PDA

View Full Version : Codex Creep?



Skragger
09-11-2009, 03:43 PM
I hear the term being thrown around an awful lot.. but what exactly DOES 'codex creep' mean? :confused:

Aldramelech
09-11-2009, 04:03 PM
Basically, every time GW bring out a new Codex its better then all the others, this (allegedly) is to sell the new product.
Not everyone subscribes to this theory or that codex creep exists at all.

Aceshigh
09-11-2009, 04:18 PM
lol im not sure i buy into codex creep but the rumors for the spacewolves sounds like they are gonna be insane

Exitus Acta Probat
09-11-2009, 04:52 PM
Part of the phenomenon described as 'codex creep' is not a result of codices at all,
but edition.
As a codex falls further and further behind the 'new edition' dexes, glaring gaps in play style/design/balancing for rules become more and more pronounced.
Issues like Thornback (nids) becoming null and void with a newer rules set, or Items becoming over priced (assault cannons rising in cost AND THEN getting the 5e nerf) make tactics and army builds roll over...and when a codex doesn't have a roll over option that fits the new edition, it makes it seem woefully outclassed by dint of the new dex.
Instead, it's a function of the newer dexes being edition appropriate.
As we get further and further into the 5e dexes, codex creep griping will become less pronounced (excepting for poor Daemonhunters and Dark Eldar...though DE are still competitive they have no 5e flavor or tuning).

It will continue to ebb and flow, as editions come out, until a majority of codex printings are in 'tune' with 5e tactical builds.
Also, it is more significant with this edition, because though on the surface it was not a huge shift...I liken the 5e jump to the 2nd ed to 3rd ed jump. Though very little was outright made illegal, as in the previous shift, the far reaching 4e/5e implications are nearly as deep.

darth_papi76
09-11-2009, 04:57 PM
People always say that the next codex is going to be too much. It's never as bad as they think.

Skragger
09-11-2009, 04:58 PM
So its similar to how Necrons got nerfed when a glancing blow can no longer destroy a vehicle? Hmmm.. interesting. I'd never heard the phrase before until shortly after the space wolves stuff started coming out and suddenly its everywhere lol

Exitus Acta Probat
09-11-2009, 05:02 PM
It became very prevalent when the IG rumours started really hitting hard, and then came out...
Even here, it became an 'end of the world' reaction.
Then people started beating them.
Suddenly, no creep comments.

Similar to Nob Bikerz, and Fatecrusher lists. Once they get unlocked, as darth said, it's not as bad as people thought.

Dazz
09-11-2009, 05:44 PM
It became very prevalent when the IG rumours started really hitting hard, and then came out...
Even here, it became an 'end of the world' reaction.
Then people started beating them.
Suddenly, no creep comments.

Similar to Nob Bikerz, and Fatecrusher lists. Once they get unlocked, as darth said, it's not as bad as people thought.

I'm sorry but hardly. It has been used and prevalent for as long as I remember(end of 2nd/Beginning of 3rd) The Tau were the ultimate codex creep, strength 5 weapons! Eldar were so broken, Traits and Doctrines made Guard and Space marines to powerful(especially free deepstrike and plasma spam)

Although not everywhere uses the term and it comes and goes it has been everywhere for years. I do agree though its fear and blind panic, rarely is there truth to it.

Exitus Acta Probat
09-11-2009, 05:49 PM
I'm sorry but hardly. It has been used and prevalent for as long as I remember(end of 2nd/Beginning of 3rd) The Tau were the ultimate codex creep, strength 5 weapons! Eldar were so broken, Traits and Doctrines made Guard and Space marines to powerful(especially free deepstrike and plasma spam)

Although not everywhere uses the term and it comes and goes it has been everywhere for years. I do agree though its fear and blind panic, rarely is there truth to it.


