What is Codex Creep?

[Flummer]

These two words have been thrown around alot lately and I have to say I just not getting it. Can I get an explanation and why people are crying about it. Thanks.

[Chumbalaya]

The theory that each Codex is progressively more powerful than the last.

Or, more simply, bullcrap.

[praxis]

I agree with Chumbalaya, apart from the "theory" bit. Seems like fact to me.

[Xas]

the excuse people use to complain about every gw release...

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I don't agree that each codex supercedes the last, although since about the Orks' release it's felt that way.

What I think is that each edition's new rules have to have some time to settle in before GW can really pump out codex releases that do creative things to bend those new rules. This is why the Space Marines are always so comparatively bland -- they have to play it safe on that one because it's always the first one. The reactions to this are how they figure out how to proceed.

GW's had a great horde formula figured out for some time now, and they seem to finally be catching on that the elite armies have been sub-par judging from the Space Wolf dex. I'd say this is a great time to be a 40K fan -- every army is slowly ending up on very powerful pedestals, and we are entering into a time where the game will literally be decided more on generalship and list-building than Army Type A trumps Army Type B. It's a great time where personal preference is the difference maker between lots of viable builds in the newer codex releases. They are only just starting to nail it down, really. The necrons, DE, and Inquisition are really going to get the most benefits from the experimentation.

[Melissia]

Or, more simply, bullcrap.

Which is only stated out of ignorance. Try playing seriously with a Grey Knights army and then come back and say codex creep is crap.

[NockerGeek]

Which is only stated out of ignorance. Try playing seriously with a Grey Knights army and then come back and say codex creep is crap.

Of course, when you consider that the DH codex was made for a different time, a different environment, and a different ruleset, I'm not sure how much of it is truly codex creep and how much is just a change in design philosophy over time. It's not surprising that a 6-year-old codex wouldn't jibe with newer ones in terms of rules support and point costs.

[DarkLink]

That's mostly because GW though it would be a good idea to make Grey knights pay a ton of points for a bunch of abilities that only work on Daemons and Chaos. I don't know why they thought they could make a balanced army that is only good against one other army (and it isn't even particularly good against that army anymore).

If they ever redo the Grey Knights, they NEED to realize they can't make a balanced army that is only good against one other army. It isn't hard to justify more balanced rules. You can just say "the Grey Knights have this cool ability (which works against everyone) because that ability is useful against Daemons, though it is good against everyone (did I mention it should be a good ability that works on everyone?)".

That's my little rant for being a neglected Grey Knight player.

Anyways, older codecies don't match the newer rules as well as the new armies. Since the core rules change over time, old, non-5th codecies won't do quite as well as new, updated codecies. That is unavoidable. And then, of course, GW sometimes doesn't do a good job with a codex (like the Grey Knights) and we get armies that aren't as good as other armies.

[Melissia]

Of course, when you consider that the DH codex was made for a different time, a different environment, and a different ruleset, I'm not sure how much of it is truly codex creep and how much is just a change in design philosophy over time. It's not surprising that a 6-year-old codex wouldn't jibe with newer ones in terms of rules support and point costs.
Thank you for proving my point. There is codex creep, whether you want to admit it or not.

[40kGamer]

I don't really buy Codex creep. The decade old Dark Eldar codex is still extrememly nasty if played correctly and the new Space Wolf codex is different from the vanilla Marines but not better.

[Chumbalaya]

Of course, when you consider that the DH codex was made for a different time, a different environment, and a different ruleset, I'm not sure how much of it is truly codex creep and how much is just a change in design philosophy over time. It's not surprising that a 6-year-old codex wouldn't jibe with newer ones in terms of rules support and point costs.

Nailed it, thank you.


Thank you for proving my point. There is codex creep, whether you want to admit it or not.

How is that creep? The creep we so referenced by the frothing masses is that every book gets more powerful than the last. The deal with older books is that they were designed for a different game, not that the more recent books were made to be better. DE and Orks are good examples of why Codex Creep doesn't exist.

DE are extremely viable currently, at least a handful of builds are. It's the oldest Codex out there, made for 3rd and "updated" for 4th. If creep did exist, DE wouldn't be any good. They're a lot better than Ork, Chaos, Tyranids, WH, DH, and Daemons.

