Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As the newest cycle of codex churn begins, it got me thinking about what makes a codex "good." I've been thinking about this a bit lately since this is my first experience of codex churn as an adult. I played 40k as a teenager (3rd-5th) but dropped it back at the dawn of 6th ed as i was finishing college, life got in the way, and 6th+7th ed seemed wholly unappealing. I am 30 now and got back into 40k this spring (thank you TTS) and I'm experiencing the game through a whole new lens now that I've grown up, so to speak. I dont think that when I was younger I fully understood the relationship between the way the game was designed and the way that GW operated as a business and mainly just played around with my brother a few friends in my moms basement. Now that I have a better understanding of the way the game and the business are intertwined, it really got me thinking as to what GW could do to "balance" their business model and the way that their codices are written/released. Is there a way to write an internally balanced codex that still sells "the right" models? I've even heard some folks say that in a digital age GW needs to abandon the idea of codices all together, but would that upend the way the hobby side of their business operates? Does an internally balanced codex even matter in a meta that isnt internally balanced in and of itself, mostly by virtue of the nature of the rolling release codex cycle?

Im sorry if this just seems like a rambling series of questions, but this topic is broad and has many aspects to it so its hard to pin down and formulate into one cohesive question. These issues have on my mind a lot lately though, and I felt like i could learn something if i just opened the floor and listened to what other more experienced 40k enthusiasts have to say on this topic.

Variety. Multiple significant different builds that are all fairly evenly good. To use an example we're probably all familiar with:

The Dark Angels should be able to do Green Wing (with DW/RW support) and they should be able to do at least a couple different versions of Greenwing where the Greenwing matters, not just filler for DW/RW and 2-3 universally good Greenwing units, they should be able to do all DW, All RW, and combo RW/DW with no Greenwing.

If Dark Angels get a supplement that lets them do that, they'll have a good codex.

The problem with this question is that the issue isn't whether a given Codex is "good" or "bad", the problem is that GW chooses the staggered "Codex" release model in the first place. The insistence on updating a whole army's rules all at once and then not touching them for years at a time guarantees they'll screw something up that they then think they can't change because it'll make people less inclined to buy expensive hardback rulebooks, and the huge lead time between books has pushed them to compress the release schedule to the point that they have small teams working in parallel that don't talk to each other and don't have enough time to playtest.

Pretty much every other wargame in the world has a much slower release cycle, distributes the rules for a unit either primarily on cards in the unit box or primarily via some kind of free digital infrastructure, and (this is key) releases a small amount of stuff for everyone any time they do a release.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
they have small teams working in parallel that don't talk to each other and don't have enough time to playtest.

Pretty much every other wargame in the world ... (this is key) releases a small amount of stuff for everyone any time they do a release.

So in tandem with the rolling release cycle you are proposing that 40k is just so large of a game in terms of factions and datasheets that it has become unmanageable given the amount of releases GW plans in a given quarter?

tyranidwarrior wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
they have small teams working in parallel that don't talk to each other and don't have enough time to playtest.

Pretty much every other wargame in the world ... (this is key) releases a small amount of stuff for everyone any time they do a release.

So in tandem with the rolling release cycle you are proposing that 40k is just so large of a game in terms of factions and datasheets that it has become unmanageable given the amount of releases GW plans in a given quarter?

No, I'm proposing that doing a whole faction at once and then forgetting about it for a long time is necessarily going to create an unfocused game where balance and interaction between armies are poorly implemented. The breadth of the game is part of the problem but not the core of the problem.

The Codex should give you multiple ways to play your army and probably most importantly have interesting background for the faction that inspires you for a new project. There should also be rules to support this, giving you options.
Internal balance is important and that every unit feels like it fits into the army. I'm saying this because I'm a Death Guard player and we had a lot of profiles in the codex that either ruleswize didn't really fit (Daemons) or units that simply lacked the faction rules without no reason (Possessed, Lords, sorcerer).

