so that there's places to maneuver in between the taller buildings. I usually have a certain amount of low level stuff for more natural settings too, like lichen and rock groups and things. It tends to mitigate the effects of a first turn barrage a bit, but leaves things open to scoot around. I mean, what it looks like you have there is if you aren't in a building, you're **** out of luck.

I guess my point is that troops can't "inhabit" things like statues, even though they look sweet. But you give them some low walls and some sandbags and the game becomes less about heavy weapons and more about infantry positions.

MasterDecoy
23-08-2012, 09:07
Nice looking board, but that's actually kinda "sparse" from a 'cross-the-board LOS way of looking at it. In no way am I saying that the sort of terrain I prefer is "better", but I'm used to playing with a lot more low-level, troop level cover types of obstacles. When I've played in city environments, there's usually a lot more craters, razorwire barricades, low walls, crates and things around so that there's places to maneuver in between the taller buildings. I usually have a certain amount of low level stuff for more natural settings too, like lichen and rock groups and things. It tends to mitigate the effects of a first turn barrage a bit, but leaves things open to scoot around. I mean, what it looks like you have there is if you aren't in a building, you're **** out of luck.

I guess my point is that troops can't "inhabit" things like statues, even though they look sweet. But you give them some low walls and some sandbags and the game becomes less about heavy weapons and more about infantry positions.

I'd probably agree with this, theres a lot of obstructing terrain, but not a lot of LOS blocking terrain, ideally you shouldn't be able to see into your opponents deployment zone (id say maximum 20% visibility) from your own. I think the main problem is, that you've put all the good buildings and things in the deployment zones, meaning that the elevated levels can see clearly into the other deployment zone. These should be in the middle, with the lower laying buildings in the deployment zones, so the bigger buildings block LOS.

Sazabi
23-08-2012, 09:11
Powercreep does exist, but it generally results from imbalances resulting from changing editions without having codex updates. As a rule, I have found that most 5th edition army books were well balanced with each other (Tyranids not withstanding) as they were all 'overpowered'. Of course previous edition books are 'weak'. They were made with an entirely different design philosophy, and are thus not designed to work with the current edition. When 7th edition comes out, and Grey Knights have waited a few years for a new book, we will be able to have a good look at what is OP :p. The biggest problem is having Marines make up half of a releases. If there where only two or three marine books, (filthy) Xenos books would be updated more often. But Marines put bread on the table.

Sazabi
23-08-2012, 09:12
Powercreep does exist, but it generally results from imbalances resulting from changing editions without having codex updates. As a rule, I have found that most 5th edition army books were well balanced with each other (Tyranids not withstanding) as they were all 'overpowered'. Of course previous edition books are 'weak'. They were made with an entirely different design philosophy, and are thus not designed to work with the current edition. When 7th edition comes out, and Grey Knights have waited a few years for a new book, we will be able to have a good look at what is OP :p. The biggest problem is having Marines make up half of a releases. If there where only two or three marine books, (filthy) Xenos books would be updated more often. But Marines put bread on the table.

A.T.
23-08-2012, 09:36
That being said, in the past there seems to be no baseline for codex power. It all seems to be at the authors whim. For example a plasma cannon in various imperial faction ranges between 20pts, 25pts, and 30pts.In the obsolete 2004 marine codex a devastator could buy a plasma cannon for 35pts.
That dropped down somewhat for the 2007 DA and 2008 SM codex, then dropped again for the 2009 SW codex, then dropped again to less than half it's old cost in the 2010 BA codex.

For Ward/Marine books the baseline is "better/cheaper/stronger/faster than the last one". For Cruddace it's "i'm off to lunch ... **** I have to write a codex first..."

Omniassiah
24-08-2012, 05:46
a literal fortress.
Which amazingly the biggest addition to the fortification rules was... GUNS!!! yep you could have used that fortress on a board in 3rd and the only difference is that it wouldn't of had offensive abilities.


Nice looking board, but that's actually kinda "sparse" from a 'cross-the-board LOS way of looking at it. In no way am I saying that the sort of terrain I prefer is "better", but I'm used to playing with a lot more low-level, troop level cover types of obstacles. When I've played in city environments, there's usually a lot more craters, razorwire barricades, low walls, crates and things around so that there's places to maneuver in between the taller buildings. I usually have a certain amount of low level stuff for more natural settings too, like lichen and rock groups and things. It tends to mitigate the effects of a first turn barrage a bit, but leaves things open to scoot around. I mean, what it looks like you have there is if you aren't in a building, you're **** out of luck.

I guess my point is that troops can't "inhabit" things like statues, even though they look sweet. But you give them some low walls and some sandbags and the game becomes less about heavy weapons and more about infantry positions.


I'd probably agree with this, theres a lot of obstructing terrain, but not a lot of LOS blocking terrain, ideally you shouldn't be able to see into your opponents deployment zone (id say maximum 20% visibility) from your own. I think the main problem is, that you've put all the good buildings and things in the deployment zones, meaning that the elevated levels can see clearly into the other deployment zone. These should be in the middle, with the lower laying buildings in the deployment zones, so the bigger buildings block LOS.

That board is fairly close to the coverage and spread of almost all non-Cities of Death boards I have seen GW post or print pictures of. Even most of the pictures of modular(as in not the entire table one piece with everything attached) tables in the Rulebook are of approximately that density.


Power creep has always been a problem for GW games. It has been noted in the past where rules descisions were affected by the corporate types making demands on either release dates or what the want to sell to make more money. Also, to be fair, balancing multiple varied factions internally and with each other can be difficult as many things are not directly comparable across multiple army styles.

That being said, in the past there seems to be no baseline for codex power. It all seems to be at the authors whim.

Balancing multiple factions isn't that hard. Too many companies are doing it with 10+ or even 100+ Lists/factions with a far better track record overall. Now the big thing that I have seen is that when one Developer has control of one of the systems it tends to be fairly balanced releases for that time period. When that goes away you start to see the real power creep as opposed to what most people call power creep which is the difficulty of finding the setup to beat an army.

scapegoatboy69
24-08-2012, 07:49
Now on the other side what have they added defensively to that game? effectively nothing.

