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.

Whilst a well balanced game does not guarantee an enjoyable game, I would say that it can be an important ingredient in creating an enjoyable game.

To abuse the chess analogy a bit more, whilst it can occasionally be good sport to spot your opponent a piece if you're significantly better than they are, playing a player of equal skill missing a piece consistently can be frustrating.

Likewise in a 40k game, while playing unbalanced armies can provide an interesting challenge when done occasionally, playing that way all the time can be frustrating.

Perhaps the easiest way, at least given the rules we have, is to come up with a handicap factor where armies get extra points based on their relative power.

Tau and Eldar might have a factor of 1.00, where they get 100% of the agreed points limit.

Space Marines on the other hand might have a factor of 1.10, which means they get 110% of the agreed points limit.

Tyranids might get a 1.15 gaining 15% more points.

Orks might have a factor of 1.2, gaining 20% more points.

This of course would require trial and error to get rough benchmark figures.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Actually, LeadLegion, one of the most damning evidence that Games Workshop's sales are falling is the fact that their revenue hasn't seen any growth despite the constant price hikes. In fact, it has been in decline for awhile. Basic math says that since one factor has increased while the result hasn't means the other factor has decreased. This is based on their own reports.

No one here (least of all me) has been denying that GW profits and sales are declining. I'm simply pointing out that the tendency to blame this decline on a single factor (usually it's either "because game balance sucks" or "because the prices are too high) is over-simplistic, deceptive and unhelpful. I've already listed a good half-dozen factors that could also be contributing to GW's declining sales just a few posts back.. It's impossible for us to know for sure which of these factors (if any) is more significant than the others.

Secondly, no one here is defending GW's sense of balance. I'm certainly not claiming that 40K is balanced. In fact , I'm suggesting the opposite. I'm basically stating that the game is "balanced enough" for us to enjoy it. What I am doing is explaining the factors that contribute to the current "balance" or "im-balance" of the game and how the current game balance came about.

However, there are certain other posters here who have a vested interest in twisting my central argument:

"the current game balance is good enough for most of us, and that's good enough."

....into a subtly different argument which is far more difficult to defend ("40K is balanced") in order to strengthen their own arguments. It is a "straw-man" argument that is being perpetuated by other users on this forum and I'm afraid you've possibly been taken in by it.

Grammar Girl describes it better than I ever could, so I've pasted her explanation of what a "Staw Man" argument is below.

A Straw Man:
Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument--usually something extreme or easy to argue against--that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.

It can be annoyingly effective because in response you may be lured into clarifying what your position is not instead of talking about what your position is, and studies have shown that when you repeat a lie, even if you are repeating it to refute it, the repetition can reinforce the misinformation in the minds of some people

- See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what-is-a-straw-man-argument#sthash.HkccPfGn.dpuf

So, the simple fact that I'm having to explain what I'm really saying so often is actually strengthening Peregrine's argument. Which is itself based on a fallacy of repetition. Basically, he's repeating the same opinions again and again (despite having no evidence to back up his position) in the hopes that it will convince people to adopt his position. It's not accidental. Peregrine might get the nomenclature wrong from time to time, (such as when he incorrectly describes my participation in moving the conversation on to a new topic as "moving the goal posts") but he knows how to use logical fallacy to strengthen his argument. This is despite his being so quick to call other people out for using logical fallacy's (even when they are not

Essentially, by providing a reasoned refutation of his points, I've given Peregrine a platform to repeat his unbalanced, unbiased arguments time and again.

The trap here is that if I continue to speak out against him, Peregrine gets to continue spouting his biased vitriol for as long as he likes. If I don't continue to reply, he can point to my silence and claim I've stopped arguing because I no longer disagree with him.

Peregrine, has a good career waiting for himself in marketing, law or politics.

P.S With regards to Peregrine's last post: In debates, a common strategy is to make this accusation in order to re-claim audience support when you feel you are losing the debate. Studies have shown that simply stating that the other party has "moved the goalposts" produces a knee-jerk psychological reaction that makes a reader assume that the goal-posts have indeed been moved. Why? because moving the goalposts mid-debate is a despicably underhanded thing to do. The common assumption is that no-one would possibly make that accusation unless it was true. Many people therefore take the accusation at face value, without bothering to examine for themselves whether or not the goal-posts really have been moved. Thereby casting doubt on the accused party's entire position

I'm not saying that this was the case. Peregrine may not have been aware of the psychological weight behind the statement. I'm just pointing out the effects that such an accusation can have on the ability to analyse an argument logically.

