Printable View
So I see on what seems a regular basis everyone complains about 40K codex creep. Each new army released is way too powerful for the older armies.
So how come this doesn't come up with WFB?
Are the newer armies more balanced or is it because everyone is still grappling with 8th edition?
What are your thoughts?
I play 40K, Warmachine, Malifaux, and Flames of War. I have absolutely no interest in WHFB, and I don't think I'm alone. I would say that WHFB's fewer players would be the main reason why, coupled with the lack of a "most popular army" to have hype backlash for, in the same way there is with Space Marines in 40K. Marines have been in every 40K starter box since 2nd ed (and arguably RTB01 represents the first 40K "starter").Who is the "main" army of WHFB? I have no idea. Skaven? Elves? Dwarves? Goblins? All very generic "fantasy" (even Skaven, who are the most original GW army there fall into simple man + animal equation). Marines are a clear male power fantasy in a way tht none of the fantasy races are. Plus, they carry Space AK-47's, not laser guns. Instant cool.
Marines are the default position from which all 40K armies are measured, as they form a definite touchstone of "best army" (That's a loaded term - here I'm using it to refer to the fact that Marines are the most common beginners' army, as well as the most forgiving - you can make mistakes and errors in game that you just cn't get away with with armies like Tyranids or Dark Eldar). I couldn't tell you a single thing about the relative power levels of armies in WHFB. I hear vampires are quite hard, and Ogres are quite weak, but really it's just a bit all over the place. Last time I played WHFB, I had a skeleton army - now I hear they're called Tomb Kings, and have a fruity Egyptian theme. I've no idea where they rank, and I'm not interested in finding out.
Plus, "codex creep" is such a gaming myth. I get sick of hearing about it; "Tyranids are overpowered!" was the cry before their codex came out. Everyone was spectacularly underwhelmed when it turned out, no, they're a strategic army that has strong unit synergies you need to learn to get the best out of; you can't just "pick up and play" in the same way you can with Marines.
Next it's "Oh noes! Blood Angels!". Turns out, no - they're hard, but they're just a different flavour of Marines with neat tricks. "Oh noes! Dark Eldar!" No; they've got llots of strengths... but lots of weaknesses too.
"Codex creep" is, to me, the Godwin's Law of gaming. The second you mention it, you've lost the argument. I look forward to the day when we as a community, accept and realise this.
There have been many discussions about army book creep in the past. The High Elf book raised a ton of stink due to the Always Strike First for the entire army. It has been a long while since a real book has come out because everything geared up for 8th.
I think the 'army creep' is basically because each new edition has new rules/ideas that will be in the minds of the developers as the write the new army books, as the edition gets older new ways to use the rules become apparent and those get thrown in the newer books.
So its not really a case of each new book getting more and more powerful (although to be fair, in 7th for fantasy there were some armies that were in fact on the powerful side) but a case of each new army books/codices being written with the new edition in mind, thus the old edition books sometimes get put into a 'take this army or lose' rut.
But to answer the original question, this doesn't happen in fantasy because their are a lot more rules (not saying 40k is not complicated or lesser) for the armies to exploit
Fantasy is also WAY heavier on the soft score side of things, especially with army composition scores, thus theoretically balancing things out in the tournament scene to some extent, where as 40k has almost entirely done away with the comp score when compared to the old days, thus the theoretical 'creep' becomes a lot more of an issue as there is little no auto correcting system in place. Though, this does all depend on the cries of 'creep' stemming from the affects on casual play by the tournament scene, but I don't feel such a correlation is unfounded.
It does. Try frequenting fantasy sections of [URL="http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/index.php"]The Warhammer Forum[/URL] or [URL="http://warseer.com/forums/"]Warseer[/URL] or listen to some of the podcasts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Camel
8th edition hasn't actually changed an awful lot. From what I understand the 7th edition power creep is considered to have started with High Elves but took on a whole new dimension with the Vampire Counts, Daemons and Dark Elves with Lizardmen knocking hard on the door. Warriors of Chaos on release seem to have been regarded as hard but not quite on the same level of the big three while Skaven were then seen as a step back towards increased power levels. The last fantasy book, Beastmen, was regarded as a substantial drop in power level compared to what came before it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Camel
In 8th edition Vampires, Daemons and Dark Elves are still on top, Lizardmen are still tough while Warriors are probably closer to the top three. The changes have benefitted some armies more than others (i.e. Dwarfs) but in a tournament setting Skaven seem to be a bit too unreliable to take home the top prize now, especially if the tournament is using the rulebook scenerios
Depends on where you play. There are no army composition scores in the UK for example (or at least at none of the tournaments I've been to or whose rules packs I've looked at), rather tournament organisers generally set hard composition restrictions in the rules pack.Quote:
Originally Posted by FastEd