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.

 pretre wrote:
GW could do a better job making a balanced, clear, concise ruleset. For one reason or another, they choose not to. I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do) whereas others believe that it is intentional (intentional imbalance to sell certain units).

I agree with you there (Are we sure the world didn't end on the 21st?) - their stance on things like the Internet shows that they're just ignorant (willfully or not) about what the players would like to see improve. Which is sad overall.

Yeah, I was talking about this the other day with someone.

My theory is ... with the exception of maybe one or two people at GW (prob Kirby) most of them are just stuck into the 'this is the best job EVA!' mode and putting out cool stuff so they can play more games and have a bunch of fun. It really never sinks in that there are other people who might disagree with the way they do it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:
GW could do a better job making a balanced, clear, concise ruleset. For one reason or another, they choose not to. I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do) whereas others believe that it is intentional (intentional imbalance to sell certain units).

I agree with you there (Are we sure the world didn't end on the 21st?) - their stance on things like the Internet shows that they're just ignorant (willfully or not) about what the players would like to see improve. Which is sad overall.

TBH though, players ask for Cult Terminators in the CSM Codex and don't get it. Players whine. Players ask for Inner Circle Knights in the DA book and DO get it. Players whine.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TBH though, players ask for Cult Terminators in the CSM Codex and don't get it. Players whine. Players ask for Inner Circle Knights in the DA book and DO get it. Players whine.

Yeah, I don't think that those things have any causal relationship. GW just puts what they like in each codex. Players could whine for anything and it would have a coin flips chance of making it in.

 pretre wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TBH though, players ask for Cult Terminators in the CSM Codex and don't get it. Players whine. Players ask for Inner Circle Knights in the DA book and DO get it. Players whine.

Yeah, I don't think that those things have any causal relationship. GW just puts what they like in each codex. Players could whine for anything and it would have a coin flips chance of making it in.

I dont think the players opinions will ever influence what GW puts in a codex. I agree it would be nice but when the players start making the rules and choices its not controlled by GW anymore and hence they lose control.

What I always thought was GW needs a community liason, someone who actually reads the forums and comments and or helps with rules questions.

Or even better may be their own forums where responses can be fast and accurate.

 Icelord wrote:
Or even better may be their own forums where responses can be fast and accurate.

Yeah, that's not going to happen anytime soon. GW went down that road and I'm sure has not forgotten how it went last time.

 Icelord wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So... Yet another rant about balance when the main point of this thread is poor rules quality.

And even then, the incorrect idea that balance means everyone is the same.

Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.

Starcraft,

Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.

There's also something to be said for constructive feedback. Going "WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAH BAD RULES WAAAAAH" is dumb, but saying something like, "I don't like how this rule is ambiguously worded and I feel like they should have fixed this or at least FAQ'd it" is pretty reasonable to me. Likewise, going "WAAAH WAAAH WAAAAH PLAY ANOTHER GAME WAAAH" is dumb, but saying something like, "I realize there's some flaws, but it works well enough to have a good time and I don't think it should bother you that much" is pretty reasonable too.

 Evertras wrote:
Starcraft,

Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.

Reasonably even = 100% balanced?

Also, I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.

100% balance is nonexistent. Even chess has imbalance depending on starting color. I guess if we all want to play CoinFlip the Game (tm), we will find balance there. (Although I heard nickels are seriously OP!!!)

 pretre wrote:

 Evertras wrote:
Starcraft,

Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.

Reasonably even = 100% balanced?

Also, I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.

100% balance is nonexistent. Even chess has imbalance depending on starting color. I guess if we all want to play CoinFlip the Game (tm), we will find balance there. (Although I heard nickels are seriously OP!!!)

You beat me to it! I totally agree video games are not a comparison. Name a game in the same genre of warhammer that is balanced 100%. It's not possible.

I didn't go waah wash quit but if people are going to post about how bad the game is then I personally feel they need a different hobby. Constructive critics are great but unfortunately its rare they have a biased opinion less than anyone else.

Of course, there's still a big difference between 100% balanced and the current state of affairs. We can certainly hope for a happy medium.

Not 100% balanced but reasonably balanced that is a tabletop miniature game: Infinity.

 pretre wrote:

 Evertras wrote:
Starcraft,

Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.

Reasonably even = 100% balanced?

Also, I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.

If you're setting a goal of '100% balanced', that's a pretty impossible feat. How do you define that, anyway, when you have to account for player skill?



To me, that's about as close to '100% balanced' as you can get, particularly considering the game went through zero physical changes through that period, and hadn't since 2001. There was one balancing factor, to be fair, and that was the maps that may favor one race over another, and those did change over time by the community and the tournaments that used them.