As a Dark Eldar player, I'll tell you that I'm in love with Fortifications. Being able to guarantee cover, where and when I want it is freaking amazing.

Nightfighting having a 50% chance in every game is also really nice. Generally I roll Strategic Traits and pray for MOAR NIGHTFIGHTING!!!

Then again, my 5th edition experience was much the same as your 6th edition experience: go first or go home. Three Longfang Packs, three Living Lightning Rune Priests, and a bucket of LAs/Plas Razorbacks was a bit rough. Especially with sparse tables. It got to the point where he took Bjorn to go first, and I took Vect to attempt to seize.

On Balance, yeah... GW kinda does suck at it. Privateer Press's Warmachine has maybe 5 underpowered HQs, out of 100+.

MasterDecoy
24-08-2012, 07:54
Which amazingly the biggest addition to the fortification rules was... GUNS!!! yep you could have used that fortress on a board in 3rd and the only difference is that it wouldn't of had offensive abilities.





That board is fairly close to the coverage and spread of almost all non-Cities of Death boards I have seen GW post or print pictures of. Even most of the pictures of modular(as in not the entire table one piece with everything attached) tables in the Rulebook are of approximately that density.



Balancing multiple factions isn't that hard. Too many companies are doing it with 10+ or even 100+ Lists/factions with a far better track record overall. Now the big thing that I have seen is that when one Developer has control of one of the systems it tends to be fairly balanced releases for that time period. When that goes away you start to see the real power creep as opposed to what most people call power creep which is the difficulty of finding the setup to beat an army.

yes, but since all the tall buildings are in the deployment zones, than all the other terrain in the middle is completely superfolous, you should put the tall buildings in the middle, and the smaller ones in the deployment zones, makes a hell of a difference and something worth fighting over.

Vaktathi
24-08-2012, 09:44
One thing that is very interesting is that newer iterations typically are more powerful than their older iterations, a few rare exceptions aside, even if you went back and used the older codex's core rules edition. The current IG codex would utterly annihilate either of the 3E IG books even if playing using 3E rules, same thing goes for SW's, BA's, GK's re Daemonhunters, Dark Eldar, Necrons, etc.

ihavetoomuchminis
24-08-2012, 11:25
I some kind agree with the OP. I've found that in most games, having the first turn is half the game. Being able to wipe out 300-400 points (if not more) from your opponent before it manages to do anything gives the starting player a huge advantage.

A.T.
24-08-2012, 11:47
The current IG codex would utterly annihilate either of the 3E IG books even if playing using 3E rules, same thing goes for SW's, BA's, GK's re Daemonhunters, Dark Eldar, Necrons, etc.At the same time the old eldar had indestructible falcons and craftworld ranger disruption tables, chaos space marines had siren princes and daemon bombs, sisters of battle had credible faith powers, nids with their cheap 2+ fexes, and DE ... while good now were pretty decent before with lance/disintegrator spam. 4th ed templars had a pretty good run in the 2nd half of 5th edition too (relative to vanilla marines).

Daedalus81
24-08-2012, 13:12
I'd like to see the army lists.

Aluinn
24-08-2012, 14:32
An interesting thing to note about power creep is that it's likely to be perceived to exist even when it doesn't, and, by the same token, likely to be perceived to be far more severe than it really is. The reasons are:

1) When new rules are introduced they tend to allow a player to do new things. Other players either don't expect these things or, after learning to expect them, still won't figure out how to counter them for some time. The ultimate example here is Nob Bikers at the beginning of 5th: This list dominated quite a few tournaments because it was one of the first to abuse 5th Ed. wound allocation, and the new rules for assaulting vehicles (and also really FnP to the fullest possible extent pre-BA), then after a while people just learned how to play against it and it wasn't competitively viable anymore.

2) Good, old things tend to be forgotten or taken for granted, whereas good, new things tend to be focused on and whined about. As an example, playing an army that relies somewhat heavily on multiple psykers with Prescience right now, I find one of the most annoying things in the game to be two Eldar Farseers with Runes of Warding, which in essence make psychic powers statistically not worth attempting for any pysker on the board, period; other people might say similar things about biker Seer Councils, which remain stupidly hard to kill and themselves able to kill anything. However, this just isn't brought up much anymore because Eldar are so old hat and also because lots of other things in their book are terrible. Does this mean that doubled-up Runes of Warding are not OP, or that bike Councils aren't as worth complaining about as any newer, shinier deathstar unit? I would say no, and I would guess that if they appeared in a new codex the whining would be immense. The new Eldar codex is highly likely to nerf these things but to introduce something new that is just about as good, and people will probably complain about that thing or things and cite it as evidence of power creep, but it may be a complete perceptory illusion.

3) Some things are balanced in one sort of environment but not in another. Grey Knights in 5th were substantially overpowered in casual play environments, generally speaking, but were really no stronger than books that had been out for a fairly long time in hyper-competitive environments (IG, SW). If something, for whatever reason, is really strong in a casual environment, it's likely to become widely regarded as broken even if, to tournament players, it's just good (and issues [1] and [2] above can compound this; in fact all of these things often come together when new rules are released). This brings up questions of what sort of environment GW should balance around, or whether they should attempt to split the difference at the risk of pleasing no one, but that's another debate really.

None of this is to say that power creep can't be real, but when you've been playing for over 10 years and people just keep whining about it to about the same degree, consistently, you start to wonder how a Space Marine Captain could possibly not have across-the-board 10s for stats by now: In other words, it can be a real thing, but usually is just the result of a pretty good set of rules coming out after a somewhat underpowered one, as a more or less isolated event, plus the above problems of perception.

EDIT: As examples of semi-recent reverse-power-creep, I could bring up Tyranids and Chaos Space Marines, or, across a longer time scale, 3rd Ed. BA Rhino Rush armies vs. current BA (which are good, but suffer as all Marine variants from inevitable comparison to an older Vanilla Marine book that wasn't particularly good and in fact included a lot of nerfs, beyond special characters and storm shields). Of course, people just moan that these are terrible, and continue to moan about power creep, but you have to realize that to some extent those positions aren't compatible. They may (or may not) constitute legitimate complaints about the current state of balance between armies, but lack of balance is not necessarily due to power creep.

