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.

The problem with 7th edition is tha there is not a 7th edition

There is 7th edition rules using
6th and earlier codexes
7th edition codexes

7.5 Ediiton Power Dexes with growing power - oh look here is a new SE Marine with much better stuff - - cost - nah - its free Here is a formation that gives you all your vehicles for free - yeah hilarious.

If 8th was able to bring some vague notion of balance to this mess - it would be worth doing

Reavas wrote:

I disagree with simplifying or nulling all the special rules, if you simplify too much then the game will lose its variety and become more simple and by the book like chess. I personally enjoy the originality in the rules for each model, and codexs like daemons with their warpstorm, or SM with chapter tactics. I agree that there is bit too much variety, such as knights having a whole load of stuff that I just take my opponents word for and I imagine other models with similar problems but I feel if you over-simplify 40k will lose a lot of flavour.

You don't need to loose complexity by combining codexes, or streamlining rules. There are tonnes of rules which all do the same thing, or combine together several special rules.

Instead of having a unique special rule for the "blood hammer of bloody blood" which incorporates a number of special rules, simplify it as "this weapon has the following special rules", listing the simplified rules (such as Reroll hits of X, Becomes AP Y on wounds of Z, etc...).

In addition, build in wargear into the main unit statline. Don't bother saying a unit has CCW and a pistol, just add in an extra attack and list they have a pistol, etc...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Reavas wrote:

I disagree with simplifying or nulling all the special rules, if you simplify too much then the game will lose its variety and become more simple and by the book like chess. I personally enjoy the originality in the rules for each model, and codexs like daemons with their warpstorm, or SM with chapter tactics. I agree that there is bit too much variety, such as knights having a whole load of stuff that I just take my opponents word for and I imagine other models with similar problems but I feel if you over-simplify 40k will lose a lot of flavour.

You don't need to loose complexity by combining codexes, or streamlining rules. There are tonnes of rules which all do the same thing, or combine together several special rules.

Instead of having a unique special rule for the "blood hammer of bloody blood" which incorporates a number of special rules, simplify it as "this weapon has the following special rules", listing the simplified rules (such as Reroll hits of X, Becomes AP Y on wounds of Z, etc...).

In addition, build in wargear into the main unit statline. Don't bother saying a unit has CCW and a pistol, just add in an extra attack and list they have a pistol, etc...

they did do that for the most part. most wargear/weapons have a special propoerty described in the core rulebook.

BrianDavion wrote:
they did do that for the most part. most wargear/weapons have a special propoerty described in the core rulebook.

Sure, and half of the special rules do exactly the same thing as another special rule... Get rid of the different special rule duplication and simplify them.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
they did do that for the most part. most wargear/weapons have a special propoerty described in the core rulebook.

Sure, and half of the special rules do exactly the same thing as another special rule... Get rid of the different special rule duplication and simplify them.

What you said in reguards to simplification sounds quite reasonable, although it sounds very close to what they did with Warhammer fantasy, and although I have nothing against AoS I fear a similar sinplification will drive away players from the game. What are your thoughts?

Reavas wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
they did do that for the most part. most wargear/weapons have a special propoerty described in the core rulebook.

Sure, and half of the special rules do exactly the same thing as another special rule... Get rid of the different special rule duplication and simplify them.

What you said in reguards to simplification sounds quite reasonable, although it sounds very close to what they did with Warhammer fantasy, and although I have nothing against AoS I fear a similar sinplification will drive away players from the game. What are your thoughts?

You can have a fluffy rule description; but it doesn't change the mechanics of the rule being the same, or of the same type as another rule.

A rule which allows rerolls is a rule which allows rerolls. A rule which improves a stat is a rule which improves a stat.

Where possible, write special rules directly into the stat line of a model, unit or weapon. Where not possible, use a streamlined series of special rules and modifiers which do not reference 4 other special rules, or duplicate something else.

Here's my thoughts on a new edition.

The rules for 40k are supposed to be a simulator of future combat. They are not intended to be completely realistic, there are certain obvious gaps in what they cover.

If the base rules are not intended to be completely realistic, they should only exist so far as they make the game enjoyable. Anything else deviates from that goal.

If 7th edition does a good enough job simulating future combat while making the game enjoyable, then no new edition is needed. The converse is true as well.