The only people I see not using facts are the ones who are trying to defend GW's policies or using the old "change the rules if you don't like it" ridiculousness...

I'm not defending them. I'm explaining what those policies are and why they exist.

As to your second point, I really don't understand why you have such a huge aversion to using house rules? Have you never played a custom scenario with your friends?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:

Perhaps the easiest way, at least given the rules we have, is to come up with a handicap factor where armies get extra points based on their relative power.

Tau and Eldar might have a factor of 1.00, where they get 100% of the agreed points limit.

Space Marines on the other hand might have a factor of 1.10, which means they get 110% of the agreed points limit.

Tyranids might get a 1.15 gaining 15% more points.

Orks might have a factor of 1.2, gaining 20% more points.

This of course would require trial and error to get rough benchmark figures.

This is probably by far one of the better "handicap" ideas I've come across. I think you're right about the amount of trial and error involved and I'm not entirely sure how practical it would be. But for purposes of converting a "fun" game like 40K into something balanced enough for tournament play in it's current incarnation it could be a good starting point. It doesn't change the FOC chart or limit the choices of players who have a better codex.

It's a good house rule for tournaments to adopt, much like Bay Area Open scenarios and changing the 2++ re-reollable save into 2++/4++.

As you say, it would need a good amount of play-testing as well as other refinements to make it payable though. Do the codices that get more points that the base allowance get access to another FOC? Or do they use the same number of FOC's as everyone else? That's just one issue that popped into my head.

Again, I'm not sure how practical the concept is, but I like the idea of it.

*sigh* Better explain my position again to head off yet another straw man argument:

****The stats suggest that 40k is still played by more people than any other wargame. Therefore "40k is balanced enough for most of us. therefore 40K is balanced enough". Note that "most of us" means most people who play 40K. Most people who play 40K do not participate in high-level tournament play.

***40K is not designed for tournament play and is not balanced for tournaments. I don't see anything wrong with adopting house rules in tournament play to make the game more balanced for the minority of people who want to play in a tournament environment.

***I do not have any problem with the adoption of house rules in a casual gaming environment either. As I've already said, we allow the use of fan-codices in our games.

***Supporting the use of rule house does not mean I think the game requires the use of house rules to be enjoyable.

***I do have a problem with the concept that official 40K rules should be re-written as a tournament friendly game at the expense of the casual gamer.

***I do have a problem with the poor level of "technical" writing in the rulebooks that leave game rules open to ambiguity. However, that is not a game balance issue. That is a writing quality issue. The two are related, but still separate.

***I do have a problem with people who haven't even played the current edition (or even a recent edition) of the game, but who seem to think they are still experts on the game regardless.

None of these views are mutually exclusive or contradictory. They are not black and white. Please don't misconstrue them as such.

Been waiting a while to find a good use for this one, I believe LeadLegion's arguments qualify:

 LeadLegion wrote:
I'm not defending them. I'm explaining what those policies are and why they exist.

As to your second point, I really don't understand why you have such a huge aversion to using house rules? Have you never played a custom scenario with your friends?

In the US at least the majority of games are pick-up games at a game store, not custom scenarios with friends. You can't reasonably make house rules beyond the basics (e.g. how many points, what supplements, if you're lucky "casual vs. competitive" lists) or you'd never find a game because who wants to be given a sheet of house rules by a stranger before a game?

Most games that I've been a part of and seen go like the following:

Person A: Up for a game?
Person B: Sure, I have my Tau army. What are you playing?
Person A: Salamanders.
Person B: Cool. Points?
Person A: I only have 1500.
Person B: No problem. No Escalation?
Person A: Right.
Person B: Casual or competitive?
Person A: Casual.
Person B: Sounds good, give me a few minutes to work up a list.

The extra rules (Flyers, Fortifications, Escalation, etc.) are what should have stayed the domain of "custom scenarios with your friends" instead of being positioned as things usable for any old game.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 LeadLegion wrote:
I'm not defending them. I'm explaining what those policies are and why they exist.

