What is Codex Creep?

[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.

[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.