Furthermore, you can't consider a codex outside of the core rules environment; the above BA example is a good one for this. You could look at their 3rd Ed. book and it would appear to be terrible compared to their current book, but in the 3rd Ed. environment it was probably stronger than their current book is in its own core rules environment.

Vaktathi
24-08-2012, 14:40
At the same time the old eldar had indestructible falcons and craftworld ranger disruption tables The Falcon rules currently are no different than their earlier editions, they'd be just as indestructible, the reason Falcons aren't as scary now as they were previously is that the core rules changed. They also didn't get a 5E update. The disruption tables was one sublist in a spin-off codex.


chaos space marines had siren princes and daemon bombs, sisters of battle had credible faith powers, These are about the only real exceptions, everything else is basically just pointing out one or two things in a previous book that got toned down where in general the army gained more in other areas.


nids with their cheap 2+ fexesThey traded the fexes for Tervigons and Trygons, in terms of MC spam nids didn't lose anything on the whole, it just changed its nature to sell different kits.


and DE ... while good now were pretty decent before with lance/disintegrator spam. Which is about all they had going for them really. The army now is much more flexible, with better anti-infantry and anti-MC abilities, more CC options, better characters, more useful vehicle wargear, and still isn't lacking in lance and blaster weaponry.


4th ed templars had a pretty good run in the 2nd half of 5th edition too (relative to vanilla marines).I'm not quite sure where your getting at here, Templars haven't gotten a new codex, they got wargear standardized but I'm not sure comparing them to vanilla marinas is really what we're talking about.

Hedgehobbit
24-08-2012, 15:45
In the obsolete 2004 marine codex a devastator could buy a plasma cannon for 35pts.
That dropped down somewhat for the 2007 DA and 2008 SM codex, then dropped again for the 2009 SW codex, then dropped again to less than half it's old cost in the 2010 BA codex.
Back when the plasma cannon was the Sungun, it was a template weapon that automatically removed all models under it (no roll to hit, wound or saves needed)
That got exchanged for the ability to shoot a Str 10 blast out to 72"
Then it lost the option for Str 10 and gained the ability to kill it's user.
Now, it will actually destroy any vehicle that's stupid enough to fire it.

I figure it won't be long before codexes will have to pay people to take it!

The basic troopers are pretty close to where they were back in the RT days. Marines got a bump in RT/2e and Orks got one in 3e but the rest of the guys are pretty close. It seems that the net effect of all the powercreep over the last couple decades is simply an increase in the number of models in a "normal" game. I don't see any problem with that.

A.T.
24-08-2012, 15:49
These are about the only real exceptions, everything else is basically just pointing out one or two things in a previous book that got toned down where in general the army gained more in other areas.True, but you were speaking of older books getting "utterly annihilated" by their current iteration, even if the older book was played using an earlier ruleset.

All of the books I listed would hold to a lesser or greater degree depending on the rulesets used. Trygons for instance are powerful, but 200+pts of old fex was a pretty frightening thing (and who wouldn't want 2+ saves and eternal warrior on an <150pt MC in 6th)



It seems that the net effect of all the powercreep over the last couple decades is simply an increase in the number of models in a "normal" game. I don't see any problem with that.I wouldn't count anything prior to 3rd in terms of power creep - it was a complete overhaul of the system.

I also wouldn't include anything from rogue trader into any kind of balance discussion, except as an example of 'not balanced in any way, shape, or form'... I remember when you paid points for rolls of a table to see what weapons you ended up with.

Ragnar69
24-08-2012, 17:26
Well, if I compare the last 2 SW codices I don't see a power creep. Granted, I could only take 1 of each IC, but they have been cheaper and had better stats and more wargear options. Venerable was also cheaper and better. They lost access to the Leman Russ Exterminater, rest of vehicles stayed aprox. the same. The points costs for most infantery has been reduced, but they basicaly do the same as before. They got TWC and Fenris wolves in the pretty lackluster fast department (but wasn't really needed in the golden age of the rhino rush). They also got the sagas, but the good ones are really expensive and can only taken once.

I have a few more guys on the table than before, but I wouldn't say they are more powerful.

A.T.
24-08-2012, 17:41
I have a few more guys on the table than before, but I wouldn't say they are more powerful.The core units and wargear got a little cheaper, a little stronger. It's codex creep - the slow slide up the power curve. Longfangs and Grey hunters are about 2/3rds of their original cost on the field.

Vaktathi
24-08-2012, 17:55
Well, if I compare the last 2 SW codices I don't see a power creep. Granted, I could only take 1 of each IC, but they have been cheaper and had better stats and more wargear options. Venerable was also cheaper and better. They lost access to the Leman Russ Exterminater, rest of vehicles stayed aprox. the same. The points costs for most infantery has been reduced, but they basicaly do the same as before. They got TWC and Fenris wolves in the pretty lackluster fast department (but wasn't really needed in the golden age of the rhino rush). They also got the sagas, but the good ones are really expensive and can only taken once. The IC's combat ability aren't what make the army particularly powerful (though note in general still better than their equivalents in other SM books with Counterattack and often an extra base attack), it was the psychic powers, troops, fire support and TWC's. Venerable IIRC was identical in terms of what it did, though yes it did get more expensive. Grey Hunters got more wargear, a 20% price cut, cheaper upgrade options and Wolf Guard leaders became cheaper as well, they were probably the best all around infantry of 5th edition with the best parts of both SM's and CSM's that (after kit) were typically 10-20% cheaper but with Counterattack on top as well. Long Fangs became the gold standard for fire support across the entire game (they got an extra HW and very noticeably decreased cost) and most tanks got cheaper and/or more capable. Wolf Guard, especially Wolf Guard Terminators, became *WAY* cheaper, especially after kit. TWC's gave the army a capability it lacked altogether previously.

There's a reason SW's exploded in popularity, especially on the tournament scene (hell 2011's Adepticon they were the most popular army present, almost all of them "counts as") and it's not because people liked painting Fenris Grey. The only loss was the Leman Russ tank which never really belonged and didn't do anything other units couldn't do.