As to your second point, I really don't understand why you have such a huge aversion to using house rules? Have you never played a custom scenario with your friends?

In the US at least the majority of games are pick-up games at a game store, not custom scenarios with friends. You can't reasonably make house rules beyond the basics (e.g. how many points, what supplements, if you're lucky "casual vs. competitive" lists) or you'd never find a game because who wants to be given a sheet of house rules by a stranger before a game?

Most games that I've been a part of and seen go like the following:

Person A: Up for a game?
Person B: Sure, I have my Tau army. What are you playing?
Person A: Salamanders.
Person B: Cool. Points?
Person A: I only have 1500.
Person B: No problem. No Escalation?
Person A: Right.
Person B: Casual or competitive?
Person A: Casual.
Person B: Sounds good, give me a few minutes to work up a list.

The extra rules (Flyers, Fortifications, Escalation, etc.) are what should have stayed the domain of "custom scenarios with your friends" instead of being positioned as things usable for any old game.

I don't think the majority of games are played via FLGS, nor can this be accurately quantified- you appear to be basing this off of your personal experiences and then applying it as a blanket statement to why 'house ruling won't work'.

I will agree that for pickup games the 6e ruleset (with the introduction of Allies, Fortifications, Escalation, etc..) is very unforgiving and unbalanced for this style of play. As has been discussed to death at this point by many posters though is that GW is no longer catering to this style of play (the argument is not whether this is a good/bad idea, balanced, or fiscally endearing). The current state of the game is anything goes, and this is not problematic when played casually.

So it's not so much that the ruleset is bad (opinion), so much that the ruleset is not accommodating to a particular style of play. This is unfortunate for those do not have smaller casual circles to game with (although I would argue that if you regularly play at an FLGS to find your games, there is no excuse not to at least attempt to create a casual circle).

Home rules/home brew/modification is a godsend. Don't like something? Tweak it yourself.

Name a single PC game that has not been improved via mods. I'll wait.

@ Galorian: I don't see what a tuning fork with legs has to do with anything

But nah. Moving goalposts is when you ask for proof of a given point, them ignore that proof and ask for more proof. So nope, doesn't apply. Cos all I did was move on from banging my head against a wall to talking about something construcitive

@Xenosterminus: Well put. I pretty much agree with everything you've just said.

I don't know if it's been said earlier in this thread, but asymmetrical/narrative games can be a lot of fun.
for example 500pts of space marines in a "hunter-killer" list vs 750 pts of IG armor. It can be fun to break the rules with your opponent, experiment with alternative FOCs and point limits etc and it really makes for more fun, diverse casual play.

 LeadLegion wrote:
@ Galorian: I don't see what a tuning fork with legs has to do with anything

But nah. Moving goalposts is when you ask for proof of a given point, them ignore that proof and ask for more proof. So nope, doesn't apply. Cos all I did was move on from banging my head against a wall to talking about something construcitive

@Xenosterminus: Well put. I pretty much agree with everything you've just said.

Moving goalposts can also be commencing an argument with one position, and subtly (or sometimes, not) changing that position.

For a perfect example, pick an argument with a woman, then watch what happens when she realises that you're correct half way through. All of a sudden the scope of the argument will change to ensure that you are, once again, wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
I don't know if it's been said earlier in this thread, but asymmetrical/narrative games can be a lot of fun.
for example 500pts of space marines in a "hunter-killer" list vs 750 pts of IG armor. It can be fun to break the rules with your opponent, experiment with alternative FOCs and point limits etc and it really makes for more fun, diverse casual play.

But this sort of thing should be firmly in the hands of the player. Frankly, some armies need something approaching a 50% head start just for a fair game if you play the rules as they're written, which is where the problem lies.

 azreal13 wrote:

 LeadLegion wrote:
@ Galorian: I don't see what a tuning fork with legs has to do with anything

But nah. Moving goalposts is when you ask for proof of a given point, them ignore that proof and ask for more proof. So nope, doesn't apply. Cos all I did was move on from banging my head against a wall to talking about something construcitive

@Xenosterminus: Well put. I pretty much agree with everything you've just said.

Moving goalposts can also be commencing an argument with one position, and subtly (or sometimes, not) changing that position.

