What is Codex Creep?

[sketchesofpayne]

I posted this as a comment to Jwolf's "article," but thought it'd be worth reposting here.

By and large codex creep is about breaking established numerical barriers. For instance, before mephiston, cassius was the ONLY marine with anything other than S4 T4. Before the new BA codex landspeeders were the ONLY fast vehicles available to marines.

The addition of vehicle squadrons drastically increased the number of tanks the guard could field. The addition of the Valkyrie made available fast skimmer transports to an army other than Eldar, Dark Eldar, and (maybe not fast, but skimmer) Tau.

Across the board the numbers keep climbing: stat lines, units fielded, psychic powers. At the same time the point values drop, enabling up to 25% more units to be fielded in the same 1500 or 2000 point games.

That's what codex creep is. It's got nothing to do with tooling and tweaking units and rules to mesh with the new edition. It's about pushing the numerical envelopes.

Playing an old codex against a new one is like giving your opponent an extra 500 points.

[the jeske]

You making bad examples . the BA lists plays different then a khan or a vulkan one , it has other main units other focus . On revers to you I could say that the BA dex is crap , because they dont have vulkan . Codex creep does not exist in w40k . What does exist is change of desing team or desing philosophy . Examples ? the way chaos and DAs looked the whole 5th ed was supposed to look . stream line few builds per dex , more or less pre build armies only . Problem was does dex sold bad , what in the case of the chaos dex , that in its 3.5 version sold very well , made GW change their focus. It is not codex creep , GW does not make a new dex better then the last one to rise it sales[ because nids sucked hard for example] like they do in WFB . Yes sometimes we do get armies like IG in this edition or eldar in 4th which were very good , but it is not like they were unbeatable . They were not chaos demons in WFB .

[Melissia]

Codex creep is, to put it in a single sentence, the idea that newer codices typically have a better chance of winning in the hands of a competent player than older codices do in the hands of a similarly competent player.

The existence of this advantage is rarely disputed, even if they argue about how big it is(n't).

[Cossack]

For me the issue is an unbalanced points system. All of these wonder units with new capabilities are fine. We use the points system to create what should be a balanced game given normal circumstances.

Does it really seem broken, or has GW kept up with the correct points values? Honestly, my Orks haven't run into anything I couldn't at least fight right down to the wire yet.

[HsojVvad]

The addition of vehicle squadrons drastically increased the number of tanks the guard could field. The addition of the Valkyrie made available fast skimmer transports to an army other than Eldar, Dark Eldar, and (maybe not fast, but skimmer) Tau.

Across the board the numbers keep climbing: stat lines, units fielded, psychic powers. At the same time the point values drop, enabling up to 25% more units to be fielded in the same 1500 or 2000 point games.

That's what codex creep is. It's got nothing to do with tooling and tweaking units and rules to mesh with the new edition. It's about pushing the numerical envelopes.

Playing an old codex against a new one is like giving your opponent an extra 500 points.

I thought this was a great example of codex creap. Just look at the DH and WH codex how everything is so expensive compared to other units. Even compare DA troops to SM troops and they are cheaper.

So I agree with what sektchesofpayne says.

[Kirsten]

Across the board the numbers keep climbing: stat lines, units fielded, psychic powers. At the same time the point values drop, enabling up to 25% more units to be fielded in the same 1500 or 2000 point games.

That's what codex creep is. It's got nothing to do with tooling and tweaking units and rules to mesh with the new edition. It's about pushing the numerical envelopes.

Playing an old codex against a new one is like giving your opponent an extra 500 points.

There are several problems with this. First, things don't simply get cheaper, they adjust both up and down. Tactical Squads are a prime example, GW's flagship range, the most popular army, and they went up a point, not down. Can you actually back up the 25% figure? I know none of my armies have gotten 25% larger in three editions of 40k. Codex/Army Book creep is something the internet invented to whine about. It is all about changing design policies and adding variance.