I have a few more guys on the table than before, but I wouldn't say they are more powerful.Methinks most people would disagree. Having more troops in and of itself generally means an army is more powerful, with more & cheaper wargear and options and very capable psychic powers on top it tends to make a huge difference.

Bonzai
24-08-2012, 19:08
To the OP: The scenario you described is pretty typical when two gun line style lists face off. First turn can be critical. It's not so much a matter of power creep as a style clash. Just like you would expect if two assault armies went at it. It's going to be over quick with a high body count on both sides.

Overall, I thought that 5th edition wasn't too bad. IG, SWs, and GKs were on the high end of the curve and a little too strong. Blood Angels, Necrons, and Dark Eldar were just about on target. Nids, unfortunately, were at the bottom of the barrel. C: SMs were usually my basis for comparison. Without Vulkan they were about on par with Nids, but Vulkan kind of propped the codex up a little higher in my opinion.

So if 6th edition can aim for Dark Eldar/Blood Angel level, I think we will be just fine.

Ragnar69
24-08-2012, 20:05
The IC's combat ability aren't what make the army particularly powerful (though note in general still better than their equivalents in other SM books with Counterattack and often an extra base attack), it was the psychic powers, troops, fire support and TWC's. Venerable IIRC was identical in terms of what it did, though yes it did get more expensive. Grey Hunters got more wargear, a 20% price cut, cheaper upgrade options and Wolf Guard leaders became cheaper as well, they were probably the best all around infantry of 5th edition with the best parts of both SM's and CSM's that (after kit) were typically 10-20% cheaper but with Counterattack on top as well. Long Fangs became the gold standard for fire support across the entire game (they got an extra HW and very noticeably decreased cost) and most tanks got cheaper and/or more capable. Wolf Guard, especially Wolf Guard Terminators, became *WAY* cheaper, especially after kit. TWC's gave the army a capability it lacked altogether previously.

There's a reason SW's exploded in popularity, especially on the tournament scene (hell 2011's Adepticon they were the most popular army present, almost all of them "counts as") and it's not because people liked painting Fenris Grey. The only loss was the Leman Russ tank which never really belonged and didn't do anything other units couldn't do.

Methinks most people would disagree. Having more troops in and of itself generally means an army is more powerful, with more & cheaper wargear and options and very capable psychic powers on top it tends to make a huge difference.
GHs already had counterattack and more wargear option: two power weapons/fists, 2 plasma pistols and 1 special weapon and only the special was more expensive, the rest cheaper than today. Krak grenades sucked big time, no real loss in not having them. Venerables let you re-roll who's going first (huge boon!).

Ironicaly, I find Stormbringer the most usefull psychic power in my 6th ed games so far, and in 3rd I wouldn'T had time to cast much else anyways as I was always quickly in melee. With the objective driven games nowadays, my RP rarely fights close up so his shooting powers are actualy needed to make him worthwile with his price increase.

The Long Fangs really needed the buff (and in typical GW fashion they have overdone it a bit, the 5th weapon wasn't needed), they have been vastly overpriced before, Annihilators have been cheaper and more resilient for long range support. Same with Wolfguard, hardly worth the points. That's re-balancing in my book, not creep.

TWC have been a needed addition for 5th (should have been available in 4th) but not for 3rd, near invincible Rhinos full of frothing Claws and ICs was all that's needed for some good spanking.

SWs also became popular because they sucked hard in 4th and hardly anyone played them. And because the meta changed. Rhinos and Razorback got big in 5th (compared to 4th, they have also been great in 3rd where SWs have also been popular) and versatile troop choices became important. I remember a time where you hardly ever saw more than the 2 mandatory troops in an army. But that's all because of main rules changes and can't be attributed to codex creep.

Sure, 20% more guys is more powerful, but everyone has more models nowadays and I call this money sink, not codex creep :)

my typical GH units:
3ed: 10 GHs bolters 180 points + 2 fist 30 + plasma gun 12 = 210 + rhino (additional armor, smoke) 58 = 280
5ed: 10 GHs 150 + fist 25 + 2x plasma gun 10 + banner 10 = 195 + drop pod or rhino 35 = 230

not that much of a difference as some people claim, 20% more. Just because they had to pay 4 points per model to get bolters+frag+krak didn't mean you should buy them always. Actually you should compare 6th GHs to 3ed Blood Claws, as those have been the bread and butter troops. I have always taken at least as many GHs as BCs for fluff reasons, but WAAC players didn't.

3ed: 10 BCs 140 + 2xfist 24 + flamer 6 = 170 + rhino (additional armor, smoke) 58 = 228 and those have been better in 3ed than GHs are now in 6th IMHO

Vaktathi
24-08-2012, 22:46
GHs already had counterattack and more wargear option: two power weapons/fists, 2 plasma pistols and 1 special weapon and only the special was more expensive, the rest cheaper than today. Krak grenades sucked big time, no real loss in not having them. Venerables let you re-roll who's going first (huge boon!). Krak grenades became very useful in 5th edition and are ridiculously useful in 6th in an AT role, but the bigger thing was getting Bolter, Bolt Pistol and CCW, before they had to choose. They also didn't come with Frags (which have always been useful) in 3E and had to pay for them. Then they went from 18 to 15pts, as cheap as CSM's, but then got the marine special LD rules as well and retained Counterattack and Acute Senses (previously Night Vision), becoming very lavishly stat'd and equipped marines compared to their counterparts and previous incarnations, with cheaper upgrade options than everyone else, and a base cost equal to or cheaper than everyone else. Counterattack also was *very* different in 3E than in 5E and became far more useful (especially when it means the vast majority of the time you were hitting back harder than most opponents were hitting you when they charged you). I don't recall the venerable thing, I don't have my book here with me, I'll have to read up on that entry again it seems. :p



Ironicaly, I find Stormbringer the most usefull psychic power in my 6th ed games so far, and in 3rd I wouldn'T had time to cast much else anyways as I was always quickly in melee. With the objective driven games nowadays, my RP rarely fights close up so his shooting powers are actualy needed to make him worthwile with his price increase. Indeed.



