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.

What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally. The size of the game is expanding and with it boundaries for rules will be blown out. With the release of new models such as the better knights, gargantuan creatures, and the Warlord, we will see new swings in "balance". I think they (GW and FW) are going to let things settle after they drop all these heavy additions, then figure out balance and game play. Models and money first, then gameplay second.

But that is super stupid. Who is going to play where entry army is 2000points or more, even now people decide to play warmahordes or inifnity over w40k, just because they don't have to buy 200$ in book at start? WFB had its huge armies and it didn't end well for it. There won't be any money if people stop buying their stuff.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:

What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally. The size of the game is expanding and with it boundaries for rules will be blown out. With the release of new models such as the better knights, gargantuan creatures, and the Warlord, we will see new swings in "balance". I think they (GW and FW) are going to let things settle after they drop all these heavy additions, then figure out balance and game play. Models and money first, then gameplay second.

I understood what you meant, I mean that your theory makes no sense. They have had gargantuan things in the game for a while and they've never attempted to balance it before.
People thought that balance was going to be leveled out with 7th edition. We saw what happened with that with Necrons and Eldar. People keep saying "wait and GW will fix it." They never do.

I think pink zebras will fall out of the sky before we see something that's "balanced". xSoulgrinderx is on the right track, though Fluff and fiction are also more important than gameplay to GW, IMO.

The Narrative they Forge is that certain factions just suck and are designed to be fighting a hopeless battle

 agnosto wrote:

Well, that's alright then. If we assume that GW has basically thrown in the towel when it comes to rules writing then the fact is that they'll continue to decline in marketshare and revenue until they become what upper management seems to desire, a boutique model company that happens to have some shoddy, thrown-together rules in case you need a reason to put your pretty models on a table...you know to display them and share them with your friends. Other games systems are growing marketshare at an accelerated rate and as more people who are interested in something beyond a grim-dark universe full of tired fantasy and sci-fi tropes but attached to a great collection of models, you'll continue to see GW shrink into obscurity.

Nah, GW can't give up on what it never tried to do in the first place As much as some peeps would like, I think it will be a long time before GW shrinks into obscurity. There are too many people (like me) who really don't care about "game balance" out-of-the-box, because these are non-issues in our play group.

Would it be better if it were better balanced out of the box -- YES, of course! But that's like saying that my SUV would be better if the traffic navigation system worked worth a damn. Even though it doesn't (at least, not in my city), I'm still not going to get rid of my car and buy another car, even if that car does have a fantastic traffic plotting system.

Fluff and fiction being more important for GW would be okay and all, if you didn't have to pay so bloody much for the rules to play the game.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Fluff and fiction being more important for GW would be okay and all, if you didn't have to pay so bloody much for the rules to play the game.

Or if the rules actually followed the fluff. But I guess I'm supposed to be happy to pay $50+ for a rulebook so I can forge the narrative of my commander forgetting his skills every time he fights a new battle, or allying chaos demons and GK to fight against Ultramarines.

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:

What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally.

If the lack of balance is intentional, then why bother with point costs? Why not just say "Take whatever you want to forge a narrative."?

ImAGeek wrote:Fluff and fiction being more important for GW would be okay and all, if you didn't have to pay so bloody much for the rules to play the game.

I dunno, tbh. The most valuable thing to me is my time, so even if a game is really cheap and not fun, I wouldn't want to blow my time on it. I'd rather spend a money on something I enjoy, than much less on something that I don't.

Of course, the worst case scenario would be to pay a lot of money for something I don't enjoy

Peregrine wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Fluff and fiction being more important for GW would be okay and all, if you didn't have to pay so bloody much for the rules to play the game.

Or if the rules actually followed the fluff. But I guess I'm supposed to be happy to pay $50+ for a rulebook so I can forge the narrative of my commander forgetting his skills every time he fights a new battle, or allying chaos demons and GK to fight against Ultramarines.

For many years, our group played such that a surviving commander had the option of retaining their rolls (in RT, we allowed heroes that survived the ability to keep their random gear, too). We still do it if we're putting together a multi-battle campaign. The theory is that if a named hero like Mephiston dies, he doesn't REALLY die -- he just suffered a grave wound. As he is restored to his glory for the next battle, he finds his psychic abilities have shifted.

