PDA

View Full Version : The codex creep test.



max the dog
09-11-2008, 21:37
While digging around the net I found a very informative site from Australia that ranked their tournament results.
http://www.gosfordgamers.net/ATR/ATR_home.htm
While all of it was good the key chart to look at is the second to the last as it's probably the most important demonstration of overall army effectiveness. It lists the frequency a type of army made the top 3 positions in a tournament. While any army can get a lucky win now and then only a good army can get into the top 3 positions on a regular basis.
While the results speak only for tournaments in Australia it does hint at what I've been seeing in normal friendly game play, older codex's like the Guard stink while some of the newer codex's like the Daemons are clearly dominating. A Daemon army has about a 1 in 3 chance of finishing in one of the top 3 positions vrs a Guard player who has a 1 in 100 chance.
I'll admit that 5th edition rules changes will have a serious impact and could change everything. The real issue to guess how the Space Marines will do when players begin to learn what the new codex will allow them to do. From what I've already seen the Average Space Marine list has become a lot stronger. I'm also going to make another prediction and say that Guard will most likely become a lot stronger too when their new codex comes out early next year if for no other reason that to say that it's difficult to imagine them doing any worse.
If I'm correct then do we have a clear case of codex creep going on here?

Grimmeth
09-11-2008, 21:42
Possibly, but when new armies come out (especially strange ones like Daemons) it can take some time for people to work out their weaknesses) In the same way, most of the new codices appear to be fairly well balanced to each other, but the older ones (Guard, Necrons and Dark Eldar spring to mind) aren't so balanced.

Draconian77
09-11-2008, 21:45
So what else is new?

Codex creep is sort of inevitable, the designers make something "new and shiny" to attract customers and the previously unheard of "new and shiny" thing dominates for a while until something "newer and shinier"comes out.

But then again considering so many books that are an edition or two behind when they eventually get updated that can't really help but perform better can they?

DhaosAndy
09-11-2008, 21:53
I'm probably biased, but not only are the older codexes outmatched by the new (as you would expect). Comparing the CSM and SM codexes the CSM codex loses out very badly, especialy when you factor in the abilties of the special characters.

max the dog
09-11-2008, 22:40
I hit my own link and it doesn't come out to the section I mentioned. Hit the button "Army Rankings" to get the raw stats I mention.

I agree with Grimmeth that sometimes a new army like Daemons that bears little similarity to anything else can be difficult to manage until other players learn to deal with it. I'm already seeing that happen with Daemons and I'm pretty sure their win/loss ratio will balance out a bit. As I'm also sure the new Marine codex is so different that it will be pushed way up the win/loss charts. The problem with his thought is the win/loss placement of Tyranids and Tau. They have some old codex's and yet they're still above average. While they may not be superstars they still win more than they loose so they are somewhat balanced. The middle 3 armies like the Necrons, Space Wolves and Witch Hunters based on tournament results are fairly balanced yes they too have some ancient codex's. It's the bottom 3 armies that I'm most concerned with; Daemonhunters, Black Templars and Guard. As far as I know of those 3 only the Guard are scheduled to receive a codex update anytime soon.

IMHO I'd love to see the Marine's new codex not push them up to the top any more than I think it's fair that all other codex's be pushed down because of it. Their new codex should push them right in the middle where their win/loss ratio balances. In tournament and friendly game play no army should ever get 30 times better than another as it appears to be between Daemons and Guard.

Sekhmet
09-11-2008, 23:10
Then you get codices like Necrons and Dark Eldar, who with certain builds, can do very well in the modern metagame, and you realize that codex creep isn't THAT pronounced, but it's happening to some codices that were always bad.

Lancaster
09-11-2008, 23:14
I have one BIG problem with this:

Certain armies are played more often than others.

That in itself will affect how often an army lands in the top 3.

Dark Eldar (I'm going from 3rd edition information though) are a very powerful army. However, they're hard to play and very few people field them as a result.

I'm sure there are tournements that don't even see Dark Eldar played at all.

max the dog
10-11-2008, 00:15
I have one BIG problem with this:

Certain armies are played more often than others.

That in itself will affect how often an army lands in the top 3.

Dark Eldar (I'm going from 3rd edition information though) are a very powerful army. However, they're hard to play and very few people field them as a result.

I'm sure there are tournements that don't even see Dark Eldar played at all.

That was factored into the chart so it shouldn't be a problem at all. I can only see it affecting Marine armies since they make sup such a large portion of armies one will face most people will tailor their armies to fight them. Dark Eldar are rarely taken so no one tailor's their army to fight them.

Hulksmash
10-11-2008, 00:29
If your still tailoring to fight marines your handing wins to ork players. The game has changed and MEQ's aren't what you have to worry about anymore. Cover rules means # of shots/attacks, not ap is what wins games. Just a thought. Oh and as far as it goes I don't truly believe in codex creep. I believe in a power shift, but not that each codex is inherently more powerful than the last.

Sekhmet
10-11-2008, 00:45
If your still tailoring to fight marines your handing wins to ork players. The game has changed and MEQ's aren't what you have to worry about anymore. Cover rules means # of shots/attacks, not ap is what wins games. Just a thought. Oh and as far as it goes I don't truly believe in codex creep. I believe in a power shift, but not that each codex is inherently more powerful than the last.