Dazz:
it was in response to skragger's comment about hearing it suddenly pop up after the SW stuff became more readily available.
Yes, the term's been around for quite a while. QUITE. But it really has come back into the fore since 5e started showing a greater disparity in current vs older edition codexes.
I wasn't saying it didn't exist prior, I said it became VERY prevalent in recent times.
Everyone complains about something leaving their babes in the dust, 5e brought that even more into the limelight...IG made people react even more! :)

Abominable Plague Marine
09-11-2009, 08:34 PM
@ Dazz. Can you please clarify your response? I see one paragraph wtih you giving many examples of what you believe to be codex creep, then in your second paragraph you denounce it as fear and blind panic?

I for one love getting over excited about new rules IF its for an army that I already have (I dont subcribe to purchasing a new army for the sake of keeping ahead of the pack), but Im very wary of people who only cry out "doom" statements on something that is broken before its release.

Codex creep is in the eye of the beholder, and I dont believe it exists.

Dazz
09-11-2009, 09:59 PM
@ Dazz. Can you please clarify your response? I see one paragraph wtih you giving many examples of what you believe to be codex creep, then in your second paragraph you denounce it as fear and blind panic?

I for one love getting over excited about new rules IF its for an army that I already have (I dont subcribe to purchasing a new army for the sake of keeping ahead of the pack), but Im very wary of people who only cry out "doom" statements on something that is broken before its release.

Codex creep is in the eye of the beholder, and I dont believe it exists.

Sorry that is what I have heard via the internet and even some fear mongering at my own LGS. The truth is though while I hear it over and over it hasn't to me even happened. There is a bump but nothing has been as broken as it seems on paper. Sure right now the Space Wolves look MEAN. In 6 months the Tyranids(or whoever)will look MEANER. And the fact will remain both were just fine and could be beaten by most(Some armies have issues with things)armies and generals with some common sense.

@Exitus Acta Probat

Awe sorry look at me rushing head first and making a fool of myself. I make my apologies now. I do agree it had died down for some time and has come to the fore(although I think it was Orks not the IG myself)but for sure the term has been overused and a way of blind panic for way to long.

jeffersonian000
09-11-2009, 10:04 PM
Codex creep is an accurate and correct term, as it implies a perceived increase in ability of newer releases over older releases. As this is a perception, to coin a phrase, "the reality is, perception is reality".

Hard evidence can be found in comparing active 3rd edition codecii versus current edition codecii. When 3rd edition was released GW took a needed step in leveling all of the 2nd Ed armies that were in play at the time, yet then returned to their old ways by introducing units in newer codex releases that trumped comparable units in other codecii. Look at the current Space Marine Company Captain and compare him to a Grey Knight Grand Master; one of them has a better stat line and costs less, and it isn't the Grand Master.

As mentioned above, the changes in rules from edition to edition is a factor, as new units are designed to add to or break the current rules, while older units can lose effectiveness due to these same changes (not always the case, as Sisters of Battle got a huge boost with 5th even though their Seraphim got neutered big time with the addition of True Line of Sight).

So, all in all, Codex Creep is real, in that it is a perceived effect whether backed by evidence or not.

SJ

Aldramelech
09-11-2009, 11:59 PM
See........ Told you! lol

Logan
09-12-2009, 02:55 AM
It is a product of a marketing tool designed to make the latest product look the best (eg WD battle reports always have the new guys winning). It makes some players buy the new stuff, therefore it works and GW is happy.
If you enjoy playing even if you lose, who cares if this exists, or not

Squee
09-12-2009, 02:57 AM
It is a product of a marketing tool designed to make the latest product look the best (eg WD battle reports always have the new guys winning). It makes some players buy the new stuff, therefore it works and GW is happy.
If you enjoy playing even if you lose, who cares if this exists, or not
Not always true. I have seen some battle reports where the new guy loses.
Rare but it has happened.

imperialsavant
09-12-2009, 04:39 AM
Codex creep is an accurate and correct term, as it implies a perceived increase in ability of newer releases over older releases. As this is a perception, to coin a phrase, "the reality is, perception is reality".