Breton wrote:
Variety. Multiple significant different builds that are all fairly evenly good. To use an example we're probably all familiar with:

The Dark Angels should be able to do Green Wing (with DW/RW support) and they should be able to do at least a couple different versions of Greenwing where the Greenwing matters, not just filler for DW/RW and 2-3 universally good Greenwing units, they should be able to do all DW, All RW, and combo RW/DW with no Greenwing.

If Dark Angels get a supplement that lets them do that, they'll have a good codex.

Supplements are not a codex.

To the contrary, their buisness models which relies upon selling rules Piecemeal, the structure of how those are created, see ammonders post, are infact very much to the detriment of a good codex that has variety in playstyle.
Further the chronic lack of internal balance of a faction especially through multiple rulessources destroys any semblance of a good and healthy dex.
AND also forces the playerbase to buy into more books than would be necessary.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


No, I'm proposing that doing a whole faction at once and then forgetting about it for a long time is necessarily going to create an unfocused game where balance and interaction between armies are poorly implemented. The breadth of the game is part of the problem but not the core of the problem.

Aha, I see. So you would rather see each model come with its own datasheet and just have some sort of easily accessible collection of all of them online or something like that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Was the "index" era of 8th any more balanced in terms of internal faction balance then in other eras where datasheet releases were always staggered?

Yes and no, the index era is still coined by internal issues within the indexes, otoh the simultanious update was better then the situation we now have.

However Index 8th also had serious general mechanical issues in regards to allies especially.
Issues which could've been predicted without the playerbase beeing forced to Beta test for GW again.

A good codex:

- Good internal balance
- Good external balance
- Interesting and meaningful options
- At least one good build that plays to a typical fluff representation of the army
- Multiple good builds
- Creative and achievable secondary missions
- Creative and fluffy crusade rules
- Creative and interesting new fluff
- Good layout

Last but not least - and I can't stress this enough - give me back pictures of hobby conversions ffs.

one build is a bit limited especially in regards to your next line but you nailed pretty much what a dex should achieve... And why the current system ain't working.

Also the conversion bit, god i miss the ork highlights or the wierd and exotic chaos stuff..

What im looking for (and yes im only looking for World Eaters codex or Khorne Daemonkin)

1. It can stand on its own, it dosent need to be mixed up with anything to work. (often it feels like they are balanceing alot of chaos in terms of soup combos, making the unit on its own suppar or downright weak)

2. The playstyle maches the fluff, for example, khorne demons, you'd expect to see Bloodthirsters being DANGEROUS, yet you only see Bloodletter bombs of 20 and 30 while thirsters dont make their charge and drops like flies. That is a BIG fat fail.

3. Good support for crusade, the best playstyle in 9th in my honest oppinion.

4. Make the playstyle VIABLE. If its a melee army, make it work for melee regardless of how much of a shooty edition we are in, if it needs 3+++ feel no pain, SO BE IT. (i know it s over the top, but GW is often afraid to commmit when it comes to alot of melee armies and melee tyranid builds, but when its shooty just look at tau, how they get free overwatch, surival protocols etc etc etc to cater to their shooty only playstyle).

A good Codex needs good internal and external balance as well as being designed in such a way as to encourage and reward running armies that reflect the core characteristics of the army according to the fluff.

In terms of internal balance, the ideal Codex would allow a player to pick any unit in the Codex and find a use for it in some army build. This doesn't mean a unit needs to be viable in all possible builds, but there shouldn't be units that you just look at and can't figure out how to make them work. Equally, there shouldn't be units that you feel you absolutely have to include because you're handicapping yourself if you don't.

Externally balanced means the Codex has a variety of builds that are able to match up well against other armies from other Codices. That doesn't mean all possible builds work well. There will always be room for players to make bad choices in list building but as long as there are plentiful opportunities to make good choices that's not a problem. Having good external balance means games tend to be more enjoyable and players don't feel short-changed because they picked the "wrong" army to collect.