For a perfect example, pick an argument with a woman, then watch what happens when she realises that you're correct half way through. All of a sudden the scope of the argument will change to ensure that you are, once again, wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
I don't know if it's been said earlier in this thread, but asymmetrical/narrative games can be a lot of fun.
for example 500pts of space marines in a "hunter-killer" list vs 750 pts of IG armor. It can be fun to break the rules with your opponent, experiment with alternative FOCs and point limits etc and it really makes for more fun, diverse casual play.

But this sort of thing should be firmly in the hands of the player. Frankly, some armies need something approaching a 50% head start just for a fair game if you play the rules as they're written, which is where the problem lies.

I just don't see this (casually, admittedly).

Very rarely have games been so one-sided, regardless of the armies being played, that it seems like particular scenarios are drastically unbalanced or in a particular players favor before any dice are rolled.

Granted, this is with the assumption neither player, if they are playing a better book, are abusing (yes, spamming the best a book has to offer is abuse, especially against worse books) the best they have to offer. I am not condoning taking 'bad lists', as many here would put it, just that it just isn't as common of an issue to what I would classify the 'common' player will encounter.

So while it is certainly my opinion/observation that the game is not in nearly as bad of shape as a lot of people claim, when you approach the game with the same mindset GW designed it with- it's much harder to find problems and definitely easier to enjoy the game. The more serious you take it the less you will enjoy it.

The fact that you're enjoying the game and not finding huge issues is a massive plus for you, the fact that a lot of people are posting they find the game poorly written and unbalanced to the point where they are finding it frustrating to, or almost to, the point of stopping playing, suggests your viewpoint may well be in the minority, possibly to the point of irrelevance.

The game is infinitely more workable if you play as a stable social group. I suspect you'll find that most people calling for a top-down fix, rather than a house fix don't have that luxury.

Besides, GW are supposed to sell models and kits that require an investment of time and effort in order to work as they are intended, not rulesets.

 azreal13 wrote:
The game is infinitely more workable if you play as a stable social group. I suspect you'll find that most people calling for a top-down fix, rather than a house fix don't have that luxury.

QFT. The game (at least its present incarnation) seems to be designed under the assumption that you're playing with a social group that all know each other or at the very least have someone who can vouch for them so you can have sort of a gentleman's agreement over what is fair and what is looked down on. That doesn't appear to be the case for a lot of players though, who don't have the luxury of a social group but play at a third-party location (e.g. a game store) and have to rely on what amounts to strangers showing up for a game; in most cases you never really become more than acquaintances with these people even if you regularly play them at the store.

The whole idea of just houseruling troublesome things away breaks down in that regard because you can't expect a random player to adhere or even know about your house rules, and be willing to use them while it's a lot easier to have "Club Guidelines" posted on your club's website/clubhouse/whatever and make sure all new members follow it.

 azreal13 wrote:
The fact that you're enjoying the game and not finding huge issues is a massive plus for you, the fact that a lot of people are posting they find the game poorly written and unbalanced to the point where they are finding it frustrating to, or almost to, the point of stopping playing, suggests your viewpoint may well be in the minority, possibly to the point of irrelevance.

The game is infinitely more workable if you play as a stable social group. I suspect you'll find that most people calling for a top-down fix, rather than a house fix don't have that luxury.

Besides, GW are supposed to sell models and kits that require an investment of time and effort in order to work as they are intended, not rulesets.

Perhaps this '6.5/7th' edition will remedy this?

I can't even say that with a straight face.

I know it's been discussed to death as something not particularly viable, but how many conglomerate efforts have been placed into playtesting some sort of universal 'patch' to address the glaring issues with the game?

Clearly there are shared opinions, and the people that are not opposed to or already house rule would not frown upon such a concept. The only hurdle, I think, would be overcoming the challenge of pickup game incorporation, but again pickup games are really the only area I feel 40k doesn't work with anymore so perhaps that is a lost cause.

I'm fairly sure I have it in me, not to just house rule, but to totally overhaul the rules system, to the point where I feel I can get it 90+% compatible with codexes and offer a much more balanced, tactical game (note - more balanced, to approach anything close to really balanced one would probably need to overhaul points costs too)

I'm also fairly sure I can persuade my local club to adopt it if I get it sufficiently right.