I think it's kind of cool, anyhow, to encourage heroes to NOT die -- even if there is a good strategic reason for it.

 vipoid wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:

What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally.

If the lack of balance is intentional, then why bother with point costs? Why not just say "Take whatever you want to forge a narrative."?

It essentially says that in the rulebook, doesn't it?

I'll see if I can dig out the paragraph.

Edit #1: It was the last sentence I was thinking about. Anyway, here's what the rulebook says. I've spoilered it should I be accidentally breaking a forum rule (sorry if I have):

To be honest, all I see there is a load of spiel from the marketing department.

In any case, the point still stands - why bother with point costs if the game is intentionally unbalanced? I mean, balance is the entire point of having point costs at all.

 vipoid wrote:
To be honest, all I see there is a load of spiel from the marketing department.

In any case, the point still stands - why bother with point costs if the game is intentionally unbalanced? I mean, balance is the entire point of having point costs at all.

Right or wrong, as guidance.

GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.

I'm not defending this behaviour. I have a great time with 40k - only playing with friends - but I still see the flaws and have no interest in taking my army to the FLGS.

I do wish someone would put their foot down and tidy things up. However, that would be against the culture that GW displays and that's the hurdle I imagine exists.

ShaneTB wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:

What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally.

If the lack of balance is intentional, then why bother with point costs? Why not just say "Take whatever you want to forge a narrative."?

It essentially says that in the rulebook, doesn't it?

I'll see if I can dig out the paragraph.

Edit #1: It was the last sentence I was thinking about. Anyway, here's what the rulebook says. I've spoilered it should I be accidentally breaking a forum rule (sorry if I have):

Spoiler:

But that has to do with reality as much as a McDonalds add saying their stuff is "food" and "tasty". You realy want to tell me that suddenly after so many years of w40k, suddenly it went from table top game to some sort of a table top LARP? And even if it did, and it was GW goal to change w40k that way. How do they expect all the people who played their game to react now. That is like changing a football game in to a dance off contest. There could be people that like the change, but how many and how many of fans that build the frenchise?

GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules.

But that was never the true. If it was stuff like vespids or ogryns would have close to same sells numbers as other units from the same army slot. But they do not. Why do falcons sell like hot cakes one edition and are unsellable on the second hand market the other minute. How many bikes sold before marine codex made them troops or how many non librarian or chaplain HQs were run in 4th ed. Do those 3-4 tyrants per tyranid player get bought because the models are so awesome and why do all of them have wings and same weapons.

Historical games do that and STILL manage to be decently balanced. So 40k still fails there. They seem to want the game to function similarly: pick a battle or make your own What If and pick armies to suit, balance be damned. But they still fail at doing that.

ShaneTB wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
To be honest, all I see there is a load of spiel from the marketing department.

In any case, the point still stands - why bother with point costs if the game is intentionally unbalanced? I mean, balance is the entire point of having point costs at all.

Right or wrong, as guidance.

Guidance for what? Since right now the point value has absolutely no correlation with anything the unit does or is on the table.

Makumba wrote:

ShaneTB wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:

What I meant to mean by this, is that, currently there is no balance yes. But, I believe this is done intentionally.

If the lack of balance is intentional, then why bother with point costs? Why not just say "Take whatever you want to forge a narrative."?

It essentially says that in the rulebook, doesn't it?

I'll see if I can dig out the paragraph.

Edit #1: It was the last sentence I was thinking about. Anyway, here's what the rulebook says. I've spoilered it should I be accidentally breaking a forum rule (sorry if I have):

Spoiler:

But that has to do with reality as much as a McDonalds add saying their stuff is "food" and "tasty". You realy want to tell me that suddenly after so many years of w40k, suddenly it went from table top game to some sort of a table top LARP? And even if it did, and it was GW goal to change w40k that way. How do they expect all the people who played their game to react now. That is like changing a football game in to a dance off contest. There could be people that like the change, but how many and how many of fans that build the frenchise?

I didn't say any of that. I posted the image to show what is in the rulebook for the benefit of the on-going conversation. It is marketing talk, yes, but it is also indicative of how the core team view 40k.

And 40k started as "table top LARP". I stopped playing when 3rd edition came out and start again with 7th. The heart of the game felt no different. But I don't play 40k with strangers; so my environment for this could be very different to yours.

