Codex Arms Race continues

[Custodian Athiair]

In the past, it's been a big point that the design of each new codex was always to be the new and most powerful codex of the edition. We saw this time and time again. 

 

However, when 8th edition came out there was a big fanfare from GW that with the new starting point, and the nigh-complete reset of codexes, that the codex arms race would finally be over. The game would be completely balanced, no one codex was more powerful than any others, and the skill of players (and luck of the dice) would be the deciding factor of games.

 

However within little over one year I feel we've already seen this go out the window. I don't know about any other Space Marine players out there, but I look at each codex coming out (except for CSM) and see that each new "chapter tactic" always feels like a supped up version of ones we saw in the Space Marine codex.

 

The tipping point for me actually writing this post was the release on the Community Site about the Deathskulls Kultur which starts as a direct copy of the Salamanders chapter tactic (re-roll one hit/wound each time they fight/shoot) except this get's improved to also being able to re-roll a damage roll. And it doesn't stop there. They then get an army-wide invulnerable save, AND objective priority. 

 

I will admit I'm a little biased in being a Salamander's player myself, but surely this is just ridiculous. It seems that every codex that gets released is designed to be better than the Space Marine codex at least, if not better than all the other codexes. All this ends up doing is making me want to actually get onto the table less because I feel I'm fighting with one hand tied behind my back (or more accurately the other army has two extra arms, with fists the size of boulders, and talons made of fire).

 

Am I crazy? Or are other people noticing this too? Curious to see what more capable generals think.

[Redtoof]

Codex Space Marines is definitely a bit behind the level of most of the other codexes. I still don’t think it’s nearly as bad as 7th and previous, where half the armies were basically unplayable in anything approaching competitive play. The good thing now is Chapter Approved will probably give you guys a significant boost so you don’t lag too far behind.

 

I don’t think anyone really expected the game to ever be perfectly balanced, but I think it’s much more balanced now than it has been pre-8th. It just feels worse because Space Marines with their huge player base are lagging behind, rather than Tyranids, Chaos Marines, Orks etc.

[Captain Idaho]

Oh for sure Marines are behind. It's not just power but also damn fun level. Look at the type of Strategums Marines have that make using certain units interesting or powerful - we don't really have them and the ones we do have are okay (Masterful Marksmanship) but too restrictive (Datalink Telemetry) and niche (Kill Shot).

 

I have made a list of amendments alongside community feedback and inspiration that I sent to GW but I'm not confident...

 

I too feel the pain of Ultramarines being lessened in power. Forget Guilliman for a moment as we don't all put him in our lists; the main advantages are weaker and weaker (1 CP a turn) but don't get any of the rerolls other armies get for their Warlords etc. And in a shooting dominated game, falling back from assault and shooting is okay in isolation.

 

Might be good against Orks actually, to be fair.

[Khornestar]

I don’t necessarily care as much about the power of the armies as the creativity that went into some of the subsequent books following the standard power armor/evil power armor dudes. Especially army traits. Some will always be mathematically better than others, sure, but there’s so much that’s just boring and totally lackluster, if not virtually useless. And they’re not gonna change army traits (one assumes) partway through the edition unless they’re broken and whined about. Word Bearers, for example, are probably not going to get a worthwhile trait/stratagem come th next Chapter Approved.

[Marshal Rohr]

Stop playing competitive or pickup games, and start playing narrative games.

[MARK0SIAN]

I definitely agree that the ork codex in particular seems like it’s just taken good elements from other codexes and added on even more bonuses. Like Their psychic power that is the same as might of heroes but instead of increasing strength etc by 1 it increases them by 2. It’s just objectively better.

 

However I’m not sure if Codex Creep is the right description. If it were, each subsequent codex would be more powerful than the last and that isn’t what we are seeing. Some of the later codexes still can’t match dark Eldar for example.

 

I think this edition is more a case of ‘spot which armies the designers like/play themselves’. Certain factions have just been shown clear favouritism both in terms of power but also in the effort that went into trying to make them fun, thematic and flavourful.

 

This has happened before but the rate of codex release makes it more apparent in this edition.

[Beams]

Y'know, rerolling one hit when you are BS5+ (55%) accross the board isn't nearly as good as rerolling one hit when you are BS3+ (89%)

 

It's also not as good when the main troop is generally 30 (210+ pts) strong instead of generally 5 strong (55/65+ pts).