That said, I don't like the rules for 7th edition. 2nd and 4th were better, regardless of the problems that existed with them. From my biased perspective, people spent more time playing the game instead of arguing over rules. This is precisely because there were fewer rules to worry about, players did not need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the game to play it. Scope creep in the ruleset set in during 5th edition, and the bloat is an indicator of a lack of inspiration on GW's part.

If someone wants to push an 8th edition ruleset, keep it short. It should have base rules needed to play the game and nothing else. Seriously, I will buy a fluff book separately, but just focus on making the game enjoyable and the rules streamlined to 'fix' the core of the game.

Codexes are a different thing. GW doesn't release all the rules for armies at one time, which introduces a lot of power escalation over time. There needs to be room to evolve, and for adjustments to be made in reaction to changes to other armies.

GW has tried a lot of things with supplements, which has worked for some armies and not at all for others. Chaos, Orks, Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar, and Sisters of Battle really suffer under this model precisely because GW doesn't release new models for these armies. Yes, Chaos got Helbrutes, which just replaced Dreadnoughts without adding anything new to the mix. You can't really use supplements to correct power imbalances with universal special rules alone.

The model I would really be in favor of is new rules for each model. Forget about supplements for a minute, let GW introduce new models with their own rules that add to the capabilities of a core force.

GW already does this, with Forgeworld, it's just that the models are expensive and considered illegitimate by some players. Playing a CSM army with Fire Raptors and Sicarans is 100% different from playing with a Codex army, it can actually be used to beat Eldar. I would love to see the same for the other armies listed here.

But it can't stay the same. I hate the idea some armies just don't have a chance against others at the same points levels. Points are supposed to balance the game, when they fail to do that there's not really a use for them at all.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Here's my thoughts on a new edition.

The rules for 40k are supposed to be a simulator of future combat. They are not intended to be completely realistic, there are certain obvious gaps in what they cover.

If the base rules are not intended to be completely realistic, they should only exist so far as they make the game enjoyable. Anything else deviates from that goal.

If 7th edition does a good enough job simulating future combat while making the game enjoyable, then no new edition is needed. The converse is true as well.

That said, I don't like the rules for 7th edition. 2nd and 4th were better, regardless of the problems that existed with them. From my biased perspective, people spent more time playing the game instead of arguing over rules. This is precisely because there were fewer rules to worry about, players did not need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the game to play it. Scope creep in the ruleset set in during 5th edition, and the bloat is an indicator of a lack of inspiration on GW's part.

If someone wants to push an 8th edition ruleset, keep it short. It should have base rules needed to play the game and nothing else. Seriously, I will buy a fluff book separately, but just focus on making the game enjoyable and the rules streamlined to 'fix' the core of the game.

Codexes are a different thing. GW doesn't release all the rules for armies at one time, which introduces a lot of power escalation over time. There needs to be room to evolve, and for adjustments to be made in reaction to changes to other armies.

GW has tried a lot of things with supplements, which has worked for some armies and not at all for others. Chaos, Orks, Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar, and Sisters of Battle really suffer under this model precisely because GW doesn't release new models for these armies. Yes, Chaos got Helbrutes, which just replaced Dreadnoughts without adding anything new to the mix. You can't really use supplements to correct power imbalances with universal special rules alone.

The model I would really be in favor of is new rules for each model. Forget about supplements for a minute, let GW introduce new models with their own rules that add to the capabilities of a core force.

GW already does this, with Forgeworld, it's just that the models are expensive and considered illegitimate by some players. Playing a CSM army with Fire Raptors and Sicarans is 100% different from playing with a Codex army, it can actually be used to beat Eldar. I would love to see the same for the other armies listed here.

But it can't stay the same. I hate the idea some armies just don't have a chance against others at the same points levels. Points are supposed to balance the game, when they fail to do that there's not really a use for them at all.

GW does do that with models like Be'lakor which does make CSM more viable against top tier armies, heck, be'lakor is one of the strongest models in game, period. I personally don't understand why you prefer dataslates over suppliments as they seem similar to me, supplimemts just seem to have several dataslates and maybe some formations.

I find everyone seems to have valid points but I guess it comes down to preferance. I will agree the extent of rules are quite bloated

Reavas wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
they did do that for the most part. most wargear/weapons have a special propoerty described in the core rulebook.