Posting an image to show GW's current view doesn't mean I agree with it. It was to demonstrate that the culture of GW is the reason for the statistical imbalance between armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:


GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules.

But that was never the true. If it was stuff like vespids or ogryns would have close to same sells numbers as other units from the same army slot. But they do not. Why do falcons sell like hot cakes one edition and are unsellable on the second hand market the other minute. How many bikes sold before marine codex made them troops or how many non librarian or chaplain HQs were run in 4th ed. Do those 3-4 tyrants per tyranid player get bought because the models are so awesome and why do all of them have wings and same weapons.

Missed this bit.

This is GW's view. They said this to the audience at the last open day. It doesn't mean they're good at that either.

Like I was saying in another thread, if GW really is concerned with the narrative and stuff, they should put out a book that shows how to link battles, come up with scenarios, etc. and have an example one. A GW version of Donald Featherstone's Wargaming Campaigns, basically.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Like I was saying in another thread, if GW really is concerned with the narrative and stuff, they should put out a book that shows how to link battles, come up with scenarios, etc. and have an example one. A GW version of Donald Featherstone's Wargaming Campaigns, basically.

They said they wanted to do this. But that was about nine months ago. Along with the increased release scheduled I don't see this happening soon, unfortunately.
Or perhaps those campaigns book were what become of it.

On a semi-related note, they are not interested in a character generator model i.e. rules so you can make your own special character.

ShaneTB wrote:

GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.

I'm not seeing how that relates to my point.

 vipoid wrote:

ShaneTB wrote:

GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.

I'm not seeing how that relates to my point.

Because rules are so secondary to GW that they charge $135 just for basics and another $50 for any fluff flavor you want. They have to demonstrate how little they care by charging 300% of the rest of the industry and then repackage books with less rules content and more recycled fluff. Duh.

 vipoid wrote:

ShaneTB wrote:

GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.

I'm not seeing how that relates to my point.

About points? Only GW knows the answer and they won't be sharing. I wanted to try and shed light on why they think certain ways. They want to give the players building blocks but that doesn't coalesce with the business model.

The points are there to be used. Except when you don't want to use them. It's an ambigiuty that results in circular arguments. Proper RPGs have very strict foundations to then 'narrate' upon. So GW are flawed here in not being clear.

The points across armies are not balanced. Want to be clear that I don't think otherwise. It's a combination of the D6 and codexi releasing independant to main rulebooks. Plus members of the team having personal favourite armies.

Which to people reading might seem an antithesis to my open enjoyment of the game. There's something about 40k that above other games I play keeps bringing me back. Got two straight days of it this weekend with friends.

I've probably not answered your question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Accolade wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

ShaneTB wrote:

GW believe that people are more invested in the models and fluff than the rules. So they prioritise. They're a model company first. Rules second. They're open about that.

I'm not seeing how that relates to my point.

Because rules are so secondary to GW that they charge $135 just for basics and another $50 for any fluff flavor you want. They have to demonstrate how little they care by charging 300% of the rest of the industry and then repackage books with less rules content and more recycled fluff. Duh.

Cost isn't indictive of priority. The main rulebook set is the cost of a console game. So that's fine for me. Pricing is personal so I can understand that's a lot to others.

Though the main rulebook set should come with some sort of mini codex that lets new players try armies straight out of the box, as it were.

There has to be priority there, the rules are being replaced at speeds faster than they ever have before by a huge margin. Heck, the new Imperial Knights codex was one year old before it was replaced with a new one.

The rules are now a vehicle to add revenue on top of miniatures. They aren't produced to provided an improved good (since balance means nothing), they're present just to get more cash out of the customer. You may have an infinite budget, that's great, but it doesn't change the fact t that the rules are becoming nothing more than a tack-on extra price providing little to no intrinsic value to the game. Unless of course you really enjoy reading most of the same stories over and over again. Do the other three short stories account for that $50 price tag (which represents a console game- the main rule book is $85, that is *not* a console game price).

 Accolade wrote:
There has to be priority there, the rules are being replaced at speeds faster than they ever have before by a huge margin. Heck, the new Imperial Knights codex was one year old before it was replaced with a new one.