Doesn't help anyone who wants to play in the local GW or a shop in the next town over though, and that's why we need a top down fix and why house ruling is limited, and despite what you're saying, you're the first person I've ever seen assert that pick up games are in any way a minority, nearly every game I've played in the last 3 years since starting again has been a pick up game, even if organised a week in advance. I play at a club, who else is there varies from week to week - this sort of set up seems to be the norm in the UK for many, and pick up games in stores seems to be the norm for many in the US.

Those who play at home in social groups may well be less vocal, but fixing the game for the pick up crowd won't affect them in the slightest, and even if the PUC are a minority, they're an undoubtedly a significant and vocal one, and it would do GW well to try and keep them happy.

What they need to do is very simple:

* Balance the "core" rules of the game to be suitable for competitive/tournament/pick-up game play e.g. remove Battle Brothers, remove some randomness

* Add "optional" rules, this would include Flyers (rework existing transports), Escalation, Fortifications and the like.

The optional rules would need a disclaimer or something basically stating that they are meant for adding depth to narrative/campaign/story-driven games and require your opponent's permission to use, with an added disclaimer saying they are not intended for use in pick-up games or competitive games.

Assuming balanced standard rules this is the best of both worlds - None of the broken stuff in pickup games or tournaments, but if you are doing a narrative game and want to do some cool things, then you have the rules at your disposal because both of you would agree to do it.

All of these additional rules muck up a competitive setting but are perfectly fine if you're having some huge Siege of Terra-like battle with titans and a huge castle and the like, and that's where it should stay instead of allowing Bob to turn up to a game and drop down a Revenant or a huge heap of fortifications because the rules let him buy it for his army.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm fairly sure I have it in me, not to just house rule, but to totally overhaul the rules system, to the point where I feel I can get it 90+% compatible with codexes and offer a much more balanced, tactical game (note - more balanced, to approach anything close to really balanced one would probably need to overhaul points costs too)

I don't think a top-down overhaul would work if your aim is to fix the game whilst keeping it compatible with the existing Codices. So many of 40K's problems come from the Codices themselves, that an overhaul of one requires the overhaul of another.

Why not just standard rules and a tournament ruleset that plays off the BRB with balance.

So you want to play official tournaments here are the guidelines.

Beer and pretzels? Just the normal rules.

But this would require them to have a tournament rules team.

 LeadLegion wrote:
Peregrine said:

"Now let's try to "improve" chess by the GW method: destroying balance. Let's make it so each player chooses their color, and both players can play the same color. White functions exactly as it does now, but the black king has an additional rule that black automatically wins the game if the other player doesn't also play black. According to your model this should reduce the skill gap, but in reality it doesn't. No player with more than a basic understanding of the game is ever going to play white, so all you've added is an additional opportunity for an inexperienced player to lose the game."

Actually, un-balanced versions of chess are a far better, much more enjoyable and far more accessible for new players. Ever played battle chess? I'm not talking about the old PC game from the 90's. I'm talking about the huge variety of "variant" rules systems which exist that make Chess a better game in terms of enjoyment. I'm talking about, for example, the type of Chess Game that includes playing cards with one off optional rules. Such as "play this card on any pawn you control. That pawn may move backwards one square".

I think you guys are looking for: Alessio Cavatore’s Shuuro.

The arguing over competitive or balance I think is well covered here:
http://pinsofwar.com/competitive-40k-does-not-exist/

Best quote:

"Being “good at the metagame” of Warhammer 40K takes no skill. It only takes staying abreast with Games Workshop’s latest. If you take a break for 6 months and come back to “competitive” 40K with your 6th-month-old game, you’ll find that things have moved on. Everything you did before those 6th months will mean squat and you will start at the same point any new player starts, once she/he has gotten to the point of knowing the rules and how to avoid obvious mistakes.

Inversely, if you win a Warhammer 40K tournament, it doesn’t say anything about you or your “skills”. All it says is that you brought the right list at the right time. Nothing more."

Tournaments are a laugh since it really is just bring the flavor of the month understand the basic use / deployment and liberal use of "natural rolling" and you can win like a pro!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LeadLegion wrote:
*sigh* Better explain my position again to head off yet another straw man argument:

I like summaries!

****The stats suggest that 40k is still played by more people than any other wargame. Therefore "40k is balanced enough for most of us. therefore 40K is balanced enough". Note that "most of us" means most people who play 40K. Most people who play 40K do not participate in high-level tournament play.