The simple fact is there haven't been enough editions for you to calculate any kind of proposed increase. 3rd edition was a radical departure from second and so cannot be compared. That gives you 3rd, 4th, and 5th to base your estimates on. Any scientist will tell you that you need a minimum of three results to determine a pattern, yet most armies haven't had three different books. That means it is simply impossible to determine any kind of increase. The same is true of point levels, and of the people who claim there is a distinct aim across editions, there are just no figures to back it up. If in another couple of editions we only get small tweaks here and there rules wise, like 4th and 5th, then you can start determining intent, and assess army size and relative power changes.

Fantasy does not suffer from creep either, people take books out of context. 6th edition suffered from the change in rules. The emphasis switched to simplifying army rules, and making units cheaper. However high elves, dark elves, and dwarves all lost unit specific rules and did not get any cheaper to compensate, leaving them high and dry against other 6th edition books. Their 7th edition incarnations did see them rise noticeably in power, but that only brought them on par with other armies, it did not make them over the top. 7th edition was more balanced than the two previous editions, as well as being more varied and exciting.

At the end of the day, the designers are gamers too, they don't want the systems to be unbalanced any more than we do.

[BlindGunn]

In my mind, Codex Creep comes in two flavours.

There are the (perceived) advantages of a new books over older books that are difficult to discount (cheaper units, better rules, etc) and the advantages never seem to be overcome (except by a newer book).

The "other" flavour is when a new book changes how an army plays and "the old tactics" don't work anymore. People moan and complain how no one can beat the new army, but eventually, someone finds a way and then, bit by bit, other tactics are figured out and the army isn't quite so unbeatable.

Blood Angels and Space Wolves have a number of great new features, but as a Space Wolf Player, I still find (at 1500 points anyway), I'm not getting a lot of "overwhelming" with my forces against other players with older books. Tactics have changed, defintely, but people have adapted already. I expect we'll see the same of the Blood Angels as well.

I would be curious to see in a year's time - how well do these newer books behave against older books once people have spent a lot of time working out their tactics.

[BuFFo]

Definition - Codex Creep

Codex Creep is a desperate attempt by a player to insult a new army book due to the simple fact that he/she is not able to put the codex to his/her forehead and absorb all strategic and tactical knowledge to beat the army WITHOUT learning how to play against the army by ACTUALLY playing the army enough times to learn said strategic and tactical knowledge.

Also see other forms of pathetic insult-labeling by players who lose constantly, such as 'cheese', 'beardy' and 'list tailoring'.

[Lerra]

While codex creep exists, I don't think it's nearly as significant as some people insist.

ICs in general are more powerful than they used to be, but they are also more expensive. We also have a lot more choices than we used to - how many characters are in the Space Marine codex? Only a few of those characters are considered to be competitive. If we go by the assumption that most special characters are not anything to write home about, it only makes sense that older, smaller codices with fewer special characters are less likely to have competitive special characters. There are still a handful of gems in the older books, though.

Similarily, a lot of the foundation units in an older codex were optimized for a different edition of the game, when both the goals and the metagame were very different. Most units in old codices are priced well - but they underperform because they are optimized for an old edition of the game. To fix the old units, they need updated rules, not a price reduction.

Try playing a game with new Space Wolves against Tau using 4th edition rules and you'll see what I mean. Tau still does great in 4th ed rules, even against the top 5th ed codices.

[DarkLink]

I think short term codex creep is a myth. There's a slight variation in power between each codex, but it isn't always upwards. I mean, IG is still probably a bit more powerful than, say, Blood Angels.

Now, of course, in the long run there is creep, simply because the game changes over time. Newer codices match the current game better than older ones, typically. Anything older than a few years is probably weaker than the new stuff. And it's more or less unavoidable, unless GW starts redoing every single codex within a 2-3 year period.

[Indigo]

A miserable pile of un-updated armies. But Enough talk, have at you!

[DoctorEvil]

I thought Codex Creep was that old dude that wears the overcoat in July that stands over near the shelf with the books on them.......