The only thing 40k has that Starcraft doesn't in terms of variables is random chance (aside from the high ground thing). When you get down to it, video games are really just fancy tabletop games of one sort or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Icelord wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Evertras wrote:
Starcraft,

Asymmetric balance is possible. If you look at win rates between the three races in Brood War they went through shifts, but the game never changed during quite a long period, and everyone came out reasonably even.

Reasonably even = 100% balanced?

Also, I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.

100% balance is nonexistent. Even chess has imbalance depending on starting color. I guess if we all want to play CoinFlip the Game (tm), we will find balance there. (Although I heard nickels are seriously OP!!!)

You beat me to it! I totally agree video games are not a comparison. Name a game in the same genre of warhammer that is balanced 100%. It's not possible.

I didn't go waah wash quit but if people are going to post about how bad the game is then I personally feel they need a different hobby. Constructive critics are great but unfortunately its rare they have a biased opinion less than anyone else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. People that just whine grate me too. I'm just trying to avoid both sides going off the deep end here.

I'm all for the 'happy medium' someone else mentioned, but I'm less concerned about balance and more concerned about a clear ruleset, personally.

I will totally disagree that video games can't be a comparison. Both video games and tabletop games use a set of rules and allow players to play by those rules. It's just different mediums.

 Evertras wrote:
If you're setting a goal of '100% balanced', that's a pretty impossible feat. How do you define that, anyway, when you have to account for player skill?

I didn't set the goal, the guy you responded to with 'Starcraft' did.

To me, that's about as close to '100% balanced' as you can get, particularly considering the game went through zero physical changes through that period, and hadn't since 2001.

I'd have to see the data and not the graphs, but it does not appear that balanced. Terrans, for example, under performed the other races since 2008 with a less than 50% win rate. Either way, we don't really need to talk about Starcraft, since it isn't a tabletop wargame.

The only thing 40k has that Starcraft doesn't in terms of variables is random chance (aside from the high ground thing). When you get down to it, video games are really just fancy tabletop games of one sort or another.

Except they don't have Random Chance, a major factor in tabletop wargames, they don't have physical measurement, modelling etc so on. It really isn't the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Evertras wrote:
I will totally disagree that video games can't be a comparison. Both video games and tabletop games use a set of rules and allow players to play by those rules. It's just different mediums.

Under that loose set of guidelines, Poker, Golf, Basketball, Paintball, Pickup sticks, Jenga and Parcheesi are all valid comparisons to 40k.

To be fair, even as someone who generally wouldn't defend GW's rules practices, there's a lot more variables in a 40k game, especially human variables, that are controlled or eliminated simply by virtue of being a virtual environment in Starcraft, and GW doesn't have access to the game information and results of hundreds of millions of games played.

A lot of the rules in the BRB are ambiguous... And judging by the statements in the BRB about it being a narrative, I think that they did it on porpoise (hehehehe). It's like the first rule in the D&D books --- These are Guidelines, to help you play a game. Nowhere does it say, hard, fast, set in stone... Would it be nice if all of the rules were finely, and clearly detailed down to the finite minutia of different situations that might arise during play? Sure... However, as a fan of Amarillo Design Burea; I've seen what those books look like... (Star Fleet Battles, for the unwashed Star Wars masses)...

You buy the basic game, the "Captain's" edition... Little detail, vague situational instructions, few options... Then you buy the "Admiral's" edition... Which is not a complete game, on it's own, but must be colated with the Captain's edition... The Admiral's edition adds clarity to some rules, expands on just about every rule, and about doubles the options of the Captain's edition alone... Then, if you want aircraft carriers, you buy a module; which further clarifies, expands and colates... If you want PF's, you buy another module... If you want etc, etc...
Soon, you have 4x 5"-D-Ring binders full of pages of colated material... That reads like a tech-manual for a Los Angelos class nuclear submarine... I know, I was on one... And yet, in the course of a given game, you will still run into "what does this really mean!?!" scenarios...

I believe, that they write what will get people playing... Then give out random FAQ, errata, etc. info pages, to clarify what is significant...

It's not the initial writing that is bad... It's the thumbing their noses at questions that they think have obvious answers if you just take the time to READ THE BOOK... That's how God does it, why shouldn't GW? READ THE BOOK... All of the answers are there... They may be ambiguous, they may be sketchy... But how many times have YOU sat around, whiling away the hours with good friends, talking about clear-cut, concise rules to a game? I don't believe that I ever have. You don't see a lot of forum/blogs about Risk, or Monopoly... Does this mean that they should write vague rules on purpose? No... But I don't think that there is nearly the problem that so many bemoan...