Finally, armies should reflect the background properly. That doesn't mean they should be one-note. Many people seem to like reducing factions to a single identity (Orks are the horde faction, for example) but there are often a variety of different archetypes that fit within the character of the army. In practical terms that means that Necrons, for example, should probably have a solid core of infantry, or a Guard tank army should be at least somewhat viable. In 8th edition some of the most successful Necron armies contained no (or very few) actual Necron models, for example, which is a failure of Codex design even if those armies happen to be competitive (they kinda weren't, which is even worse!)

tyranidwarrior wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


No, I'm proposing that doing a whole faction at once and then forgetting about it for a long time is necessarily going to create an unfocused game where balance and interaction between armies are poorly implemented. The breadth of the game is part of the problem but not the core of the problem.

Aha, I see. So you would rather see each model come with its own datasheet and just have some sort of easily accessible collection of all of them online or something like that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Was the "index" era of 8th any more balanced in terms of internal faction balance then in other eras where datasheet releases were always staggered?

Obviously the fact that GW forgot how math worked the one time they did try doing everything all together means the staggered release model and the scattered design teams that don't talk to each other is the best way to do everything.

If we look at GW bussiness model before 8th edition (notvthe early days) and after 8th edition we see that taking substansial steps to make a more balansed game leads to better sales.

Regarding selling new models, if the model is cool then people will buy it. Cool can be visually esthetically cool, or rulevise esthetically. Note that it does not to be severly undercosted. You can find reddit posts of this from earlier employees.

Very imbalansed units for several reasons makes a whole lot of models unusable. This funnels sales inti very few models. The rest of the sales take a hit. You also get more unhappy customers. This game is hard pressed for comparison to every other spare time activaty out there.

Also, in mtg at least, cassuals make out the most of the market. Cassual players really suffer under poor game.balance. Win at all cost players thrive under badly written rules and balanses.

So my point is in my opening statement. A well balansed games with efforts to keep it balansed leads to sales. Both new codexea are doing fine, eradicators aside.

A good codex allows an army to be played in multiple ways in a semi-competitive environment with few models being absolutely mandatory or so terrible that they should be avoided.
Every unit should have the means to perform its intended role (even if that role is generalist or jack-of-all-trades) and be costed accordingly. No unit should be a waste of points when it's trying to fulfill its primary function and no unit should be strictly better at something than another unit doing the same thing, especially if that unit can do other things as well.
Sub-faction should be of equal power, there should not be a clear winner which is superior to all others. The power of each sub-faction consists of its army bonus, faction-specific stratagems and characters.
Which relics to take should be an actual decision, six relics of equal power are much better than pages of things no one would ever take except for narrative reasons.
Stratagems should be tactical options that are used based on what is happening in games, not powerful combos which automatically hog a large portion of you CP if you bring the units to enable them.
Psychic disciplines and similar mechanics (like C'Tan powers or prayers) should have six equally powerful options so bringing multiple characters with access to these is not a waste.
And last, but not least: A good codex plays as the army is described in the fluff. If melee-focused ogryn lists, gretchin spam and tank-hugging primarchs are the one way to play your codex, it's not a good codex - even if it's winning tournaments.

tyranidwarrior wrote:
Was the "index" era of 8th any more balanced in terms of internal faction balance then in other eras where datasheet releases were always staggered?

I understand why many players loved the index era, but from an ork perspective it was a horrible time when only a hand full of units were playable at all and the only way to play and win with orks was not only expensive money wise but also utterly boring.
I literally stopped playing orks and started a new army during that time, because 8th was fun but orks weren't.

a_typical_hero wrote:
A good codex:

- Good internal balance - check
- Good external balance - remains to be seen, widespread granting of Core keyword is a concern
- Interesting and meaningful options - part-check, too many options if anything what with character datasheets being so split out
- At least one good build that plays to a typical fluff representation of the army - check
- Multiple good builds - check
- Creative and achievable secondary missions - part-check, Oath of Moment is great, the others are a bit of a miss
- Creative and fluffy crusade rules - check
- Creative and interesting new fluff - check
- Good layout - check

Last but not least - and I can't stress this enough - give me back pictures of hobby conversions ffs. - definite fail!!