Sure, and half of the special rules do exactly the same thing as another special rule... Get rid of the different special rule duplication and simplify them.

What you said in reguards to simplification sounds quite reasonable, although it sounds very close to what they did with Warhammer fantasy, and although I have nothing against AoS I fear a similar sinplification will drive away players from the game. What are your thoughts?

There is a lot of things that could be done to simplify.

For example Skitarii have FNP +6 on most models. However, its written as a special rule in the unit entry. But when you look at the stat line, the only save it mentions the model is a +4 armor.

You could do away with having FNP as a special rule entirely and just have it a default part of the stat line. For example, a unit could have it's stat read "SV +4/0/+6" with 4 being armor, 0 being invuln, and 6 being the FNP. Given how common Invulns and FNP are now, it would make reference easier as you can flip to the back and see that at a glance, instead of having to flick to the unit entry to see what save a rosarius gives.

Its a minor thing to be sure, but just an example of how this kind of thing happens. I dont need to know if a model is cyberenhanced or has a rosarius, if all it does is give a save and its default wargear, just put it in the statline and leave it be. For example, I just looked at my space marine statlines for the epub book and the only save it mentions a terminator having on the back page is a +2 armor. It makes no reference to the +5 invuln they get whatsoever. Thats because the +5 invuln comes from the "crux terminatus" which you can only find out they have on their unit entry. However it is part of their base statline and could easily just be written in.

Itd be like if you read the statline for a guardsman and he had no armor save in the profile, then having to go to the unit entry to see he has an item called "flak armor" that gives him the +5 armor save. Its more page flipping and referencing for no reason.

EDIT : hit reply before i was done

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
they did do that for the most part. most wargear/weapons have a special propoerty described in the core rulebook.

Sure, and half of the special rules do exactly the same thing as another special rule... Get rid of the different special rule duplication and simplify them.

What you said in reguards to simplification sounds quite reasonable, although it sounds very close to what they did with Warhammer fantasy, and although I have nothing against AoS I fear a similar sinplification will drive away players from the game. What are your thoughts?

There is a lot of things that could be done to simplify.

For example Skitarii have FNP +6 on most models. However, its written as a special rule in the unit entry. But when you look at the stat line, the only save it mentions the model is a +4 armor.

You could do away with having FNP as a special rule entirely and just have it a default part of the stat line. For example, a unit could have it's stat read "SV +4/0/+6" with 4 being armor, 0 being invuln, and 6 being the FNP. Given how common Invulns and FNP are now, it would make reference easier as you can flip to the back and see that at a glance, instead of having to flick to the unit entry to see what save a rosarius gives.

Its a minor thing to be sure, but just an example of how this kind of thing happens. I dont need to know if a model is cyberenhanced or has a rosarius, if all it does is give a save and its default wargear, just put it in the statline and leave it be. For example, I just looked at my space marine statlines for the epub book and the only save it mentions a terminator having on the back page is a +2 armor. It makes no reference to the +5 invuln they get whatsoever. Thats because the +5 invuln comes from the "crux terminatus" which you can only find out they have on their unit entry. However it is part of their base statline and could easily just be written in.

Itd be like if you read the statline for a guardsman and he had no armor save in the profile, then having to go to the unit entry to see he has an item called "flak armor" that gives him the +5 armor save. Its more page flipping and referencing for no reason.

EDIT : hit reply before i was done

Would a re-release of 7th ed codex with these changes to special rules into the statline of the models solve these problems? Rather than a re-write of the rules.

The only thing that could save 40k would be to hire someone from the outside to write a new ruleset from the ground up. As far opposite from what OP proposes as possible.

But GW is like a typical government, they would rather cling to their slowly but surely sinking raft and have the illusion of safety in the present moment, than jump in the water and swim a few hundred yards to the rescue ship.

 kronk wrote:
CSM, sisters, and IG need a significant boost

As a Guard player I agree. I'd love to field an IG army that is not a tank-only force. I miss stuff like Chenkov's "send the next wave" and generally more infantry-based rules.