The Long Fangs really needed the buff (and in typical GW fashion they have overdone it a bit, the 5th weapon wasn't needed), they have been vastly overpriced before, I won't argue they were overcosted before, but yeah, wayyy over did it :p


Annihilators have been cheaper and more resilient for long range support. Tri-las annihilators are more expensive than the typical 5 ML long fang unit and can only engage 1 unit each turn, while the long fangs were better at engaging most MC's, infantry, and light/medium tanks. As for resiliency, depends on what you're throwing at it, the long fangs will take more lascannons before being destroyed and were typically harder to destroy in CC than the tank.


Same with Wolfguard, hardly worth the points. That's re-balancing in my book, not creep.Hardly worth the points now or before? Before I'd agree, and a re-balancing was in order. Now? Wolf Guard only aren't worth it if people are continually comparing them with the undercosted TH/SS terminators in other books. Compared with melta-purpose Sternguard, or generlist CSM type terminator units, etc, they're noticeable more effective or at least more cost effective



TWC have been a needed addition for 5th (should have been available in 4th) but not for 3rd, near invincible Rhinos full of frothing Claws and ICs was all that's needed for some good spanking. Not sure why TWC were *necessary*, they add something new but I'd hardly say necessary, at least not moreso than any other Marine army, but I'll leave that for another thread. Rhinos were hardly near invincible in 3rd, they were only marginally more survivable than they are now in 6th, which isn't saying much.



SWs also became popular because they sucked hard in 4th and hardly anyone played them. And because the meta changed. Rhinos and Razorback got big in 5th (compared to 4th, they have also been great in 3rd where SWs have also been popular) and versatile troop choices became important. I remember a time where you hardly ever saw more than the 2 mandatory troops in an army. But that's all because of main rules changes and can't be attributed to codex creep. It can when the troops are designed in such a way as to be exceedingly effective at min-max mech-spam. Either way, compare a 150pt 5E GH squad to 150pts of 3E GH's and there's not much of a contest, the 5E ones are superior, even under 3E rules. Notice CSM's weren't too disimilar, identical wargear, somewhat similar weapon options, and fulfilled a much more similar role to GH's than Tac's did. There was never a mass move to CSM's the way there was the mass explosion of SW players, especially of the "counts as" variety as was seen at Adepticon.



Sure, 20% more guys is more powerful, but everyone has more models nowadays and I call this money sink, not codex creep :) Can't deny there's some truth in that :p But regardless, more dudes is more powerful.



my typical GH units:
3ed: 10 GHs bolters 180 points + 2 fist 30 + plasma gun 12 = 210 + rhino (additional armor, smoke) 58 = 280
5ed: 10 GHs 150 + fist 25 + 2x plasma gun 10 + banner 10 = 195 + drop pod or rhino 35 = 230

not that much of a difference as some people claim, 20% more. Just because they had to pay 4 points per model to get bolters+frag+krak didn't mean you should buy them always. Actually you should compare 6th GHs to 3ed Blood Claws, as those have been the bread and butter troops. I have always taken at least as many GHs as BCs for fluff reasons, but WAAC players didn't. Over a 1750 or 2000pt army that cost difference means you could fit in another unit of marines, or a wing of land speeders, a unit of terminators in a pod, or another fire support unit, etc. And while you wouldn't have bought all that wargear in previous editions, when you get it all at a lower cost than your previous base, that's a definite boost.

Likewise, most SW units I saw typically were even cheaper than that

9 GH's w/melta, 1 WG w/powerfist+combi-melta, rhino=218 (you rarely shot the meltas more than once so the combi wasn't huge, and plasma was typically rarely used in 5th, and even without the banner the GH's are more all-around capable than their CSM or SM equivalents, and on a per-point and per model basis are going to be clearly superior to their 3E incarnation). Compared with that 3E GH unit, that almost an extra 250pts to spend over 4 troops units. :D

Or alternatively

5 GH's w/melta, 1 WG w/powerfist+combi-melta, LasPlas Razorback-198pts. Saw lots of units like this.

Omniassiah
25-08-2012, 04:59
A 50 point reduction in a squad cost is not a minor thing. The constant reduction in points of units that aren't performing as opposed to the increase in points of stuff that is to good means that there can be nothing but codex creep as armies are simply able to fit more things in each time they are released and those armies that are several edition back start hurting. Sure you may have a few things that are ridiculously good still after 2-3 editions but most likely they are either because of a weird rule interaction or were frankly broken back then as well. So basically ignoring GW complete screw ups (5pts to give +1 str to most weapons on a vehicle regardless of how many, What type, or the chassis its mounted on for example) you still get the case where after each codex is updated your old list goes from 1500 to 1300-1400. My Mech IG went from 2000 to 1500 when it came out and got better all around.

Ragnar69
26-08-2012, 21:41
What I wanted to say: yes, a new version of a codex is usually better than his predecessor but that's mostly not power creep.
1) units get cheaper and/or better because they sucked before -> rebalancing
2) the codex work better with the current rulesset than the previous version written for an older edition -> change of meta
3) new units mostly get very good rules to promote sales -> that's true power creep

Johnmclane
26-08-2012, 23:35
I wonder how they'll price chaos space marine in their new codex. Compared to a grey hunter and how they are ruled now they need to set a point value to the lack of atsknf, acute sences and counterattack. Will they then drop to 12 pts? I hope not because that will mess with for example both eldar codexes. This is what I meant when I first posted the thread.

Omniassiah
27-08-2012, 00:05
What I wanted to say: yes, a new version of a codex is usually better than his predecessor but that's mostly not power creep.
1) units get cheaper and/or better because they sucked before -> rebalancing
2) the codex work better with the current rulesset than the previous version written for an older edition -> change of meta
3) new units mostly get very good rules to promote sales -> that's true power creep

1) when little to nothing gets an increase in points with out a significant boost in ability then its power creep. Nids were one of the few armies that did git points increases/decreases of ability and well that story has played out. Everybody else ends up playing with 100-300 extra points at 200 which is a big deal. My Guard went from 2k to almost 1500.
2) fair enough barring a codex that is done right before the edition came out. If it was then things should have went from not being that great to making sense, instead we get OK to excellent.
3) agreed.