This basically hits every nail on the head for me. I've added how I feel the new Marine Codex shapes up against each point.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with this question is that the issue isn't whether a given Codex is "good" or "bad", the problem is that GW chooses the staggered "Codex" release model in the first place. The insistence on updating a whole army's rules all at once and then not touching them for years at a time guarantees they'll screw something up that they then think they can't change because it'll make people less inclined to buy expensive hardback rulebooks, and the huge lead time between books has pushed them to compress the release schedule to the point that they have small teams working in parallel that don't talk to each other and don't have enough time to playtest.

Pretty much every other wargame in the world has a much slower release cycle, distributes the rules for a unit either primarily on cards in the unit box or primarily via some kind of free digital infrastructure, and (this is key) releases a small amount of stuff for everyone any time they do a release.

Also bad thing that GW does is that when it does release new models out of cycle, instead of giving the full rules and point values, they then ask you to buy the campaign book for those specific models. The latest batch of Admech releases immediately comes to mind with that. Hopefully (it won't happen), with this new world of everyone getting a digital dex with their codex purchase, it means that units/characters for said faction released later on can simply be added into the pdf in an update, so that additional buy ins are not needed.

On the plus side, GW has been working slightly to do balance fixes, point changes, etc more often than before (almost never), but then it comes with the fact that you need to buy in for that too.

I think in this day and age the rules and codex should be digital, maybe even through a subscription (wouldn't like to think what they'd charge though!)
Until then I don't think they can balance one codex against another in the way they're currently released, internally a codex should be balanced so that multiple play styles and units are viable choices but they don't even usually manage this. But overall the deciding factor is money, having the newest unit be super good in order for it to sell has worked for them for years and consistently unsettles any hope of balance.
And just reading through my post I realise I have equated 'good' with balanced which I guess is my criteria.

tyranidwarrior wrote:

Aha, I see. So you would rather see each model come with its own datasheet and just have some sort of easily accessible collection of all of them online or something like that?

I know I'm not the one you were asking, but my preference would be free, downloadable rules for each faction on the GW site.

This would have a number of advantages:

1) It's much easier to amend rules to fix proofreading errors, clarify ambiguity, and/or tweak units/rules that are causing issues in some way. Indeed, most erratas can just be incorporated wholesale into the rules.

2) It's much easier to add new rules. You could easily release index-style rules early into a new edition, and then gradually update them with stuff like Warlord Traits, Artefacts, Chapter Tactics etc. (obviously you'd be adding artefacts or whatever to all of them at once). In contrast, with a physical book you have to have absolutely everything ready at the same time, so you can't just do the key aspects for every army first and then come back to add more stuff later.

3) It's much easier to add new dataslates. Planning to eventually release new models but don't want to risk people buying/making alternatives in the time between rules and models? No problem - just add the relevant dataslates to the rules when those models are actually available for purchase.

4) People can look at the rules for other armies for free, and there is no longer an extra £25-30 tax on starting any new army. Or, for that matter, on maintaining an existing one through an edition. So while they'll be making less money from codices, there's a good chance they'll make the same amount or more from additional model sales.

To answer the second question: No. the community's definition of a good codex is antithetical to GW's overall design philosophy and goal, which is generating the maximum amount of sales through their game platform warhammer 40,000.

The purpose of every rules release is to sell you the idea of the rules release, and to get you excited about the idea of buying models to go along with those rules.

In order to do that, they must ensure that 1, the models you already own are not as appealing as the new models you probably don't own, and 2, the rules are exciting enough to entice you to buy in to both the book purchase and hopefully the additional models purchase.

Both goals are counter to the idea of creating a balanced, non-overpowered, varied codex book and game as a whole.