Orks and Daemons are garbage. New books, not viable competitively. Orks have no answer to heavy armor, rely on crazy flimsy vehicles, rely heavily on overpriced underperforming super units, and get nailed in assault by any truly good dedicated assault unit. Daemons lose at deployment. If creep existed, this wouldn't be the case.

You piss and moan about Sisters so much, but they are actually quite good in specific builds. Mech and Immospam typically, but also mixed up with other Imperial armies. This reflects more how the change in the game system affects some older books more than others because when they were written it wasn't taken into account.

DE have multiple cheap skimmers with long range and lots of firepower. 5th ed boosted vehicle survivability and focused the game more around close quarters fighting, by the buff to assaults and necessity of melta. DE can sit back happily at 48", zoom around and pick you off while you are out of range (Night Shields) or have difficulty knocking out so many skimmers from so far away.

Sisters have cheap and durable troops, lots of flamers and melta, and plenty of armor. What did 5th ed buff? Flamers, melta, and armor. Surprise, surprise.

The only reason the illusion of creep exists is because newer books are designed with the current game mechanics in mind, while the old ones have to work with what they have and as a result they have fewer competitive options. Less options = bad, but it doesn't mean they are completely blown out of the water.

Creep is an excuse for failure. QQ more or get better.

[Aegis]

Creep seems to be a creation of the community, as opposed to GW itself. I think Chumbalaya summed it nicely in his previous post. The reason some of these new books (IG and SW to point more of a finger) seem so much more powerful is because it is a radical change against the previous rule set, and frankly, people are still adjusting the metagame to match. Y

ou will notice there is not as much guard greifing as there was back in the beginning of the summer. Did the codex suddenly drop in power? Nope. They simply started to find tactics to fight the guard. The same will be true of the SW (I am just curious if a psychic hood will nullify JotWW. If so, as a WH player, I am sitting pretty).

[Kanaellars]

Creep seems to be a creation of the community, as opposed to GW itself. I think Chumbalaya summed it nicely in his previous post. The reason some of these new books (IG and SW to point more of a finger) seem so much more powerful is because it is a radical change against the previous rule set, and frankly, people are still adjusting the metagame to match. Y

ou will notice there is not as much guard greifing as there was back in the beginning of the summer. Did the codex suddenly drop in power? Nope. They simply started to find tactics to fight the guard. The same will be true of the SW (I am just curious if a psychic hood will nullify JotWW. If so, as a WH player, I am sitting pretty).



Assuming your Hood will nullify psychic powers and not pop movie popcorn, yes, it can stop JotWW. It is a psychic power.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I still maintain my position that GW are still working on finding ways to make the elite armies fun and viable while making them "feel" right. But I think they have the horde thing nailed down pretty well. Horde guys are just overjoyed with their fifth ed codex releases.

The idea that the ork codex isn't viable makes me laugh hysterically to the point of tears. No answer to armor? What about that wrecking ball thing? And the tankhamma thing? And stikkbombs? And the omnipresent power klaws?

The problem with orks is that a lot of ork players are tactically inept, I find. If you have 180 models, that's awesome, but if they are only in a handful of squads and are on foot, you should expect poor results. 180 wounds in say, 6 targets, as opposed to 180 wounds in 12 targets, is destined to be decimated by enemy fire.

[Chumbalaya]

I would refute you and make disparaging remarks about your mother, but I feel that merits a new thread :P

[Melissia]

QQ more or get better.
... aaaaaand your post went from semi-decent to worthless trolling in one sentence.

You have no clue what you're talking about if you think I'm crying about anything, and the very fact that you'd say "QQ" in the first place does not say anything good about you. I simply stated codex creep exists, nothing more, nothing less, and any insinuation on your part that I can't deal with it is an imaginary attribute you assigned from your tiny little mind. I can, and have been. Doesn't mean I like it, doesn't mean I won't object to it. And if ya want me to stop pointing out the truth you can go and have a nice sloppy makeout iwth my heavy flamer's nozzle.


Fact is, older codices are actually weaker. They have fewer options, less up to date rules, and fewer new ideas put into them. Just the difference between the old Imperial Guard codex and the new one should make that obvious enough-- the old codex was, in fact, quite weak without forgeworld supplements. And now, Guard is an upper-tier army, with a wide variety of builds.