Would I do it differently? Probably not... I am not a game designer, though... So I would do it the way that I have seen others do it...
Could THEY do it differently? Yes, but the price goes up (ie: more money sunk into the Star Fleet Battles books/modules than into any given 40k army that I have, with the exception of my Orkz).
So we are left with, price, or clarity... I vote price.

Just my two bits.

 pretre wrote:

I didn't set the goal, the guy you responded to with 'Starcraft' did.

Fair enough, but I suppose that was more a general statement than intended to be directed at you. I totally agree that no game is 100% balanced, but getting close to it with asymmetric abilities isn't impossible.

I'd have to see the data and not the graphs, but it does not appear that balanced. Terrans, for example, under performed the other races since 2008 with a less than 50% win rate. Either way, we don't really need to talk about Starcraft, since it isn't a tabletop wargame.

Keep in mind this is a graph from 40-60% win rate. 'Underperforming' here is losing 2-3 games out of 100 more than the other two races. Zerg vs Protoss is actually a little more worrisome to me (youch, 40% dips!), but that's corrected itself over time. All these fluctuations are from map tweaks and players themselves. Strategies are figured out, counters are created, and the cycle continues.

Except they don't have Random Chance, a major factor in tabletop wargames, they don't have physical measurement, modelling etc so on. It really isn't the same thing.

Distance and ranges in Starcraft are pretty important, as well as 'model' size. This is starting to get into semantics, though, and yes, it's not the same thing at all. But if we're talking about specific rule differences (of which there are many), that's getting away from the point that asymmetric balance is possible within a strictly defined ruleset.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Evertras wrote:
I will totally disagree that video games can't be a comparison. Both video games and tabletop games use a set of rules and allow players to play by those rules. It's just different mediums.

Under that loose set of guidelines, Poker, Golf, Basketball, Paintball, Pickup sticks, Jenga and Parcheesi are all valid comparisons to 40k.

If we're talking about asymmetric balance, yes, they are. The ones you named don't really have to worry about that, though.

I'll drop the vidya games comparison regardless, even if I think it's still valid. I certainly can't make an argument for a more balanced tabletop game, so I'll let this rest in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, even as someone who generally wouldn't defend GW's rules practices, there's a lot more variables in a 40k game, especially human variables, that are controlled or eliminated simply by virtue of being a virtual environment in Starcraft, and GW doesn't have access to the game information and results of hundreds of millions of games played.

Also totally true. Starcraft and video games in general have the unique ability to automatically track absolutely tons of data of all kinds. I'll still stand by the theory that asymmetric balance in any game is possible and cite Starcraft as an example, but I will happily admit it's WAY harder for a tabletop game to achieve it.

Also to play devil's advocate with myself, there's way more armies in 40k than there are in Starcraft, which makes things exponentially harder. I really don't even dislike GW for any imbalances I perceive, for the record. Just arguing theory at this point.

If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.

Point right here, cant think of many of the current...well not big dogs, but the "underdogs" (PP, Wyrd, SG etc), in comparison to GW anyway, that have this problem in the way GW do. Maybe the occasional unit outshined by another, but nothing as bad on such a scale (though im not entirely sure with PP as i dont play)

 Icelord wrote:
You beat me to it! I totally agree video games are not a comparison. Name a game in the same genre of warhammer that is balanced 100%. It's not possible.

That's a ridiculous strawman. Nobody expects literal 100% balance where there isn't even the slightest advantage to any army/unit/etc. What we DO expect is a reasonable level of balance comparable to other games like MTG or Warmachine, where it might not be 100% but there's a much wider range of "top-tier" options and a much smaller difference in power between the top tier and the second best.

 Icelord wrote:
Which game has totally unique armies that are 100% balanced? That game should put GW out of business. Dont say warmachine/hoards cause its certainly not true.

Again, a strawman. Nobody is demanding literal 100% balance combined with armies that have absolutely nothing in common. But saying that nobody else has reached that perfect ideal level doesn't in any way lessen the criticism of GW, since other companies DO make games that do a much better job of it.

 Skipphag da Devoura wrote:
Would it be nice if all of the rules were finely, and clearly detailed down to the finite minutia of different situations that might arise during play? Sure... However, as a fan of Amarillo Design Burea; I've seen what those books look like... (Star Fleet Battles, for the unwashed Star Wars masses)...