In order to achieve goal 1, GW is motivated to ensure that whatever the current meta build is for a given unit or whatever the current meta unit is for a given role, it becomes not that. What weapons did not get the buffs that came from 8th to 9th in the marine codex? Lascannons, Assault Cannons, Thunder Hammers, and basically every unit that existed in a competitive build. Many of those options, I'm thinking in particular about Lascannons, are now strictly worse than direct competition (multi-meltas). As a competitive player, where you have the choice between the two, it is now obvious that you should choose the latter over the former every time.

In order to achieve goal 2, the book being exciting enough to purchase, GW COULD make each book devastatingly overpowered compared to all other books. But, generally, they choose a somewhat softer route of making sure an army is in a deep, deep power trough before giving them new rules. As the months go on, good codexes slowly lose competitive options as new contenders start to shove them out and GW nerfs them with periodical balance updates. GW also strategically chooses NOT to update certain factions they plan on releasing codexes for soon - see CSM right now, who are just strictly worse marines once again. I do not doubt their codex release will be coming soon.

What's GW's business model?
They have a rules team and they have external advisors like Mike Brandt who's basically playing Nids and AM.
Part of the business model seems to be pushing SM to the extreme
which can be seen from their two codices in the 8th ed and
in the 9th they are still pushed hard. Hello Eradicators?

the_scotsman wrote:


In order to do that, they must ensure that 1, the models you already own are not as appealing as the new models you probably don't own, and 2, the rules are exciting enough to entice you to buy in to both the book purchase and hopefully the additional models purchase.

Both goals are counter to the idea of creating a balanced, non-overpowered, varied codex book and game as a whole.

In order to achieve goal 1, GW is motivated to ensure that whatever the current meta build is for a given unit or whatever the current meta unit is for a given role, it becomes not that. What weapons did not get the buffs that came from 8th to 9th in the marine codex? Lascannons, Assault Cannons, Thunder Hammers, and basically every unit that existed in a competitive build. Many of those options, I'm thinking in particular about Lascannons, are now strictly worse than direct competition (multi-meltas). As a competitive player, where you have the choice between the two, it is now obvious that you should choose the latter over the former every time.

In order to achieve goal 2, the book being exciting enough to purchase, GW COULD make each book devastatingly overpowered compared to all other books. But, generally, they choose a somewhat softer route of making sure an army is in a deep, deep power trough before giving them new rules. As the months go on, good codexes slowly lose competitive options as new contenders start to shove them out and GW nerfs them with periodical balance updates. GW also strategically chooses NOT to update certain factions they plan on releasing codexes for soon - see CSM right now, who are just strictly worse marines once again. I do not doubt their codex release will be coming soon.

This is a tinfoil hat conspiracy that has been proven time and again to not be true (and has been outright stated by members of the design studio past and present to not be how GW designs its rules).

The meta shifts from edition to edition because GW is attempting to balance the game and counteract what is perceived as overpowered lists or undesirable playstyles. The shift is the natural end result of having the dominant playstyle nerfed as a result of attempted balance without properly accounting for a new and unintended emergent playstyle in return.

Your power trough to power peak analysis also fails critically because a number of codexes have remained in troughs or peaks over multipled codexes. Its clear GW isn't intentionally shifting the power level of a codex back and forth from release to release, Tyranids have been in a trough for like 3-4 codexes now, Orks were in a similar place and still not in a great place but are at least playable. Dark Eldar went from being overpowered to in a rut and have stayed in a rut. Necrons only got marginally better in 9th than they were in 8th, etc.

 Huron black heart wrote:
But overall the deciding factor is money, having the newest unit be super good in order for it to sell has worked for them for years and consistently unsettles any hope of balance.

This can't be proven with any consistency at all and I really wish people would stop repeating that over and over again.

Just look at the current Marine release. There are several threads full of people saying that Eradicators are lethal enough to shift the meta away from vehicles and big monsters. What else are Marines getting? A brand new Land Speeder, a brand new Predator, a turret and a bunker. All of them come with serviceable, but not crazy rules and are prime targets for Eradicators.