Reavas wrote:
I disagree with simplifying or nulling all the special rules, if you simplify too much then the game will lose its variety and become more simple and by the book like chess. I personally enjoy the originality in the rules for each model, and codexs like daemons with their warpstorm, or SM with chapter tactics. I agree that there is bit too much variety, such as knights having a whole load of stuff that I just take my opponents word for and I imagine other models with similar problems but I feel if you over-simplify 40k will lose a lot of flavour.

Like I said before, true balance will kill the game and although it will become a better competative game I feel over time it will lose its crazy aspect that I find endearing. Just my opinion tho

First point: special rules are a game design resource to be employed when you really can't represent something with basic statlines and mechanics available to all units. They are something to be resorted to with caution and measure, or else you may turn a game into a special snowflake rules feast. Which is what 40k has become today. Bringing back the Movement stat alone would allow the game to dispose of several special rules that have been added to it just to compensate for the lack of a Movement stat, which originally was removed to 'streamline' things (yes, that's how GW work).

Second, most other tabletop games out there have managed to reach a much better state of balance than 40k and, far from dying, they're growing while 40k has shrunk significatively since 6th edition hit the shelves. So I'm confident about stating that your "balance will kill the game" argument does not match reality. Specially when a more balanced codex system has been a perennial demand of the 40k playerbase.

Reavas wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
they did do that for the most part. most wargear/weapons have a special propoerty described in the core rulebook.

Sure, and half of the special rules do exactly the same thing as another special rule... Get rid of the different special rule duplication and simplify them.

What you said in reguards to simplification sounds quite reasonable, although it sounds very close to what they did with Warhammer fantasy, and although I have nothing against AoS I fear a similar sinplification will drive away players from the game. What are your thoughts?

Simplification? Not in terms of special rules that went up in numbers when everything needs to have special rule. Even different shields have different special rules. And special rules aren't even named based on weapon that has it. For that you need to consult the ruletext itself.

A lot of people are talking about rules bloat. I really thing 40K needs to do what Age of Sigmar did. By that I mean make a real simplified rulesete for ALL.

Then use dataslates/warscrolls/what ever you want to call it and make cards for the minis with the rules on them. This way everyone only needs to know the BASIC RULES.

How to move.
How to shoot.
How to Assault.

Everything else all the special rules can be on the cards/dataslates/warscrolls just like in AoS. AoS has basically 2 pages of basic rules, but is much more complex because of all the special rules on the warscrolls.

We don't need special rules in the rule book since a lot of things just ignore it. So now with a few pages of 40K and rules on cards for minis we don't have to know what rule ignores what, when and where.

So have a card for 5 SM troops for example. It will give the Move stat, a die roll on what to hit, to shoot, assault and what ever special rules it has.

This way we also have our cards with us, on the table, and it should be less book flipping to see what units do what.

AoS is simple to start, but really complex to masters. I would love to see this in 40K now because everything is just way to imbalanced and bloated.

Reavas wrote:


Im not saying CSM are on par with SM,

Finally you said something I can agree with.

Our group decided to freeze with 7th. Tired of the churn.

Davor wrote:

Everything else all the special rules can be on the cards/dataslates/warscrolls just like in AoS. AoS has basically 2 pages of basic rules, but is much more complex because of all the special rules on the warscrolls.

Which results in bazillion special rules, many which are almost but not quite same. And can result in oddities when things are updated where unit A gets changed, unit B that used to share rule still plays with old rules(oh the good old times when dark angel smoke launchers worked differently to ultramarine smoke launchers because...)

tneva82 wrote:
Which results in bazillion special rules, many which are almost but not quite same. And can result in oddities when things are updated where unit A gets changed, unit B that used to share rule still plays with old rules(oh the good old times when dark angel smoke launchers worked differently to ultramarine smoke launchers because...)

You're acting like the raw number of rules in these two systems are somehow comparable, but the way these rules are set up, used and presented are different. The issue isn't how many rules there are per say, it's more to do with how many rules are in effect (i.e. need to be remembered) at any given time and how accessible those rules are (i.e. how easy it is to remember or be reminded).

If all the rules needed for any given situation can be found easily and/or are easy to remember (like the AoS core rules) then the game works better and runs smoother.

I prefer rules that are written for the indended game play.(Like the way all the other companies write rules for their games apart from GW and 40k.)

In the rush to sell toy soldiers to children,GW have lost sight of the scale and scope of the game of 40k.
And have devolved the game into an exercise in short term sales promotions, using the cool looking models and cool sounding rules with no thought to game play issues at all.