 

Marines also have access to more special weapons, Lascannons, gravcannons, melta, plasma, multimelta, etc where Orkz generally can take a rokkit launcha or a big shoota.

 

So the prevailing salamanders tactic of msu with a special or heavy weapon doesn't port equally to Orks, since they are designed to not do MSU (mob rule, bonus attacks when large squads, mob up) vs (ATSKNF, Combat squads). This means only Ork heroes or Ork Tanks, since Ork artillery don't get it due to the GRETCHIN keyword, benefit from it more than Salamanders, and that is mostly due to a design shift on GWs part after Space Marines didn't get it on Vehicles, but everyone else did.

 

There's also been quite a few hints that GW has been seriously looking at Marines in chapter approved, so I don't think it's too fair to hate on Orkz because Marines. Marines only need to wait until December to get a second look, where there are still three* armies playing out of an index.

 

TL:DR --- the tactic is worse on Orkz, they needed something else with it or it wouldn't be worth taking.

 

 

 

*Sisters, Genecult, Imperial Agents/Inquisition/SoS/Assassins. Did I miss any others?

[Volt]

Stop playing competitive or pickup games, and start playing narrative games.

Playing narrative doesn't help much when you need to consistently make an effort to gimp one army just to give the other a fighting chance. And it removes any sense of satisfaction when you have effectively sawed off multiple limbs of the enemy force, leaving a stumpy cripple that you know has been curtailed just to make sure you don't get shot off the board. It's like playing a game of football or basketball where one team is purposefully screwing up and losing the ball. Victory can either be empty or downright insulting. That and you need to convince the other play to do that in the first place, which likely isn't even an option for many people.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Stop playing competitive or pickup games, and start playing narrative games.

Playing narrative doesn't help much when you need to consistently make an effort to gimp one army just to give the other a fighting chance. And it removes any sense of satisfaction when you have effectively sawed off multiple limbs of the enemy force, leaving a stumpy cripple that you know has been curtailed just to make sure you don't get shot off the board. It's like playing a game of football or basketball where one team is purposefully screwing up and losing the ball. Victory can either be empty or downright insulting. That and you need to convince the other play to do that in the first place, which likely isn't even an option for many people.

Comparing it to basketball or football still leaves it in the realm of competition. A true narrative event, when well done, isn’t about shooting people off the board or neutering the other force. It works around the imbalance to make the game fun. An example I’ve used before is in Total War Warhammer 2 intentionally using the lowest tier units in large armies against each other as it would be in the Old World. The game stops being a monster plus creature brawl and become really tactical as you need to plan maneuvers and unit facings in real time. It’s obviously not a one for one comparison, but if you’re worried about power creep on the tabletop the players could create a scenario that isn’t focused on Death Stars or vehicles. Like Centurion mode.

[Morticon]

Stop playing competitive or pickup games, and start playing narrative games.

I, personally, don't get my enjoyment from narrative play.  That's what I do role-playing for.  I dont get enjoyment from building a story and an army around that story and seeing how the dice gods treat the outcome. 

 

I enjoy pitting my tactical prowess against the prowess of other players.  I enjoy having tactical choices in movement, shooting, charging and even army selection rewarded by favourable, yet foreseeable-with-planning outcomes. 

 

Telling me (or players in general) to play the game differently is not taking into consideration what we enjoy about the game in the first place.  

 

GW need to do better.   

 

 

[Tyriks]

I think it really comes down to what books were written by fans of the armies. Eldar were one of the earliest but are still one of the strongest. There are plenty of more recent books that don't hold up to them. Grey Knights were a crap codex even when they were new.

 

When a codex is written by a fan of that army, it tends to be strong. Hopefully all the feedback they get will be heeded because the game is better when every army has unique and fun mechanics that are truly potent. I'd rather have the weaker armies made better than the good armies brought down.

[Warhead01]

I was talking to my usual Scrumgrod about this very thing.  I see this new codex as the most bestist/powerful codex I have ever played with. (Bestist from a powerful book standpoint.)
I have a tendency to not play the strongest list possible every game. Players are just going to have to decide how much is too much and if you know your local players I would think it would easily sort itself out. Some players will always just bring the best stuff for their easy button list, if it's annoying they will find they have less opponents. and either get it sorted or not play. 
Obviously tournaments are a different thing when it comes to powerful armies.  If my friend who is the least good at 40K isn't having a laugh when we play I turn it down a little the next time. 