Yes, DE, GK, AS, Crons can be powerful in the hands of a good player. But that's exactly it-- they require skill. Newer armies require much less skill to make them powerful, because the newer armies are themselves more powerful. And the newer armies also have a lot more variety as well, you can build Smurflings, Puppies, and Guard all in multiple ways while still maintaining army strength. The older armies? You have maybe one or two builds that are strong, and only if played in a specific way.


Codex creep exists, whether you like it or not. It's not as strong as some people claim it is, no, but the fact that it exists is completely and utterly undeniable.

[DarkLink]

Thank you for proving my point. There is codex creep, whether you want to admit it or not.

I agree with Melissia, to a certain extent. Really, you can break down the concept of codex creep into two catagories.

1. GW makes more and more powerful codecies as time goes on. This is what most people think of, and I don't really agree that it happens. Their style changes, sure, but they do a surprisingly good job balancing most of the codecies (with a few exceptions).

2. New codecies are better designed for the metagame environment of the current edition. Older codecies have lots of options that just aren't good anymore, because the rules have changed. New codecies match the new rules well. This gives new codecies an advantage. This is what Melissia is talking about, and it does exist. It is also impossible to avoid (as GW doesn't have the manpower to update every single codex at the same time to ensure balance).

[Duke]

Well, I am not sure which camp I am in right now.

- On one hand things like Storm Shields going from "... Only in close combat," to "Always," is an obvious example of codex creep. So is Cyclone Missle Launchers going from 1 to 2.

-However there are also examples of new codecies getting hit with the nerf bat (Blood Angels anyone?). Or Something like the Starcannon getting weaker, no more crystal targeting matrix.


In the end I think that from time to time things become more effective, but also things get worse for other codecies... And then some codecies are issued as 'the suck,' (Daemonhunters, lol). Simply put, I think codex creep exists, but it isn't an always or never type of equation.

Duke

[Denzark]

1. I am fairly certain that there are 5e codices where options are a cheaper points cost than previous editions - you get more boots on the ground in IG and SM than you used to for the same points.

2. Yes the Metagame has changed with blah blah blah and obviously the designers go for the new codices fitting this ed. Doesn't mean that as a result the older books don't naturally become progressively worse as they find more opponents are designed to be current.

3. Some books, the same item costs different points or functions differently - the vast majority of these quirks are negative towards older codices. Fact. Even when fluff makes such a discrepancy stupid. Don't try and explain this as reflecting avalibility of various assets to various armies - this is how Rogue Trader and 2ed points worked (ie squats massively cheap heavy wepaons) - 3ed rulebook in the back, actually explained that they had changed points to reflect the effect of grouping weapon systems together so devastator HW were more expensive etc.


Now these things are fact. I am not saying every codex becomes harder to beat or takes longer to unlock a counter army than the last but these above facts do become more prevalent. Again, I do not make any judgements about what this means but i certainly don't think much of it has to do with fluff or games balance as much as it does to do with sales - more miniatures in 2000 points means more money into the shampoo warlock's coffers. Making troops essential and more prevalent in order to win games, brings in more money rather than more balance (which points cost is supposed to do).

And what term can be used to cover the above points succinctly and with brevity? Well I for one use codex creep.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

The Space Marines don't have cheaper options than their previous incarnation. The 5e codex increased the cost on everything they had except maybe the Iron Halo. Some things stayed the same cost and got much much worse (chaplains and librarians).

The SM dex was afflicted by something I call "the points differential" -- they made some things cost more, offset it by making other things cheaper. In the end all it did was make all the points feel wrong, and it would have been better to differentiate the abilities than the points. Of course the SM have the unique problem of any drastic changes made to them not getting applied to several other similar armies.

Personally if I were GW I would have taken this into account and wrote in a new rule to all subsequent aberrant chapter codices, saying that "if a newer version of the primary space marine book is released and has rules or wargear with the same names as in this codex, you may choose to use either." or some such similar phrasing.


Yes, DE, GK, AS, Crons can be powerful in the hands of a good player. But that's exactly it-- they require skill. Newer armies require much less skill to make them powerful, because the newer armies are themselves more powerful. And the newer armies also have a lot more variety as well, you can build Smurflings, Puppies, and Guard all in multiple ways while still maintaining army strength. The older armies? You have maybe one or two builds that are strong, and only if played in a specific way.