I think all the evidence is that GW doesn't know what makes an overpowered unit, rather than "haha, we've released 4-5 new things, but this, this should be the unit we want to sell out on."

Unfortunately *power* is a major element of being a good codex. In my opinion the Guard and DE codexes in 8th were great, because 90% or so of the units in those books were priced aggressively compared with the existing meta. In other words, you were overpowered. But this meant you had *choices* - you didn't have to play the optimised cookie cutter build to compete with your friends (while the best combos were outright obnoxious).

But this is because those books were generally undercosted. As codex creep took its toll, the weaker stuff became bad, and you were compelled more and more to optimise or be left behind.

The Necron book in 8th was the reverse. Just about everything was overcosted - so you didn't have a choice, it was just a dead faction. Just an awful book really. Eventually 20%+ points reductions in CA would bring some units back - but you still had a very limited pool of units worth using.

In theory, a balanced game would have every unit about 8/10 - but I can accept this is difficult.

The other thing I'd mention though, is the clash between synergies and canned strategy.

I remember reading the GSC codex with joy. This was a book with loads and loads of synergy. You want units X and Y with this chapter tactic and this relic with that stratagem etc.

And then... then I realised the whole internet knew that. So rather than it being an interesting synergy, what you had was a book with maybe 5 "tricks", and you're list would include 3 of them. As would - give or take - every single GSC build ever. There was very little scope to make that faction meaningfully *yours* beyond playing it in a way totally contrary to how the book was written. Which sucked.

The Sisters Codex is a better example of it done right (although Valorous Heart maybe is a bit too strong). But again I think this is because sufficient units in the book are still priced to move. If regular Sisters in the 9th Edition CA were hiked to 13 points, and everything in the book getting a commensurate increase, I think they'd be rubbish, regardless of the rules.

A healthy game which is fun and accessible has been proven to generate the most money over time by many companies. 8th itself is proof of that now much more paying players are in the game, I can't remember any release ever selling out before.

In gaming, if you have a decent game you don't need to manipulate your customers, you just need to keep them happy and they keep spending.

As others have said - a good codex has both solid internal and external balance and allows a variety of builds.

And contrary to what many will tell you - it IS possible in the current GW business model. It really is. It's even happened before. The "codex" problem doesn't have anything to do with the current model because the current codex problem has pretty much always existed through all the different iterations of the GW model over the years.The only difference may be that, with the rapid increase in releases, you might not have to go as long with a bad codex as you did in the past.

The real issue isn't even that they stagger the releases or sell the rules. The real issue is that the design team doesn't appear to use current industry best practices for publishing, Q&A, OR design. When you listen to a HOrus Heresy author talk about making the series, the big thing that sticks out is how integrated they all were with another. They talked all the time and were in constant contact - "Hey! I'm taking your character and doing "X" with him - what do you think?" They were working together at all times to make sure everything they did with the main story held together cohesively and made sense.

When you hear the rules writers talk - it's something else entirely and you can see that in the books themselves. Codex "A" is made with design philosophy "B" and released. "Ok - now release codex "C" under design philosophy "D". They don't appear to work consistently under one clean vision and can shift design strategies drastically from one book to the next. This creates wild inconsistency in quality and causes a lot of unpredictable results. Then, it is compounded by a faulty QA process that has seen the SAME copy/paste error repeated across multiple successive books.

It almost seems like they need a creative director with a strong, singular vision who can help maintain the consistency of the vision across each release. They also (imo) need more people who are interested in more armies. Back when they still listed the codex author on the cover, you would hope certain writers wrote your book because you knew they LIKED the army and understood what it was about. For example, one of the best books ever (imo) was Phil Kelly's 4th ed Ork book, but, at the same time, one of the WORST books ever was Phil Kelly's 6th ed CSM dex. Phil was good with orks. He "got" them. Chaos though? "Hey! Here's some random for oyur random because we heard you like random! Also - feth you Chaos scum!" The ork book had options, multiple builds and lasted from 4th all the way to it's replacement in 6th and remained somewhat competitive the entire time. The CSM book on the other hand was out of date the second it was released, and actively punished the player for using it. Phil is a good codex writer imo - but he doesn't get Chaos, and that's the other problem I think they have. Right now, if you have an army like Dark Eldar (who are barely hanging on by a thread), you have to hope that someone in the studio is an advocate for your army and really understands them.