[Scammel]

Ok, the book is clearly shaping up to be very powerful and Space Marines are clearly suffering but it never seems a good idea to predicate this purely on straight-up comparisons. Dakka Dakka Dakka is a great example of a rule that, in the context of the Ork book, is sometimes ineffective to the point of being pure fluff and only becomes seriously powerful when combined with stratagems and the right guns. 

 

Re Salamanders vs Deathskulls - Salamanders are more likely to use the reroll to bag a good result on a small number of dice. Deathskulls are often probably fishing for hits with a much larger pool of dice, so derive less value.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

8th edition over promised on several fronts, but some of it has to do with questionable design decisions. Orks should have strong stratagems and bonuses because they don't have allies. The problem is that a lot of players don't want them, and feel punished for not taking them. Then the new FOCs made it possible to just take the best units from multiple fractions and brew up a soup. Power creep is about the only answer for some armies because of it.

[Scammel]

8th edition over promised on several fronts, but some of it has to do with questionable design decisions. Orks should have strong stratagems and bonuses because they don't have allies. The problem is that a lot of players don't want them, and feel punished for not taking them. Then the new FOCs made it possible to just take the best units from multiple fractions and brew up a soup. Power creep is about the only answer for some armies because of it.

Really good point - I know it doesn't necessarily reflect well if armies such as Marines are forced to take allies to plug in gaps in their capabilities, but it is a notable disadvantage for a handful of Xenos races and should be accounted for.

[Brother Lunkhead]

 

 

Stop playing competitive or pickup games, and start playing narrative games.

Playing narrative doesn't help much when you need to consistently make an effort to gimp one army just to give the other a fighting chance. And it removes any sense of satisfaction when you have effectively sawed off multiple limbs of the enemy force, leaving a stumpy cripple that you know has been curtailed just to make sure you don't get shot off the board. It's like playing a game of football or basketball where one team is purposefully screwing up and losing the ball. Victory can either be empty or downright insulting. That and you need to convince the other play to do that in the first place, which likely isn't even an option for many people.

Comparing it to basketball or football still leaves it in the realm of competition. A true narrative event, when well done, isn’t about shooting people off the board or neutering the other force. It works around the imbalance to make the game fun. An example I’ve used before is in Total War Warhammer 2 intentionally using the lowest tier units in large armies against each other as it would be in the Old World. The game stops being a monster plus creature brawl and become really tactical as you need to plan maneuvers and unit facings in real time. It’s obviously not a one for one comparison, but if you’re worried about power creep on the tabletop the players could create a scenario that isn’t focused on Death Stars or vehicles. Like Centurion mode.

 

 

 

Even in narrative games there is an element of competition. Otherwise, you are simply playing make-believe with little plastic/resin soldiers on the table-top. A good competitive game doesn't have to be a "monster plus creature brawl". Most competitive games I play (basketball and football included) are not this at all. In order to have that element of competition that makes the game fun (whether or not you are a hard core competitor or just want a friendly challenge) there has to be some element of balance that gives both players a chance. Based on the current codex, not only are Space Marines non-competitive, but they are a joke on the table-top.

 

Each new codex is the platform on which GW sells miniatures for that faction. They want that codex to be shinny to attract new players and persuade old faction fans to buy new miniatures. In the past (and currently as far as I can see) this has been done mostly by giving powerful new traits and stats to that faction that make them nigh unstoppable.... at least until the next faction codex is released. In the past Space Marines and some other factions have weathered this "codex creep" better with some editions. I'm not blaming this on 8th Ed. per say. I actually thing the general rules of 8th Ed. have improved the game. Now, the easiest way (and laziest way IMO) to make your new codex shine is to make the stats as powerful as possible. 

 

If GW is sincerely committed to a more balance game then it is the editor(s) responsibility to tweak the author's work to create this balance. On the whole I don't have a problem with the authors. It's the editors I have a beef with. Until I see more creative editing (yes, there is such a thing) any talk of a more balanced game from the GW end is just that, talk. Perhaps the new Chapter Approved will bring some needed tweaks..... I hope so. But those improvements will probably only last until the next shinny new faction codex is released. Until we see real commitment to quality game rules (I'm not holding my breath on this issue) on the part of GW, the arms race will continue.

[spessmarine]

In the past, it's been a big point that the design of each new codex was always to be the new and most powerful codex of the edition. We saw this time and time again. 