Scammel
27-08-2012, 08:24
I wonder how they'll price chaos space marine in their new codex. Compared to a grey hunter and how they are ruled now they need to set a point value to the lack of atsknf, acute sences and counterattack. Will they then drop to 12 pts?

They will apparently drop to 14pts, becoming Ld8 and gaining Hatred of loyalists.

Aluinn
27-08-2012, 09:42
A 50 point reduction in a squad cost is not a minor thing. The constant reduction in points of units that aren't performing as opposed to the increase in points of stuff that is to good means that there can be nothing but codex creep as armies are simply able to fit more things in each time they are released and those armies that are several edition back start hurting. Sure you may have a few things that are ridiculously good still after 2-3 editions but most likely they are either because of a weird rule interaction or were frankly broken back then as well. So basically ignoring GW complete screw ups (5pts to give +1 str to most weapons on a vehicle regardless of how many, What type, or the chassis its mounted on for example) you still get the case where after each codex is updated your old list goes from 1500 to 1300-1400. My Mech IG went from 2000 to 1500 when it came out and got better all around.

If you go back and look at the army lists in the 3rd Ed. BRB (if you have one), most stuff costs about what it does now, and a good portion of it is cheaper. Mostly, characters have gone up in cost (sometimes very drastically; there was nothing like a present-day Mephiston around at the time) or stayed about the same, Troops and Elites have remained about the same (e.g. that book had 5-point Guardsmen and 15-point Marines), and some but not all FA and HS has gotten cheaper. Transports on the whole have gotten cheaper, though there are exceptions, such as the DE Raider, and that was mainly due to three vehicles (Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Chimeras) being changed early in 5th, back when GW was still thinking they had to buff transports, along with the armies that use those vehicles being disproportionately popular. If you hadn't been playing mech Imperials, you'd have noticed far less difference, unless you were running a Green Tide Ork army before the drop from 8-point Boyz to their current cost ... but 8-point Boyz actually were somewhat overpriced even since 3rd, IMO, due to the extra attack over most models only being worth anything if they make it into combat with ~10 models or more.

Now, it is true that new abilities have been tacked onto things quite a bit along the way, but the result is more powerful units for the same cost for the most part, which doesn't result in larger armies in itself. The main reason that games have gotten larger is that almost no one ever played 2,000-point games in 3rd, and 1,000-point games were common, whereas now 2k is considered "standard" in a lot of places--it's the players insisting on bigger games at least as much as GW, if not more so, though obviously GW isn't going to shy away from accommodating that to some degree if it sells them more models (though it should be said that they still balance around 1,500). Now the reasons why players have been doing that can be debated, but, truly, points costs have not changed all that much since 1998, and this insistence that "everything is getting cheaper all the time" is weird to me; the perception seems to come from a selective focus on a limited number of pretty recent points adjustments.

ihavetoomuchminis
27-08-2012, 10:38
They will apparently drop to 14pts, becoming Ld8 and gaining Hatred of loyalists.

Wich seems fair given the CCW and pistol and bolter loadout.

Dazza612
27-08-2012, 11:02
Yes there is power creep and I think that was a bigger issue than needing a new edition of rules. The prob is marines are GW's money makers (most likely a chicken and egg thing here) so they will always get the most attention and love and more regular codex updates. On top of that you have some authors who don't like the subject material (SoB) or don't seem to understand internal balance or seem to be hamstrung by GW HO over their shoulder. In 5th edition it was quite obvious that Puppies, mech guard and GK were miles better than everybody else, 6th it's too early to tell till more codexes are updated.

panic_puppet
27-08-2012, 12:03
Problem with points costs is that, from a business standpoint, the points for a unit will practically never go up. Totally inaccurate example: Fred has a 1500 point Space Marine army, as he and his friends play 1500 point games. In his alternate-world codex, Space Marines are 25 points each. Now a new book comes out - Space Marines are now 30 points each. Fred is happy as he can now play bigger games with his current force. If Space Marines are now 20 points, Fred has to go and buy more to get his army to that certain points level. The only things that ever seem to go up in points are things that got a massive effectiveness boost, and I'd be willing to bet that these are also units that weren't selling well before, so now people that didn't have them can go out and buy them.

I think the current top of the heap are (in no particular order) Guard, Necrons and Space Wolves. Necrons are the only book written firmly for this edition, guard can still do degenerate things (9 vendettas anyone?) and their leafblower style lists are still potent, and SW have arguably the best troops choice in the game in grey hunters (definitely the best in power armour, at any rate).

Ragnar69
27-08-2012, 12:18
Interesting tidbit: the top 10 of a tourney last weekend with mostly hardcore tournament players that regulary play and win in 60+ person tournaments have been:
Tyras
Orks
Demons
Orks
Necrons (the only one with 9 fliers)
Tyras
Tyras
Necrons
Necrons
Imps

Not really what I had expected. Especially as Tyranids are mentioned in this thread as an example for anti-power creep :)

Edit: best SW was 14th, the best GK was 16th, his only companion was second last, only the lone Chaos Marine was worse.

GrogDaTyrant
27-08-2012, 16:40
Interesting tidbit: the top 10 of a tourney last weekend with mostly hardcore tournament players that regulary play and win in 60+ person tournaments have been:


Not really surprising, honestly... It's much the same reason why Orks remain "competitive" despite having an out of date codex with a lot of units/options that are (still) considered "not worth fielding". The thing with tournaments, is most players who enter one expect the meta. You'd have to be an idiot to not plan against at least a few games against marines of some variety, large amounts of AV 11 and 12 (still), and melta in abundance (both yours and theirs). So when you suddenly get drawn to play against the 180 model count Ork shoota + KFF mek grind-fest that couldn't care less about your precious melta and anti-mechanized MEQ setup, you tend to not perform well at all. And 5th did a magnificent job of taking an already marine-saturated meta, and saturating it with even more marines and guard. A lot of players may not remember, but even prior to the Orks receiving their (late) 4th ed codex, they STILL put up a good showing in tournaments because even then they were an unexpected opponent that nobody planned for. Most of all the Eldar players who often had issues with them, despite being viewed as the 'top tier army of win' at the time.