Codex creep exists, whether you like it or not. It's not as strong as some people claim it is, no, but the fact that it exists is completely and utterly undeniable. What you are referring to is more "Edition Creep" then codex creep.

[40kGamer]

Codex Creep? Maybe it's me but I'm just not seeing it. I read through every codex and play around with different builds. I'm still relatively new to 5e but I played a lot in 3rd & 4th. I think a lot of people confuse different with better. Every rules change makes some things better and others worse. So I have a Darwinian attitude of adapt or perish!

Look at the Space Wolf codex. From all of the belly aching you would think that the wolves would never lose a game. :rolleyes: That ain't happening.

I'm even starting a Dark Eldar build now for 5th. At the moment I think the Raider force is one of the better competitive builds in the game.

[DuskRaider]

Codex creep... I thought I believed in it at one point, but really I don't find it too true. As said previously, Dark Eldar are still a powerful army, and they do, in fact, have more then one build and can still be quite competitive (more then I can say for my CSMs).

What it comes down to is, with the edition change, rules need to be changed too. The concentration has gone from Elite and HQ choices to Troop selections. What does this do? Makes the core troops of an army a lot more powerful and reliable (look at SW troops and compare them to CSM troops as an example). We're also seeing HQs that allow the option to take an Elite or Fast Attack selection as a Troop Choice, really emphasizing GW's intent on making the grunt the star of 5th Edition.

Does this mean older codices are invalid? Well... Sometimes, yes. Necron are the biggest example, they've been nerfed FAR more then any other codex with the advent of 5th Edition, which is why I'm mystified to see GW release Tyranids before 'Crons. DH are also feeling the pain quite a bit, but let's face it... They're a specialist army that's meant to battle a specific opponent. And let's take a look as well. How many abilities do they have that nullify an ENTIRE Daemons army? So I wouldn't complain too much (you did choose them, after all).
Dark Angels are an example of GW's attempt to "streamline" a codex in anticipation of 5th Edition (CSM are another exmaple, but NO WHERE near the level of DA). Absolutely no options, a bland flavorless waste of paper. I truly feel sorry for Da players at this point.

Blood Angels are good for showing just how lazt GW can be sometimes. There's not much to say about this pamphlet. It sucks.

Witch Hunters haven't gotten the nerfhammer anywhere near these armies, so I don't want to hear any complaining about them.

What it comes down to is, adaption. Yeah, some armies are weaker now. But instead of rolling over and crying and throwing in the towel, switch up tactics and try a variety of lists. Just because [Insert Name Here] says that the only viable list for [Insert Army Here] is [Insert List Here], doesn't mean it's true.

So is codex creep real? In some ways yes, and in some ways no. Most of the "weaker" codices are those of 3rd and 4th Edition, which will all "eventually" get their update. It's unfortunate, but blame 5th Edition rules more for the power gains then the individual codices.

[Duke]

The funny thing is that the same people who whine about codex creep are the same ones who stop talking once their codex 'creeps.' Aren't we just a great big smelly band of hipocrites?

Duke

[Aegis]

At least with WH, the units that suck in 5th, sucked in previous editions too...

[Melissia]

At least with WH, the units that suck in 5th, sucked in previous editions too...

And celestians and dominians also suck more as well. Troops are now the only ones that can capture objectives, so non-troops infantry has had its value decreased.

[Duke]

But all codicies had simliar things happen to them.

[jahred]

I think Codex Creep does exist but certainity is not as bad as the internet often claims it to be.

[therealjohnny5]

codex creep is an elaborate plan by the government to make us not think about the economy and then supported by GW to cover the fact that most of us are grown adults playing with little men. It's a counter conspiracy theory....and we're all suckers. :o

[Katie Drake]

And celestians and dominians also suck more as well. Troops are now the only ones that can capture objectives, so non-troops infantry has had its value decreased.

Celestians have pretty much always been balls, at least since 3rd, so that's not really anything new and doesn't hurt all that badly.