 

However, when 8th edition came out there was a big fanfare from GW that with the new starting point, and the nigh-complete reset of codexes, that the codex arms race would finally be over. The game would be completely balanced, no one codex was more powerful than any others, and the skill of players (and luck of the dice) would be the deciding factor of games.

 

However within little over one year I feel we've already seen this go out the window. I don't know about any other Space Marine players out there, but I look at each codex coming out (except for CSM) and see that each new "chapter tactic" always feels like a supped up version of ones we saw in the Space Marine codex.

 

The tipping point for me actually writing this post was the release on the Community Site about the Deathskulls Kultur which starts as a direct copy of the Salamanders chapter tactic (re-roll one hit/wound each time they fight/shoot) except this get's improved to also being able to re-roll a damage roll. And it doesn't stop there. They then get an army-wide invulnerable save, AND objective priority. 

 

I will admit I'm a little biased in being a Salamander's player myself, but surely this is just ridiculous. It seems that every codex that gets released is designed to be better than the Space Marine codex at least, if not better than all the other codexes. All this ends up doing is making me want to actually get onto the table less because I feel I'm fighting with one hand tied behind my back (or more accurately the other army has two extra arms, with fists the size of boulders, and talons made of fire).

 

Am I crazy? Or are other people noticing this too? Curious to see what more capable generals think.

 

Not just that

Other subfaction traits effect more than just infantry+bikes+dreads

[Volt]

 

 

Stop playing competitive or pickup games, and start playing narrative games.

Playing narrative doesn't help much when you need to consistently make an effort to gimp one army just to give the other a fighting chance. And it removes any sense of satisfaction when you have effectively sawed off multiple limbs of the enemy force, leaving a stumpy cripple that you know has been curtailed just to make sure you don't get shot off the board. It's like playing a game of football or basketball where one team is purposefully screwing up and losing the ball. Victory can either be empty or downright insulting. That and you need to convince the other play to do that in the first place, which likely isn't even an option for many people.

Comparing it to basketball or football still leaves it in the realm of competition. A true narrative event, when well done, isn’t about shooting people off the board or neutering the other force. It works around the imbalance to make the game fun. An example I’ve used before is in Total War Warhammer 2 intentionally using the lowest tier units in large armies against each other as it would be in the Old World. The game stops being a monster plus creature brawl and become really tactical as you need to plan maneuvers and unit facings in real time. It’s obviously not a one for one comparison, but if you’re worried about power creep on the tabletop the players could create a scenario that isn’t focused on Death Stars or vehicles. Like Centurion mode.

 

Except this doesn't change anything because many units in 40k are complete garbage and will get kicked to the curb even in narrative matches. As I stated in order to have a "balanced" game in 8th edition, you need to purposefully curtail the lists to an obscene level of detail to find any degree of balance between them, and will result in one army being a crippled farce of its true self. It isn't even a game if one of the players has to play with all of their limbs tied behind their back and is only allowed to flop around on the ground and hit the ball with their head, and that's what a narrative game allowing things like Terminators to be at all viable would require. You couldn't even field some armies on account of them being just that broken. 

 

The issue is, at its core, 8th edition is just as broken and godawful now as 7th edition. It's broken in new ways, but the new ways are in some ways even worse than what we had before. And unfortunately due to the structure of 8th edition, we might not even get a 9th, instead constant tweaks that add more bloat and imbalance to the game. That said I cynically doubt a 9th edition would fix anything either. 40k seems to be trapped in a cycle of perpetually godawful rules. 

[Panzer]

What the others above said but also it's a lot less worse than it used to be considering GW regularly brings out FAQs/Erratas and the CA to attempt to balance things out. In the past when a Codex was broken it stayed broken until something more broken came out or they got their next Codex. Now we just have to wait a little bit for GW to fix things (or at least try to).

[Rogue]

Similar to the Deathskulls thing, I felt a little downhearted when I saw that Blood Axes can fall back and then shoot or charge.

 

Which is like the Ultras tactic, only they don’t get a -1 to their shooting (yes, their shooting is worse, I know, but they’re also not highly-drilled elites, which is the justification for marines to be able to pull the move off at all in the first place), and the orks get the bonus option to charge.

 

(They don’t get the leadership bonus the Ultras pick up, but do get free cover at range.)

 

I’m sure there are reasons and synergies and so on, but at a base level it’s vexing that orks can do what the marines do, but better.