BrainFireBob
27-08-2012, 17:06
If you go back and look at the army lists in the 3rd Ed. BRB (if you have one), most stuff costs about what it does now, and a good portion of it is cheaper. Mostly, characters have gone up in cost (sometimes very drastically; there was nothing like a present-day Mephiston around at the time) or stayed about the same, Troops and Elites have remained about the same (e.g. that book had 5-point Guardsmen and 15-point Marines), and some but not all FA and HS has gotten cheaper. Transports on the whole have gotten cheaper, though there are exceptions, such as the DE Raider, and that was mainly due to three vehicles (Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Chimeras) being changed early in 5th, back when GW was still thinking they had to buff transports, along with the armies that use those vehicles being disproportionately popular. If you hadn't been playing mech Imperials, you'd have noticed far less difference, unless you were running a Green Tide Ork army before the drop from 8-point Boyz to their current cost ... but 8-point Boyz actually were somewhat overpriced even since 3rd, IMO, due to the extra attack over most models only being worth anything if they make it into combat with ~10 models or more.

Now, it is true that new abilities have been tacked onto things quite a bit along the way, but the result is more powerful units for the same cost for the most part, which doesn't result in larger armies in itself. The main reason that games have gotten larger is that almost no one ever played 2,000-point games in 3rd, and 1,000-point games were common, whereas now 2k is considered "standard" in a lot of places--it's the players insisting on bigger games at least as much as GW, if not more so, though obviously GW isn't going to shy away from accommodating that to some degree if it sells them more models (though it should be said that they still balance around 1,500). Now the reasons why players have been doing that can be debated, but, truly, points costs have not changed all that much since 1998, and this insistence that "everything is getting cheaper all the time" is weird to me; the perception seems to come from a selective focus on a limited number of pretty recent points adjustments.


My first game was 1999. 2k was common, 1500 about as common, and tournaments were generally 1850. Western US. Beware of confirmation bias. I've never seen 1000 point games commonly played unless it was a new player or campaign.

Omniassiah
28-08-2012, 04:25
If you go back and look at the army lists in the 3rd Ed. BRB (if you have one), most stuff costs about what it does now, and a good portion of it is cheaper. Mostly, characters have gone up in cost (sometimes very drastically; there was nothing like a present-day Mephiston around at the time) or stayed about the same, Troops and Elites have remained about the same (e.g. that book had 5-point Guardsmen and 15-point Marines), and some but not all FA and HS has gotten cheaper. Transports on the whole have gotten cheaper, though there are exceptions, such as the DE Raider, and that was mainly due to three vehicles (Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Chimeras) being changed early in 5th, back when GW was still thinking they had to buff transports, along with the armies that use those vehicles being disproportionately popular. If you hadn't been playing mech Imperials, you'd have noticed far less difference, unless you were running a Green Tide Ork army before the drop from 8-point Boyz to their current cost ... but 8-point Boyz actually were somewhat overpriced even since 3rd, IMO, due to the extra attack over most models only being worth anything if they make it into combat with ~10 models or more.

Now, it is true that new abilities have been tacked onto things quite a bit along the way, but the result is more powerful units for the same cost for the most part, which doesn't result in larger armies in itself. The main reason that games have gotten larger is that almost no one ever played 2,000-point games in 3rd, and 1,000-point games were common, whereas now 2k is considered "standard" in a lot of places--it's the players insisting on bigger games at least as much as GW, if not more so, though obviously GW isn't going to shy away from accommodating that to some degree if it sells them more models (though it should be said that they still balance around 1,500). Now the reasons why players have been doing that can be debated, but, truly, points costs have not changed all that much since 1998, and this insistence that "everything is getting cheaper all the time" is weird to me; the perception seems to come from a selective focus on a limited number of pretty recent points adjustments.

2k was common in our area in 3rd. As for points that 15 pt marine came with a bolter and ATSKNF. Now he comes with a Bolter, Pistol, Frag, Krak, ATSKNF and Combat tactics and if buy a full squad you get a free flamer and missile launcher (I believe you used to have to pay for the vet sergeant as well). So that 15 pt marine now is effectively worth what a 20pt marine used to be from 3rd, or I should say a 210 pts. 3rd edition squad kitted out as a basic squad today is 170pts. that is not a small amount of creep. Its also why there are more models in this edition on the tabletop and why I said that if points don't change the models gain more rules.

Aluinn
28-08-2012, 09:18
2k was common in our area in 3rd. As for points that 15 pt marine came with a bolter and ATSKNF. Now he comes with a Bolter, Pistol, Frag, Krak, ATSKNF and Combat tactics and if buy a full squad you get a free flamer and missile launcher (I believe you used to have to pay for the vet sergeant as well). So that 15 pt marine now is effectively worth what a 20pt marine used to be from 3rd, or I should say a 210 pts. 3rd edition squad kitted out as a basic squad today is 170pts. that is not a small amount of creep. Its also why there are more models in this edition on the tabletop and why I said that if points don't change the models gain more rules.

The "free" weapons on Tac squads aren't really free, though; their cost is built into the cost of the model, which is why Marines are as expensive as they are in the vanilla codex. It seems likely that this was done because in late 4th the 6-man unit with lascannon/plasma gun was considered somewhat OP, so Ward decided to require you to buy 10 Marines to get your points' worth. I think it was a bad way to go about things, but that's just me, and we now have the benefit of hindsight anyway. It's also really confusing that the same discount seems to have been applied to other types of Marines who were not similarly overcosted, but over the course of the 5th Ed. Marine books I think it is true that you can see a pattern of reluctance to make anything worse than it was in a previous Marine book, which did in that instance (along with other factors) result in later books becoming more powerful. This is power creep in a limited sense, but my point was that things like this are cited as evidence that power creep is some eternal rule of GW development when in fact this example: A) applies only to Marines; and B) happened over a relatively short period of time and could easily be reversed.

So, anyway, they cost about the same as they did in 3rd; the base model is more but the weapons are cheaper. They also, as you said, gained additional rules and gear, but that's exactly what I was saying: the models didn't get cheaper, they got more powerful, which is not the same in the sense that it does not result in larger games or more models on the table for the same points value.