[Aldramelech]

I thought Codex Creep was that old dude that wears the overcoat in July that stands over near the shelf with the books on them.......

I thought no one noticed, Note to self, loose coat!

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
The term 'codex creep' refers to the latest codex/army books apearing to have an advantage over older ones.

As the PV GW devs allocate is purley subjective, and changes over time.
One day Ork Shoota boys are 9 points the next day they are only 6 points with more effective shootas:eek:.

IF GW used a consistant method to allocate PV,they could revise PV as the new rules were released along with other FAQs.

GW should revise ALL current armies to the new edition of the rules before updating the rules.If they think game ballance is important.

The fact that 'Codex Creep ' is percived to exist is just a bigger problem for the game than any actual imballance .IMO

GW uses this percived imballance to drive sales of minatures , so they are not bothered about any long term effect.
Unfortunaltey thier short sighted views are not benifiting the long term survivability of GW, or the GW gamer community.

TTFN
lanrak

[Kirsten]

They do use a consistent method, they seek to balance each codex. It would be impossible to update every race with every new edition, they simply haven't the time or manpower for such an endeavour.

[HsojVvad]

They do use a consistent method, they seek to balance each codex. It would be impossible to update every race with every new edition, they simply haven't the time or manpower for such an endeavour.

It's not impossible to update every race with every new edtion. GW chooses not to update everything and go the way they do it presently now. GW choose to update thier core rules every 4 years, wich can be done 6 or more years, so everything gets updated, but choose not to.

[Melissia]

Indeed. It is the updated codices that make them money anyway, because they release new models with each new codex... not the codices nor the rulebook themselves.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
Its a shame GW dont think thier own minatures are inspiring enough to sell by them selves.They feel compelled to write' inspiring rules' to help them sell.

Other manufactureres are confident thier minatures are good enough , so can develop and balance thier rules seperatley from minature realeases.
Or at least update ALL armies with new realeases at the same time.

GW seem to be focused on whats easiest for GW plc.NOT what thier customers actualy want.

TTFN

[Melissia]

Its a shame GW dont think thier own minatures are inspiring enough to sell by them selves.

They aren't.

[DarkLink]

I don't think most minis are. Miniature gaming is a bit too niche to make big profits off just nice little pieces of plastic or metal, all on their own. The game provides much needed marketing.

[Chuck777]

Codex Creep is the idea that newer Codecies are more competitive than older Codecies. We all know 3rd edition codecies are patently weaker in every area compared to newer 5th edition codecies. i.e. older book's units cost more, do less and have outdated rules.

If we just look at the 5th edition codecies, we can see that the concept of Codex Creep isn't as obvious - Guard (the second oldest 5th edition book) are still the best and Tyranids (second newest) are definitely below Space Wolves (third newest). If we just compare the Space Marine armies of 5th edition, Codex creep is definitely apparent as BA and SW are better than C:SM but BA are not patently superior to SW.

So on a macro level, Codex Creep is as obvious as night and day, while on a micro level, codex creep isn't truly apparent.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all,
This emphasises my point .
GW plc do what is easiest for them.NOT what is best for thier customer.

If you look outside the isolationism of GW B&M stores /marketing.

Minature manufactureres HAVE to sell minatures at competative prices.(Perry Minatures, Mantic, Wargames Factory, Warlord , etc.)

And games developers HAVE to deliver great game play in an efficient way.(Thane Games ,Ground Zero Games,Two Hour Wargames, etc.)

Each seperate buisness focuses on delivering the best VFM to its customers , becuse they NEED customers to recommend them to survive.

GW plc is so large they belive new customers will replace the ones that leave indefinatley.

And they are happy to comprimise game play and game ballance to maximise short term profit.As this is the easiest option for them.

GW could release all new RULES for each army ,with each new edition , so ALL armies are up to date with the new rules.
But they choose to wait for the new minature releases to dictate when rules updates occur.

This is why some players get stuck with Codexes 2 editions and over 10 years out of date...

TTFN