 

Oh, and the design note suggests that it applies to all ork units, and certainly to vehicles. Grr.

[Interrogator Stobz]

To me CA is a part of the creep to sell methodology; firstly Indexes to even out, secondly dexes creeping armies apart, CA bringing the lower tier armies back, then repeat stage two.

Or a new Edition inside of a year from now to spur it again.

Not that I’m complaining, it is what it is.

[lythari]

To me CA is a part of the creep to sell methodology; firstly Indexes to even out, secondly dexes creeping armies apart, CA bringing the lower tier armies back, then repeat stage two.

Or a new Edition inside of a year from now to spur it again.

Not that I’m complaining, it is what it is.

 

I think we're giving GW too much credit as some evil corporate mastermind.  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

 

GW didn't know how to write a good codex at the beginning of 8th edition.  10+ books later they've learnt and are putting out codexes that are fun, fluffy and powerful.  I would rather this than seeing every codex at the grey knights level.

[Irbis]

The tipping point for me actually writing this post was the release on the Community Site about the Deathskulls Kultur which starts as a direct copy of the Salamanders chapter tactic (re-roll one hit/wound each time they fight/shoot) except this get's improved to also being able to re-roll a damage roll. And it doesn't stop there. They then get an army-wide invulnerable save, AND objective priority.

Well, funny you say that, because the other side of the coin I saw on the net were loud whiners claiming 7 pts orks is such a colossal nerf the whole book is trash and going to be worse than GK

 

Not that I disagree that SM really should have Chapter tactics apply to everything, not just infantry, and the tactics should be better maybe, but there is a slight problem with direct comparisons - if trait A is better than B but is placed on worse unit, is it really that good? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd actually wait with claiming the sky is falling (or that the codex is trash, for that matter) until people can playtest it and see if they can adjust...

 

 

Stop playing competitive or pickup games, and start playing narrative games.

I, personally, don't get my enjoyment from narrative play.  That's what I do role-playing for.  I dont get enjoyment from building a story and an army around that story and seeing how the dice gods treat the outcome.

 

I enjoy pitting my tactical prowess against the prowess of other players.  I enjoy having tactical choices in movement, shooting, charging and even army selection rewarded by favourable, yet foreseeable-with-planning outcomes.

 

What scenarios the hay do you play the narrative games don't require 'tactical prowess'?

 

I remember old Badab War narrative campaign really fondly because if anything, it required more thinking than standard pickup missions - because you not only had to find the way to win, you had to factor in if the manner of victory will leave you disadvantaged for the future scenarios, sometimes trying to achieve multiple goal layers at once. Were the missions imbalanced? Sure, but the 'weaker' army got multiple bonuses of its own (or easier objectives) creating pretty even experience, among the most fun 40K games I ever had.

 

Anyway, this post is kinda insulting: "you noobs don't know what real tactical prowess is, go away with your childish narrative games to playground and leave real 40K to experts". How about, I don't know, providing any support at all to these pretty big claims?  

[Trevak Dal]

Stop playing competitive or pickup games, and start playing narrative games.

I'd like to try and play scenarios based around American Civil War battles and skirmishes (fight for Little Round Top in the Gettysburg battle, the Breakout near Petersburg, Siege of Richmond) but in the 41st millennium with their level of technology and tactical and destructive ability (also amping up the defenses of course).

 

So for little round top, the idea would be the both players have hit penalties on their weapons at more than half range (like kill team), but the defenders get +1 for holding the high ground. Attackers move at -1 (if not in power armor) while scaling the hill, fly units take dangerous terrain checks if landing in the wooded area.

[Interrogator Stobz]

 

 

To me CA is a part of the creep to sell methodology; firstly Indexes to even out, secondly dexes creeping armies apart, CA bringing the lower tier armies back, then repeat stage two.

Or a new Edition inside of a year from now to spur it again.

Not that I’m complaining, it is what it is.

I think we're giving GW too much credit as some evil corporate mastermind. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

 

GW didn't know how to write a good codex at the beginning of 8th edition. 10+ books later they've learnt and are putting out codexes that are fun, fluffy and powerful. I would rather this than seeing every codex at the grey knights level.

LOL, I didn’t attribute it to malice as such, I don’t believe that they try and please everyone either as that’s not possible. Their focus is on selling and pleasing enough of us at any one point in time.

And as they have been fumbling through every edition like this to some degree and style, it seems to be selling stuff so why would they change?