Simplifying the rules , because GW could not explain moderately complex rules well enough to understand.Left the game needing loads of special rules GW could not clearly define either.

Their should not be a 40k 3.5, or 3,6. or 3,7 edition.

What 40k needs is a clearly defined scale and scope of the intended game play .Then the game developers can develop rules specifically for this.
And end up with s straight forward rule set of less than 50 pages , that cover about 4 times as much game play as the current rules do.
While using less than a quarter of the current special rules.

I would really like to sit down to a new edition and not have to read 150 pages of conversationally-written rules, then have to memorize all of it.

I am really, really bad with specific phrasing and lengthy explanations. Bullet points that are simple, clear, and to the point would be great. A clearly-defined and consistently-used set of key words to look for in regards to particular rules mechanics would be awesome given the number of arguments that come down to how a rule is worded.

Also, if you have to provide examples of how a rule works in particular situations to make people understand, odds are good it's been written badly or is just too complicated. Exceptions for diagrams that reference physical locations on models that would be hard to describe clearly with words. Like the difference between being "wholly within" a certain radius versus just being "within" a certain radius.

 DarkBlack wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Which results in bazillion special rules, many which are almost but not quite same. And can result in oddities when things are updated where unit A gets changed, unit B that used to share rule still plays with old rules(oh the good old times when dark angel smoke launchers worked differently to ultramarine smoke launchers because...)

You're acting like the raw number of rules in these two systems are somehow comparable, but the way these rules are set up, used and presented are different. The issue isn't how many rules there are per say, it's more to do with how many rules are in effect (i.e. need to be remembered) at any given time and how accessible those rules are (i.e. how easy it is to remember or be reminded).

If all the rules needed for any given situation can be found easily and/or are easy to remember (like the AoS core rules) then the game works better and runs smoother.

I can remember 40k rules pretty much.

I'll be damned if I remember every special shield and weapon special rule AOS has. At least in 40k grots don't have special knives with unique special rules as well...

7th needs to be burnt to the ground so something of worth can be built on its ashes.

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Which results in bazillion special rules, many which are almost but not quite same. And can result in oddities when things are updated where unit A gets changed, unit B that used to share rule still plays with old rules(oh the good old times when dark angel smoke launchers worked differently to ultramarine smoke launchers because...)

You're acting like the raw number of rules in these two systems are somehow comparable, but the way these rules are set up, used and presented are different. The issue isn't how many rules there are per say, it's more to do with how many rules are in effect (i.e. need to be remembered) at any given time and how accessible those rules are (i.e. how easy it is to remember or be reminded).

If all the rules needed for any given situation can be found easily and/or are easy to remember (like the AoS core rules) then the game works better and runs smoother.

I can remember 40k rules pretty much.

I'll be damned if I remember every special shield and weapon special rule AOS has. At least in 40k grots don't have special knives with unique special rules as well...

Solution for remembering Grots with special knives' rule with detailed unit cards:

Step 1: "Oh hey, those Grots have special knives, right? Can I see their unit card? Can't remember how that rule works."

Step 2: "Sure, here it is." :: pulls out the Grot card from a small stack encompassing all units present in the army ::

Step 3: "Thanks." :: quickly reads card and hands it back ::

Current solution for remembering that same rule (if you're like me):

Step 1: "Oh hey, those Grots have special knives, right? How does it work again?"

Step 2: "They let me re-roll to attack under certain conditions... I forget what."

Step 3: :: opens the Ork Codex, flips through pages for a minute to find the Grot entry ::

Step 4: :: opens main rulebook to check a referenced main rule that I don't remember exactly how it was phrased ::

Step 5: :: ten minutes of page-flipping and reading have gone by :: "Okay, looks like basically they let me re-roll to attack once per game when I choose to, but only after I charge."

This is why my 1,000 point games take about 6-7 hours to play.

There are many problems with 40K where a new edition would be the only way to overhaul the game (aliies, flyers, superheavies, etc).