I'm not sure why Dominions would have taken a hit, though. I mean, yes, they're no longer scoring units, but they can still contest objectives, their transports are no longer rolling coffins, they get the better version of smoke launchers (unless the rules from the Imperial Armor 2 update are being used, that is) and weapons like flamers and meltaguns (both of which Dominions have access to) have become far more effective in the new ruleset. Flamers vitally ignore cover and there's no need to resolve each template one at a time anymore like there was in 4th - now one gets to just place as many templates as they can, count up the number of hits and roll to wound, usually causing extreme casualties. Meltaguns are pretty much the last word in tank hunting if they can get within their optimal range, which because of all the reasons listed above is much easier than it was.

[NockerGeek]

Thank you for proving my point. There is codex creep, whether you want to admit it or not.

To quote The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

What I was referring to is not codex creep. Rather, it's a change in the underlying ruleset and the codex design gameplan. 3rd Edition codices were designed a certain way. 4th Edition codices were designed a different way. 5th Edition codices (and those made in anticipation of 5th Edition) were designed yet another way. They had to be, because there were certain underlying premises for each system that were different than those before it. Point values were considered differently, unit upgrade philosophy has shifted considerably, and FOC slot priorities have changed substantially. The 5th Edition game is a completely different beast than the 3rd Edition game, so it's only natural that a 3rd Edition codex doesn't seem to fit the environment as well as a newer codex. That doesn't mean that the newer codex was designed to be more powerful (the "creep" you're referring to), but just that it takes as given things that were never even considered when the 3rd Edition codex was written.

While I won't deny that a codex from an older edition is at a possible disadvantage compared to a current codex, I don't think that means that the newer book was written with the particular goal of being more powerful, or of one-upping the books before it. That would be codex creep, and I don't see it.

[Melissia]

You're using a logical fallacy then. You're specifically defining the word so that it isn't what the opposition says. Like if someone defined the truth to be whatever proves their point-- logic doesn't work that way.

Codex creep is, simply, the fact that codices produced later are stronger in some way or other than those produced earlier. The means for them to become stronger is irrelevant, however. Regardless of how you feel about it, the fourth and third edition codices are still used and the fifth edition codices must still therefor be judged against them regardless of the age of the codices and what edition they were designed for.

[imperialsavant]

That's mostly because GW though it would be a good idea to make Grey knights pay a ton of points for a bunch of abilities that only work on Daemons and Chaos. I don't know why they thought they could make a balanced army that is only good against one other army (and it isn't even particularly good against that army anymore).

If they ever redo the Grey Knights, they NEED to realize they can't make a balanced army that is only good against one other army. It isn't hard to justify more balanced rules. You can just say "the Grey Knights have this cool ability (which works against everyone) because that ability is useful against Daemons, though it is good against everyone (did I mention it should be a good ability that works on everyone?)".

SNIP******



One easy way to fix this problem in the next Inq/GK Codex is to give the GKs one stat for normal Armies & a range of options at additional points when playing an Army with Daemons.

The points costs they gave the GKs makes them stupidly expensive against any Army even Daemonic ones when the DH Codex gives the Daemons the without number rule.

This is the reason GK players dont field them often. Mine havent been out of their box since the end of the Global Campain when they were released.:mad:

[Duke]

...

Fact is, older codices are actually weaker. They have fewer options, less up to date rules, and fewer new ideas put into them. Just the difference between the old Imperial Guard codex and the new one should make that obvious enough-- the old codex was, in fact, quite weak without forgeworld supplements. And now, Guard is an upper-tier army, with a wide variety of builds.


Yes, DE, GK, AS, Crons can be powerful in the hands of a good player. But that's exactly it-- they require skill. Newer armies require much less skill to make them powerful, because the newer armies are themselves more powerful. And the newer armies also have a lot more variety as well, you can build Smurflings, Puppies, and Guard all in multiple ways while still maintaining army strength. The older armies? You have maybe one or two builds that are strong, and only if played in a specific way.


Codex creep exists, whether you like it or not. It's not as strong as some people claim it is, no, but the fact that it exists is completely and utterly undeniable.


To quote The Princess Bride,
...While I won't deny that a codex from an older edition is at a possible disadvantage compared to a current codex, I don't think that means that the newer book was written with the particular goal of being more powerful, or of one-upping the books before it. That would be codex creep, and I don't see it.