TBH that's a problem specific to SFB. Consider MTG instead: there's a simplified set of starter rules to walk you through your first games, a standard rulebook like 40k's (or most other games), and a SFB-style phone-book-sized set of precisely written tournament rules. However, most people use the standard rulebook which is good enough to cover most situations and probably never even read the tournament rules. The tournament rules exist just so that every single obscure interaction has an explicit answer, so that when there is a dispute over the rules (especially in a tournament with thousands of dollars in cash prizes at stake) all the players/judges have to do is consult the tournament rules and find the answer.

So, the point here is that it's possible to have flawless ambiguity-free rules without creating a massive and frustrating barrier to entry for new players.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.

To be fair, GW has been getting a lot better at this. Look at the new Codex: Chaos Space Marines or its "pseudo-6e" predecessors, Codex: Necrons and Codex: Grey Knights. These Codexes, while not perfect (Mutilators, Triarch Prætorians, Assassins besides the Vindicare (and debatably Callidus)) are much more internally balanced than past releases have been.

 pretre wrote:
GW could do a better job making a balanced, clear, concise ruleset. For one reason or another, they choose not to. I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do) whereas others believe that it is intentional (intentional imbalance to sell certain units).

It's probably a bit of both actually.

They're too busy 'forging a narrative' with their new randomcinematic tables and charts, all the while focusing on 'selling toys to kids'.

Entirely possible.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?

as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?

Strawmans and ad hominems. You are a truly a master debater

 Kingsley wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.

To be fair, GW has been getting a lot better at this. Look at the new Codex: Chaos Space Marines or its "pseudo-6e" predecessors, Codex: Necrons and Codex: Grey Knights. These Codexes, while not perfect (Mutilators, Triarch Prætorians, Assassins besides the Vindicare (and debatably Callidus)) are much more internally balanced than past releases have been.

Chaos Space Marine internally balanced? Are you serious? You picked the worst one for that because on all accounts there's quite a number of "Dud" choices compared to others, lack of options, lack of decent pricing, lack of well thought out things..

Heck, even between the basic armory and unit choices it has issues. A Mark of Slaanesh for a Lord is the same as a Mark of Nurgle, a chainaxe for a lord is far more expensive compared to a unit, a pair of LC will be far more on a Lord with TDA then standard terminators, and that's simply the beginning of the issues.

Silly question, but isn't this very reason why things like the INAT FAQ were created? Now with the apparent discontinuing lack of updating of the INAT FAQ, and each TO/event using its own FAQ, wouldn't this become more of an issue as people go from event to event? I suppose it has always been like that though. Haven't those of us previously using the INAT FAQ essentially been playing Dakka-hammer 40k anyway? Although I enjoy some of the discussions that go on in the YMDC forums, and the answers provided therein, I'd ultimately like it to be for those forums to not be needed in their current capacity. Rules discussions obviously have a place, but I can go into a MTG rules forum and ask a complicated question about the rules and get a singular, if not complicated, answer with rules quotes and everything. Some even simple questions in 40k lack a true RAW answer all because of GW's poor quality rule set. Instead, we are often left to debate and argue back and forth about what the rules really say or mean due to poor wording on GW's part. Much of the bickering and arguing back and forth that occurs both on and offline could be stopped by having a nice and tight clear rule set. I would gladly begrudgingly pay more or wait longer for GW to do so, but the point being is that I would pay more or wait longer to make this happen as a customer. Should I have to? No. But if we are to vote with our wallets, why not let GW know that this is what at least some of the player base wants? Which actually gives me an idea for a poll...
/rant

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
If we're going to talk about problems with balance, I think a bigger problem, and one that GW stands more to gain by correcting, is the complete lack of internal balance. I don't understand why they would put out rules that entirely discourage people from playing with certain entries in a codex, and hence not buying their models (ie their primary stated reason for making this game). So while we're demanding that people shouldn't auto-win by playing the new army of the month, let's also demand that people shouldn't auto-lose for bringing Ogryn, or Shining Spears, or Flash Gitz.

To be fair, GW has been getting a lot better at this. Look at the new Codex: Chaos Space Marines or its "pseudo-6e" predecessors, Codex: Necrons and Codex: Grey Knights. These Codexes, while not perfect (Mutilators, Triarch Prætorians, Assassins besides the Vindicare (and debatably Callidus)) are much more internally balanced than past releases have been.

Chaos Space Marine internally balanced? Are you serious? You picked the worst one for that because on all accounts there's quite a number of "Dud" choices compared to others, lack of options, lack of decent pricing, lack of well thought out things..