For what it's worth my assessment of "average" points values wasn't based on my local experience but on the standard points values used in large, national tournaments, and to a lesser extent in battle reports posted online and what was often seen in WD/GW publications. I think that's as good as I can do in judging the matter, since taking some reliable poll of what was generally played in 1998 would be pretty difficult :). I may be wrong about this, of course, and certainly it doesn't hold for every local environment, but it's as objective as I can get.

Blinder
28-08-2012, 18:54
If the models with a bunch of gear/rules cost the same as those models used to before buying the gear and/or rules, then yeah they got a free upgrade (the same way you get 33% more laundry detergent for free- same price, more stuff, "free" compared to before). The points that used to go into upgrading the models to their current capability are freed up, meaning you *do* need more models to spend as many points, or at least need to buy more/different upgrades.

I don't really think model count and power creep go hand-in-hand though, Grey Knights run somewhat counter to that (or at least, "more models" for them is... two or 3? They look like they're able to field smaller effective armies now than before, though) and I don't think bug armies got *smaller*, they just didn't become the new cheese. Also, there's a big difference between codexes with a couple overpowered/underpriced units (IG, where they almost got it pretty even with the contemporaries for once and then decided they wanted to sell a ton of flyer kits) and codexes which are on the whole far more effective than everything which came before (the typical outlook on Ward's books). The first I'd call a bad combination of "youthful exuberance" and "marketing interference." The second is "power creep."

Omniassiah
29-08-2012, 00:22
The "free" weapons on Tac squads aren't really free, though; their cost is built into the cost of the model, which is why Marines are as expensive as they are in the vanilla codex. It seems likely that this was done because in late 4th the 6-man unit with lascannon/plasma gun was considered somewhat OP, so Ward decided to require you to buy 10 Marines to get your points' worth. I think it was a bad way to go about things, but that's just me, and we now have the benefit of hindsight anyway. It's also really confusing that the same discount seems to have been applied to other types of Marines who were not similarly overcosted, but over the course of the 5th Ed. Marine books I think it is true that you can see a pattern of reluctance to make anything worse than it was in a previous Marine book, which did in that instance (along with other factors) result in later books becoming more powerful. This is power creep in a limited sense, but my point was that things like this are cited as evidence that power creep is some eternal rule of GW development when in fact this example: A) applies only to Marines; and B) happened over a relatively short period of time and could easily be reversed.
Lets see combined cost of the heavy weapon and Flamer is 5 points more when you remove the cost of troopers and the Vet sergeant upgrade from before. That was the reason that I posted the points for the unit because it is hard to break it down per soldier, and to get the same wargear as a man squad in the modern codex you need to spend 40 more points in the 3rd edition codex. That is not including the addition of a bolt pistol for everyone and Combat Tactics. So your saving significantly over buying them in the third edition. As for applying to marines only it has applies also to orks, IG, and CSM as well and even Eldar got similar more effective/cheaper points. If you really want I have all the 3rd edition Codexes sitting next to me if you want me to give you more specifics.

So, anyway, they cost about the same as they did in 3rd; the base model is more but the weapons are cheaper. They also, as you said, gained additional rules and gear, but that's exactly what I was saying: the models didn't get cheaper, they got more powerful, which is not the same in the sense that it does not result in larger games or more models on the table for the same points value.
Actually amazingly it does. If my list was 2000 pts and they decided to give my basic troops all their grenades for free, some basic Hvy weapons etc and now my list is only worth 1734 there are only 2 options. Either my opponent will have to suck it and play with less models to beat my same army (hey that would be power creep), or I would have to included more items in army (hey also power creep and you have more units). Now if GW had a different release schedule say something similiar to PP where they updated 14 armies in the course of little over a year then everyone would stay around the same points value. But the way GW does it you end up with the newest army playing with effectively 2000 versus everyone elses 1500-1750. This is only made worse by GWs system of find 4 ways by themselves that would fix a model, then implement 3 of them with a points reduction.

I will give you that some armies they just upped the power level so overall model count didn't change but the power did. Now all but the most recent codexes (stopped buying every codex by the times SW came out) have seen grenades become included and a points reduction on most of the common models especially troops.


For what it's worth my assessment of "average" points values wasn't based on my local experience but on the standard points values used in large, national tournaments, and to a lesser extent in battle reports posted online and what was often seen in WD/GW publications. I think that's as good as I can do in judging the matter, since taking some reliable poll of what was generally played in 1998 would be pretty difficult :). I may be wrong about this, of course, and certainly it doesn't hold for every local environment, but it's as objective as I can get.

1500-2000 for my area was common most tournaments and casual games were at 1850. Have to check through my WDs to see what the old RT tourneys were at been too long to say specifically.

The_Klobb_Maniac
29-08-2012, 00:43
It's worth noting also that IG would be an army that shows Power Creep isn't.. as big and full as people would like you to believe. IG are still, IMO, probably the best there is. They weren't even down and out when GK came in and ruined everyone's day. They were the best example of creep, with the other top tiers making a good showing, and IMO the fact that they're still *pretty fraggin' good* after 4 years (a year less than the Ork codex), the codices IMO are being leveled out. Yes they creep on older codices, but look at how many years it took to give SW an update; of course there's been some creep! Even then, Blood Claws were nerfed! Iron Priests GONE. Wolf Lords, sort-of nerfed! Etc..

Some things merely get better because it was never actually balanced to begin with. Transports used to cost way too much, in 5th they brought them to where they probably *should* be, but the 5th ed rules screwed that way in the wrong direction. 2 Marines for a Rhino is still an excellent trade. Anyway.. that's my rant. I think power-creep exists but is far less exaggerated than people think. Necron's are only so goofy at the top as the new army because everyone was taking such lopsided lists. You think Necrons can handle 150 orks any better than marines? Think again.

Once the marines have to remember how to play outside of their boxes they'll be fine again; it's just a major adjustment to have an army that doesn't even have to *try* to bring AT. (i.e. between 6th and 'crons, they can bring enough without trying I should say.)