Melissa, Melissa, Melissa... While I like your development of your argument you must be aware that while he may POSSIBLY be guilty of the straw man fallacy; You, my friend, are guilty of several other fallacies.
1. Converse Fallacy of Accident: Just because there are 'imporvements in the IG codex does not mean that EVERY case is the same. You cannot make a special case a general rule.
2. Post hoc ergo Propter hoc: Just because there is some correlation between two events does not mean that one is the direct anticedent to the other... What if it rained on the days 'powerful codecies were written, the according to your logic rain makes power codecies. (options don't a strong codex make by logic.)
3. Argumentum Verbosium: You are flooding us with so much vauge, non-discript information that appears to be well researched and plausible, but it is in fact not. I have not seen emough empirical evidence to even begin to consider half your arguments valid. "...Older armies only have two or three builds..." Not true. For example, the old craftworld Eldar codex allowed me to run aspect warriors as troops. I have 60 models of every aspect warrior because I could build my lists in such variety.

I truly appreciate the contradictory approach that you bring to the table Melissa. I just had to mention that you should pick the tree out of your on eye before you point out the sliver in his...

My opinion of Codex Creep: It exists in one-off instances, but I do not think that it is a general rule. For examples refer to 3rd ed Blood Angels VS current blood angels, OR 3rd ed Eldar to current Eldar. Alternativly you could ask Dark Angel players how they like their new codex...

END

DUKE

P.S. To anyone else, sorry for the logic rant... Forgive my impulse.

[BuFFo]

Agreed lol. I stopped conversing with Melissa some time ago. She/he likes to argue Warseer style, and there is no point in doing so. As far as she/he is concerned, only her opinion matters. Full stop.

On the topic of Codex Creep, it does not exist anymore in 5th edition. If you compare codexes made by different authors over the span of the last decade, then yeah, it may seem so, but if you take all the 5th ed codexes and compare them to other 5th ed codexes, you will find the game to be very balanced.

Heck, didn't a supposed 'non competitive' chaos army with 'crappy' units and 'fluffy' units hand a power gamer Space Wolf army's butt to itself some time ago on BoLs?

Codex creep does not exist.

Unless you play Fantasy. I believe Army Book Creep is actually written in the rules to happen lol.

[Aldramelech]

Ive just read the whole thread...... Now I have a headache, I think I need to lie down.........

[Duke]

Agreed lol. I stopped conversing with Melissa some time ago. She/he likes to argue Warseer style, and there is no point in doing so. As far as she/he is concerned, only her opinion matters. Full stop.

On the topic of Codex Creep, it does not exist anymore in 5th edition. If you compare codexes made by different authors over the span of the last decade, then yeah, it may seem so, but if you take all the 5th ed codexes and compare them to other 5th ed codexes, you will find the game to be very balanced.

Heck, didn't a supposed 'non competitive' chaos army with 'crappy' units and 'fluffy' units hand a power gamer Space Wolf army's butt to itself some time ago on BoLs?

Codex creep does not exist.

Unless you play Fantasy. I believe Army Book Creep is actually written in the rules to happen lol.

Yea, I really don't like it when people say "I dont care what you think cause Im obviously right."

Your spot on that the Wolves got their trash handed to them with a 4 JOTWW drop pod army.

Duke

[EmperorEternalXIX]

There is a rule in the Wolf codex that says you can't have a 4 JOTWW army. Page 81, bottom right.

[DuskRaider]

Whatever. JotWW is a straight line fom the Priest to an enemy. A line. Not a template, not a radius. A line. Sure, you might lose a unit or two, but seriously... if you A.) Run a conga line, or B.) Ignore the Priest, you deserve what you get. Like I've said before, Deep Strike with a group of Terminators and hand that Priest a new hole, or better yet? This is what templates are made for. It's not as bad as we thought it would be.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

It is also a per model power, not a per unit power. So while it is powerful (and particularly infuriating for our poor slow friend Mr. Carnifex), against a normal army it will not be quite so capable of entire squads as we first imagined.

Regardless, only one model can have the power anyway.

[DuskRaider]

Exactly. Just run an Elite weeniefex to entice him, then slaughter him on the ensuing round, lol.

[40kGamer]

I'll believe Codex Creep is real when older codex armies quit winning games. The older armies require more skill to use because everyone knows what everything can do, so there are no real surprises during the game. With a new codex many people don't know what certain units are capable of until they hand them their lunch. :p