Heck, even between the basic armory and unit choices it has issues. A Mark of Slaanesh for a Lord is the same as a Mark of Nurgle, a chainaxe for a lord is far more expensive compared to a unit, a pair of LC will be far more on a Lord with TDA then standard terminators, and that's simply the beginning of the issues.

Ok, while I hate to seemingly argue against my own point, those are some pretty bad examples. A pair of LC's should cost more for a lord than a regular termie, as he's going to be able to get more mileage from them due to his higher number of attacks, WS, and initiative. The examples Kingsley pointed out showed the point I was trying to make, and he's right, there are becoming less and less entire units that will never (read: extremely rarely) touch table, but there are still enough to constitute (in my eyes) a problem.

A pair of LC's should cost more for a lord than a regular termie, as he's going to be able to get more mileage from them due to his higher number of attacks, WS, and initiative.

I don't mind that, I do mind when somehow it becomes an equivalent 3X more. I could have picked some better examples however.

and he's right, there are becoming less and less entire units that will never (read: extremely rarely) touch table, but there are still enough to constitute (in my eyes) a problem.

The problem with chaos is that there's a lack of "Options" that will never reach the table rather than full units, would one ever take the Mark of Tzeentch on Anything? Mark of Slaanesh on Obliterators or Maulers?

Most issues I have is that rather like the previous codex, the Mark of Nurgle seems to have won out of the four gods once again for a few reasons.

1: The lack of assault transports for assault units such as Berzerkers and Melee Noise Marines

2: The lack of options for reserve based gameplay, with exceptions being down to an iffy D3 infiltrate or an outflanking slaanesh lord on a steed

3: The lack of options for a deepstrike based gameplay, with the key being horribly laughable for its use, and Warp talons not having grenades.

Will some work with this? Sure, but like the previous codex it will be shunted in with one specific build because that one's the best with all others being mediocre choices.

I would like to say too things, the first is that the discussion on balance should probably be moved to a different thread, as it is derailing the OP (who intended to discuss the quality of the written rules). I do have things to say on the topic of balance, but will not do so here.

Second, since there are several ambiguities in both the codices and the BRB, would you all support a community-driven 'grand FAQ', which covers all rules ambiguities that have not been ruled on by GW, in both the BRB and the codices (eventually expanding to Forge World and Expansions). Note that this will not change the 'balance' of the game (ie, anybody complaining about X being under-priced will be ignored) but merely addressing rules issues, such as whether Abbadon can join marked units or vehicles like drop pods which are immobilized after arriving on the battlefield loose a hull point as soon as they show up (I remember that one was kicking around YMDC for a while).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The problem with chaos is that there's a lack of "Options" that will never reach the table rather than full units, would one ever take the Mark of Tzeentch on Anything? Mark of Slaanesh on Obliterators or Maulers?

The Mark of Tzeentch is desirable on any unit that plans to stand on a Skyshield Landing Pad (3++ ahoy!), as well as obviously useful for Terminators, Obliterators/Mutilators (if plasma is more common in your local meta than melta OR if there are enough Demolisher Cannons, railguns, melee walkers, etc. that T5 doesn't provide sufficient protection against Instant Death), and Warp Talons.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
1: The lack of assault transports for assault units such as Berzerkers and Melee Noise Marines

Land Raiders are still in the game.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
2: The lack of options for reserve based gameplay, with exceptions being down to an iffy D3 infiltrate or an outflanking slaanesh lord on a steed

Not all Codexes have these options-- most don't, really. The existing options seem fine given how niche this role is. The Steed of Slaanesh lord in particular seems quite powerful.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
3: The lack of options for a deepstrike based gameplay, with the key being horribly laughable for its use, and Warp talons not having grenades.

This seems unfortunate, but it's not like Deep Strike is totally invalid in the new book-- Obliterators and Terminators are quite threatening when Deep Striking and Raptors, while not efficient in this role, can still use it to some effect.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Will some work with this? Sure, but like the previous codex it will be shunted in with one specific build because that one's the best with all others being mediocre choices.

I'm not so sure. I think the new Chaos Marines have a large amount of interesting options, competitive choices in nearly all slots, especially Fast Attack (Spawn, Bikes, Raptors, Heldrake) and Heavy Support (Predators, Vindicators, Havocs, Obliterators, Forgefiends, Maulerfiends), and have good synergy with various options as either an Allied or Primary detachment. All in all I would be very happy to see my own primary army (Codex: Space Marines) get a new book along the lines of Codex: Chaos Space Marines-- not that we need one soon, of course!

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?

as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?

Strawmans and ad hominems. You are a truly a master debater

I have been known to handle myself rather well.

I know it wasn't my post you're talking about, I just wanted to make a pun. : D