Why do you think Necrons, while seemingly nerfed to hell and back in 5th, are actually doing rather well?

Destroyers, Immortals and Monoliths. Buckets of high strength shots, but not paying the point cost of low AP.

Occulto
10-11-2008, 01:15
I should point out that composition is still a fairly strong component of tournaments in Aus, so the "uber" lists generally don't appear as often.

This will skew the results accordingly - even when ranking by pure battle points.

MarkC
10-11-2008, 01:19
While digging around the net I found a very informative site from Australia that ranked their tournament results.
http://www.gosfordgamers.net/ATR/ATR_home.htm
While all of it was good ...

Always nice to know that the Australasian 40K Tournament Rankings (http://www.gosfordgamers.net/ATR/index.htm) are appreciated.

The Podium Ratio tables that Max the Dog is referring to is the % of Podium Finishes / % of Armies. For example, Chaos Daemons make up 4.4% of the podium finishes and are 1.49% of all armies used at Tournaments in Australia and New Zealand over the last 12 months. This gives a podium ration of 2.95.

The Podium Ration for Chaos Daemons is much higher than any other army has ever achieved. It could be for one or more of several reasons:

New codex that didn't exist before, opponents still trying to work out how to deal with it.
New codex that didn't exist before. There may not have been many existing pure Daemon armies out there so players have had to build armies from scratch. Only the most dedicated gamers have built their Daemon armies yet. These dedicated gamers are more experienced than the average gamer.
It is Codex Creep.


As more players take up Chaos Daemons and their opponents learn to deal with them, I expect that the Podium Ratio for this codex will drop down but it will still be a "power build". It will be interesting to see where the Chaos Daemons stand after they have been out for a year.

Also don't forget, the players make a huge difference. There are about 60 tournaments a year in Australia/New Zealand that qualify for the 40K Rankings. If one of our top generals runs with a particular army and cleans up 6 - 8 events with it, then that can influence the Podium Ratio.

Regards

Mark C

Victomorga
10-11-2008, 02:47
I'm probably biased, but not only are the older codexes outmatched by the new (as you would expect). Comparing the CSM and SM codexes the CSM codex loses out very badly, especialy when you factor in the abilties of the special characters.

I completely disagree with this comment; CSMs have a variety of excellent troops choices and some awesome ICs.


I should point out that composition is still a fairly strong component of tournaments in Aus, so the "uber" lists generally don't appear as often.

This will skew the results accordingly - even when ranking by pure battle points.

I'm not sure I understand. are you saying that people don't spam / powergame?

on the subject in general, I think "codex creep" makes perfect sense, and I don't get why people would see it as a bad thing. as the rules change, the newest army lists (which were written with the newest rule set in mind) perform better. it's just the game progressing from one incarnation into the next (for better or for worse) over time. yet people seem to refer to "codex creep" as a negative thing, bringing up examples of it as if they've caught GW trying to slip one by us.

Occulto
10-11-2008, 03:50
I'm not sure I understand. are you saying that people don't spam / powergame?

It might surprise you to find out that the majority of people here don't. :p There's a lot of voluntary handicapping, because the uber-lists generally get comp scores so low that a podium placing becomes almost impossible.

DhaosAndy
10-11-2008, 03:52
Victomorga: "I completely disagree with this comment; CSMs have a variety of excellent troops choices and some awesome ICs."

Oh, the troops choices are fine, even lesser daemons find a use under 5th Ed. The IC's though, are distinctly sub par; compare the chapter master and the librarian in the SM codex to the chaos lord and the sorcerer in the CSM one. If you look at peoples competative lists you don't see either of them.

Still your entitled to your opinion, as you can see I don't agree. Personaly I haven't even thought of building a new chaos lord since the new codex came out, which means this is the first time in over 10 years I haven't had one in the process of being built/painted. Don't get me wrong, I would have expected SM's to get funky new toys and codex creep is inevitable, as you say but, the lack of options and the lack of utility in the CSM IC's is very disappointing.

AngryAngel
10-11-2008, 05:51
I have one BIG problem with this:

Certain armies are played more often than others.

That in itself will affect how often an army lands in the top 3.

Dark Eldar (I'm going from 3rd edition information though) are a very powerful army. However, they're hard to play and very few people field them as a result.

I'm sure there are tournements that don't even see Dark Eldar played at all.

I really don't think its just army hardness that is the problem. For me its ease of getting the models and the fact that they are ugly, coupled with only a couple good builds for Dark Eldar. I even purchased a Dark Eldar army off a friend of mine, but I doubt I'll field it till a new book comes out because I can't bring myself to buy their ugly model line more then I've already got.

As well I don't have alot of power units. I do however have around 70 warriors go me.

jansuza
10-11-2008, 07:44
As well I don't have alot of power units. I do however have around 70 warriors go me.

Yes, but warriors ARE the power units. Wyches are only there to distract people with their metal bikinis.

max the dog
10-11-2008, 14:11
Yes, but warriors ARE the power units. Wyches are only there to distract people with their metal bikinis.

It worked on me.