Creating "epic" scenarios allows a way to "balance" games, we allowed switching sides and playing again for fun as well. For gaming it works, tournaments are not fun.

***40K is not designed for tournament play and is not balanced for tournaments. I don't see anything wrong with adopting house rules in tournament play to make the game more balanced for the minority of people who want to play in a tournament environment.

Same as above, a well played scenario can be balanced for an even scrap. Just using the rules as they stand are too many variables to allow any form of balance.

***I do not have any problem with the adoption of house rules in a casual gaming environment either. As I've already said, we allow the use of fan-codices in our games.

It allows for what few armies are not covered, we use a modified 2nd edition Squat codex, updated for 6th edition.

***Supporting the use of rule house does not mean I think the game requires the use of house rules to be enjoyable.

The only difficulty is the game is presented that you create a specific point value army and you can go anywhere and play with no modification. This is misleading.

***I do have a problem with the concept that official 40K rules should be re-written as a tournament friendly game at the expense of the casual gamer.

I would suggest one of their famous "supplement" type codex's like Escalation but one that is specific for tournament play. All manor of tweaks could be thrown into that book and then it could be optional for "normal" play.

***I do have a problem with the poor level of "technical" writing in the rulebooks that leave game rules open to ambiguity. However, that is not a game balance issue. That is a writing quality issue. The two are related, but still separate.

The writing is typically very casual I think with the intent to be more accessible to the general public rather than the quasi-legal-exact-wording document it needs to be.

***I do have a problem with people who haven't even played the current edition (or even a recent edition) of the game, but who seem to think they are still experts on the game regardless.

As pointed out, it keeps changing so an "expert" is out of date as early as the next supplement/codex release. People can be experts in pointing out how new rules sets are perceived better or worse than prior however.

None of these views are mutually exclusive or contradictory. They are not black and white. Please don't misconstrue them as such.

Anyone trying to portray any rules from GW in black and white terms will have a fight on their hands; there are many shades of grey.

My focus is for more flexibility to create scenarios I want, not making tighter rules, so the strength of my support for holding GW's feet to the fire is minimal.
Reducing cost I would support more but GW made it clear that they think cost is not a factor worth considering so buying used models is still the norm for me.

Good luck with you two sparring.
I think both groups have many correct statements just that the focus is different and that is where you cannot agree:
1) Casual gaming to play how you want: the rules achieve that goal.
2) Tight rules for tournament play or a more "competitive" environment it is just not there.

I do not see Peregrine getting his way at least with the management GW has now; they do not want to prevent you from justifying getting any model you want (Allies, Escalation).
Unfortunately he is trying to rally the troops in an environment mainly made up of fluff bunnies (40k at least) so he is doomed to disappointment.
I think the more competitive players have moved on to other game systems and he is admirably hanging in there.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm fairly sure I have it in me, not to just house rule, but to totally overhaul the rules system, to the point where I feel I can get it 90+% compatible with codexes and offer a much more balanced, tactical game (note - more balanced, to approach anything close to really balanced one would probably need to overhaul points costs too)

I don't think a top-down overhaul would work if your aim is to fix the game whilst keeping it compatible with the existing Codices. So many of 40K's problems come from the Codices themselves, that an overhaul of one requires the overhaul of another.

Too dam true.

The 40k rules as presented in the book are actually quite decent when you read them without looking at codices. Its when you take the codices into account, that things begin to fall apart rapidly. Not to mention some of them are poorly written to the point where you have to in effect self nerf to actually have any chance of being in the 'halfway house' between uber competitive and 'fluffy'. The Eldar codex is a prime example, I've never come across a codex where spamming certain units seems to be mandatory until you put limits on it. Thinking outside the box requires rather more thought but wave serpent spam just seems to 'occur' regardless

At least the generally lambasted Tau can do all sorts of funky stuff not just with riptides, but of course with markerlights things just die anyway but in a different fashion

So close yet so far really, its what makes it so frustrating

@Art of war.
If the core rules for 40k were more suitable for the game play of 40k, the codex books would not have to ignore/add to them to get all the factions and options to work...

That is why a Epic Armagedon works so much better with much fewer pages of rules, yet far more game play options.