In my world, a good codex is one that doesn't exist.

IMHO, the codex model is crappy. It's an outdated way of updating armies and rules that even 30k and LOTR have overcome with the "army list" concept (so GW knows how to do it).

In a digital age, it should be possible to:
a) update rules quickly and simultaneously
b) inform players about rules updates (no more stealth reprints!)
c) include the community in playtesting and grading new army lists (FW does this with 30k)
d) include USRs/whatever you want to call them and common wargear (so when they say "all power swords or relics that can replace power swords in the 40k army lists book gets updated" it includes everyone). LotR does this.

The problems are:
a) less money. Digital rules source could be subscription-based, which seems to be how they wanted to transition the app, but the crucial thing with subscription services are that they're a service and GW I don't think has learned that yet.
b) Player confusion. I know we internet-goers here on the forum wouldn't be confused by digital rules, but we self-select for people that are pretty good at computers. I know for a fact that some people (myself included) prefer to at least own a cool book, and I also know for a fact that some players would be very confused if the entire game were suddenly digital.

can we PLEASE PLEASE stop suggesting "subscription based services" the 40k app is a pretty telling argument against it

A good codex:

1. Has good internal balance, with no units that are particular standouts or especially weak.

2. Has good external balance, meaning it can stand up to other armies without being too powerful.

3. Supports a variety of playstyles, so that players can choose what approach they like rather than being pigeonholed into a single strategy.

4. Supports a variety of army compositions, again allowing players to shape their collection rather than having to take X, Y, and Z.

5. Properly embodies the faction's fluff, so that what they do on the tabletop feels right with respect to their lore.

I think Tycho's right on the money; GW's done this before- the 3rd Ed Tyranid codex by Andy Chambers is still my favorite of all time, because when you read his notes about designing it it's clear that he understood the faction, understood how they play, and really went out of his way to come up with cool systems to represent their fluff. It gave us the fun custom species and mutants rules, which were a great source of conversion material. Conversely, the 5th Ed Tyranid codex by Robin Cruddace is the worst, because Robin is a self-admitted treadhead who dislikes Tyranids, and that dislike manifests as bland, unbalanced, un-fun rules.

In an ideal world, each edition would have all the writers come together, settle on their design ethos for the edition, allocate writing responsibilities to writers who are advocates for the faction, and then regroup periodically as they work, ensuring that all the books are written to the same power level, same design concepts, and by the people who can best do them justice.

My biggest concern with GW's writing as of late isn't the ever-present balance issue; it's more that I don't get the sense that there are many advocates for armies other than Marines. I know, I know, Marine grumbling, but hear me out- regardless of how you feel about current balance, with SM2.0 and now 9th Ed it's clear that the developers have personal investment in Marines as an army, designing mechanics like Doctrines, successor chapters, and drop pod rules to give them fun tools and help them fit their fluff. You can't say the same about Drukhari, where options have simply been stripped out in each new codex and Raiding Force wasn't even usable for all of 8th. Chaos is in this awkward state of their Marines underperforming and being just 'loyalists, but worse', but GW just sees that players use Cultists and nerfs those to compensate. Astra Militarum are still basically cruising on their 5th Ed design, and even when they're strong, they're a pretty same-y force without much variety. The flipside to this is that when Marines get new releases that encroach on the design space of other factions, there doesn't seem to be an advocate for those factions to say 'hold on, this is my army's thing'.

I'd just like to see some indication that the design team genuinely cares about factions that have been historically neglected. Balance can be achieved with points adjustments, but bad rules stick around.