If 7th edition is going to remain for a lot longer then GW should stop with the supplements and get all the dexes up to the same level as the strongest ones (Tau, Eldar, SM, Necron). Tyranids is the only 40k army I have kept (and my favorite) but it is a mess. When i started in 4th for about $25 I bought a codex and had all the rules for my army. Now the cost is absurd for rules and on top of that there are so many rules in different places (codex, supplements, dataslates, model kits, FW, etc). The codex is a crappy 6th ed dex and the army should be given some real effort/overhaul to bring it in line with the other recent dexes and to combine the bits spread over hell's half-acre.

Then once all armies are redone to 7th supplements are fine.

Super heavies should never of been In 40k to begin with same with fliers both ruined an edition.

If you keep buying these supplements then they will keep publishing these supplements.

Writing rules is profitable to them. They will continue this writing style of power creep.

You gotta take a stand and teach them that the game drives the hobby. The rules drives the game. If people are upset with your rules then they wont buy the game. They may still collect models but wont be buying multiples to play an army. These people who have so much money to waste enable GW to price gouge.

My biggest fantasy is that people just stop buying the books. Oh the new 8th edition just drop? I dont care because the rules are broken and rely on random mission, random objectives, and random charts to balance out the game from the previous power creep. Oh the new dex just came out? Do i really need to start this new flavor of the month army so I can keep up with the power creep?

hobojebus wrote:
Super heavies should never of been In 40k to begin with same with fliers both ruined an edition.

I think superheavies are okay in some non-Apocalypse games.

They just have to be part of a scenario with asymmetrical objectives that also allow damage dealt to the superheavies during the game to contribute to victory, while shifting the superheavies' focus away from massacring the enemy army and into completing something specific.

Yes, I am basically talking about that scenario where a 1500 point army was pitted against 3 Baneblades, with the Baneblades having to make it to the far table edge as intact as possible and the opposing army trying to damage them as much as possible.

 Pouncey wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Super heavies should never of been In 40k to begin with same with fliers both ruined an edition.

I think superheavies are okay in some non-Apocalypse games.

They just have to be part of a scenario with asymmetrical objectives that also allow damage dealt to the superheavies during the game to contribute to victory, while shifting the superheavies' focus away from massacring the enemy army and into completing something specific.

Yes, I am basically talking about that scenario where a 1500 point army was pitted against 3 Baneblades, with the Baneblades having to make it to the far table edge as intact as possible and the opposing army trying to damage them as much as possible.

I have absolutely ZERO problems with Imperial Knights in non-apoc games. They are some of the most balanced units, and arguably one of the best balanced codicies (they have strengths and weaknesses and are neither over the top or push overs), in the game.

There are some things I like about 7th edition. The continual bloat and splat book approach used to continually rope in people is not one of them. There is such a mess with all the different rules now, that not even GW knows what is going on as evidenced by their faqs. I think at some point relatively soon we need an 8th edition that clarifies the rules and cleans up the muck with an extreme dose of rebalancing in the mix. I think things like allies and formations and detachments are fine, in fact I like them. When they are done right they are extremely fluffy. The problem is they are not often done right and set up purely to sell models rather than make a great game. Personally, I think the space marine codex needs to be broken up again even if there is a lot of copy and paste simply because there are several unique chapters that are not getting proper representation, and I don't give one wit about the SM factions I don't play. The only thing that makes me leary about a possible 8th edition is that my army has a good chance of not being in it. The Iron Hands certainly aren't going to be anything but wannabe Ultras at any rate, because "silly, nonsensical GW reasons inserted here."

Emphasis mine:

Reavas wrote:
For me at least, playing as an average to below average army keeps me on my toes and always theorycrafting and trying to find the perfect combination with what I have that can combat various types of armies is what I find to be the best part of 40k, the imbalance is part of any stratagy game that keeps it interesting and difficult.

Do you not see the obvious problem here? You openly admit that a bunch of the codices are outright better than CSM. Just because you enjoy the fact that they're bad does not make it okay that they're bad. A strategy game should not have imbalance, the whole idea of strategy games is that all of the armies are balanced enough that it comes down to skill vs skill, not a handicap. If you personally want a handicap, play with a sub-optimal list or take a points handicap. An army should not be fundamentally inferior, someone that wants to run CSM for personal taste shouldn't have to consider that the army is crap before picking it. I shouldn't be required to put more work into making a good list than an Eldar player just because I think CSM are cool, half (or more) of my units should not be utterly invalidated because they're crap, you should win your games simply because you're a better player.