Hard evidence can be found in comparing active 3rd edition codecii versus current edition codecii. When 3rd edition was released GW took a needed step in leveling all of the 2nd Ed armies that were in play at the time, yet then returned to their old ways by introducing units in newer codex releases that trumped comparable units in other codecii. Look at the current Space Marine Company Captain and compare him to a Grey Knight Grand Master; one of them has a better stat line and costs less, and it isn't the Grand Master.

SJ

:rolleyes: Got to agree with you on the Grey Knights as they are now the most overpriced units in 40K & they give daemons the "without number" rule DUH!

MUMBLES
09-12-2009, 06:28 AM
While I don't necessarily agree that the entire codex "creeps," I do firmly believe that certain models in codexes are undercosted specifically to boost sales. Perfect examples would be the Valkyrie and the Soul Grinder. All in all however, codexes are generally balanced, though they do seem to slowly increase in "strength" over long periods of time.

Exitus Acta Probat
09-12-2009, 07:03 AM
Awe sorry look at me rushing head first and making a fool of myself. I make my apologies now. I do agree it had died down for some time and has come to the fore(although I think it was Orks not the IG myself)but for sure the term has been overused and a way of blind panic for way to long.

No apologies! You thought I was being overly simplistic and felt strongly about a subject.
I think new 'dexes have grown to produce an innate 'panic' response, and with the net becoming more and more insidious with its rumours (evil evil interwebz) the concept of creep becomes more and more pronounced.
I suppose there is creep, in the sense that Jeffersonian states percetption uber-alles, so I DID oversimplify. BUT, I stand by my statement that it is more an edition reset that creates a buzz by dint of quarterly (or fewer) new codices released. But, how people perceive has more of an impact that anything else! :)


Not always true. I have seen some battle reports where the new guy loses.
Rare but it has happened.

Don't buy the hype, it's just to debunk those rumors out there that the new guy always wins...their just throwin us a bone!


:rolleyes: Got to agree with you on the Grey Knights as they are now the most overpriced units in 40K & they give daemons the "without number" rule DUH!

Okay,
I believe the sustained assault special rule is gone...so, no more w/out number for you!

Squee
09-12-2009, 10:48 PM
Exitus Acta Probat
"Don't buy the hype, it's just to debunk those rumors out there that the new guy always wins...their just throwin us a bone!"

I know thats true, but it is a nice bone they throw once in a while.;)

Majorcrash
09-12-2009, 11:07 PM
There is always a fear of the new codex. Backin 2nd and 3rd ed there was a problem in 40k of the latest army. The latest few eds have been pretty good on hold about keeping the creep out.:p Some old codexs have suffered because they havent been updated in this decade. One would expect them to not do as well in rules set designed ten or more years later. In my humble oppinion WHFB suffers incredibly from the Creep. Each neew army is more unbalance then the last. (ok bring on the slings and arrows for that comment) :eek:

imperialsavant
09-13-2009, 03:50 AM
Okay,
I believe the sustained assault special rule is gone...so, no more w/out number for you![/QUOTE]

But as it is given in the Daemonhunters Codex dosent you opponent still have that right if playing against GKs plus I think "nids still have that rule too??
:confused:

Skragger
09-13-2009, 06:54 AM
There is always a fear of the new codex. Backin 2nd and 3rd ed there was a problem in 40k of the latest army. The latest few eds have been pretty good on hold about keeping the creep out.:p Some old codexs have suffered because they havent been updated in this decade. One would expect them to not do as well in rules set designed ten or more years later. In my humble oppinion WHFB suffers incredibly from the Creep. Each neew army is more unbalance then the last. (ok bring on the slings and arrows for that comment) :eek:



Aye, back when I played WHFB, I played Vampire Counts, and after Khemri came out my poor VC got their arses handed to them every time by what should technically have been their own troops statwise! The Khemri skeletons were stronger and better than my skeletons :(