The rules are now a vehicle to add revenue on top of miniatures. They aren't produced to provided an improved good (since balance means nothing), they're present just to get more cash out of the customer. You may have an infinite budget, that's great, but it doesn't change the fact t that the rules are becoming nothing more than a tack-on extra price providing little to no intrinsic value to the game. Unless of course you really enjoy reading most of the same stories over and over again. Do the other three short stories account for that $50 price tag (which represents a console game- the main rule book is $85, that is *not* a console game price).

I was referring to UK price. If the international prices don't much comparable products than I understand the frustration there. Especially as you're already invested with an army. This is an expensive hobby. No doubt.

The rules are written to match the new release schedule that has moved away from typical 'full' army releases to what we see now. It allows - perhaps - increased sales and more freedom internally to design smaller 'ally' armies. Of course profit drives this originally but I believe we've seen some neat small scale releases recently. Unless you're getting the new army you don't need the codex. And their codex is naturally extra profit for those that want to table the models. I don't see anything wrong with new armies like this. Replacing books within a year is questionable.

But to the topic purpose: Balance issues remain the same. In fact, it could be harder to control within the new release schedule.

 Talys wrote:

Nah, GW can't give up on what it never tried to do in the first place As much as some peeps would like, I think it will be a long time before GW shrinks into obscurity. There are too many people (like me) who really don't care about "game balance" out-of-the-box, because these are non-issues in our play group.

Would it be better if it were better balanced out of the box -- YES, of course! But that's like saying that my SUV would be better if the traffic navigation system worked worth a damn. Even though it doesn't (at least, not in my city), I'm still not going to get rid of my car and buy another car, even if that car does have a fantastic traffic plotting system.

Yes, they never cared about game balance but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. Times change, the expectations of consumers change and regardless of how many people you may think are of the same mind as you, GW financial records demonstrably prove that what they're currently doing does not work. Obviously if your play group was the sum total of all GW customers, or potential customers, GW would not be hemorrhaging cash but unfortunately, they are and the larger consumer base seems to be voting with their wallets.

Let me use your example and just say that instead of getting rid of the vehicle (i.e. the wargaming/modeling/painting hobby) you change navigation systems (i.e. games) to one that actually works. No reason to rage quit the entire hobby when it's just one company that's broken.

Have you ever compared the cost of a SOB Cannoness to some of the crazy Eldar stuff out there?

 agnosto wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Nah, GW can't give up on what it never tried to do in the first place As much as some peeps would like, I think it will be a long time before GW shrinks into obscurity. There are too many people (like me) who really don't care about "game balance" out-of-the-box, because these are non-issues in our play group.

Would it be better if it were better balanced out of the box -- YES, of course! But that's like saying that my SUV would be better if the traffic navigation system worked worth a damn. Even though it doesn't (at least, not in my city), I'm still not going to get rid of my car and buy another car, even if that car does have a fantastic traffic plotting system.

Yes, they never cared about game balance but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't. Times change, the expectations of consumers change and regardless of how many people you may think are of the same mind as you, GW financial records demonstrably prove that what they're currently doing does not work. Obviously if your play group was the sum total of all GW customers, or potential customers, GW would not be hemorrhaging cash but unfortunately, they are and the larger consumer base seems to be voting with their wallets.

Let me use your example and just say that instead of getting rid of the vehicle (i.e. the wargaming/modeling/painting hobby) you change navigation systems (i.e. games) to one that actually works. No reason to rage quit the entire hobby when it's just one company that's broken.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying, man

"Abdicated responsibility" seems entirely too mature for what GW has done. "Stopped giving a crap" is more like it.

6th and 7th editions are basically this: "Screw your existing army and established norms, here are some new units, they are OP, buy them and field them however you like (unbound). FYI, in a month we are releasing more units that are even more OP. Buy them too."

I doubt they even play test anymore.

I get that GW are more focused on models and narrative than game balance, as they think that is what we are concerned about. To an extent, they are right. I also get that they have always exhibited this attitude to some degree. And I don't expect 40k to ever be truly balanced because they are always changing the rules to generate more revenue.

It just sounds to me like they no longer care AT ALL. At least in past editions they made SOME attempt to create balance by imposing restrictions and clarifying core vs optional rules. The balance between armies was there to reflect the flavour of the armies, e.g. a few elite marines vs hordes of lightly armoured Orks. I'm not saying it was always effective, but at least they TRIED. At least there was some kind of plan to deal with this issue. Even a game where you have some OP troops choices is more balanced than one in which anything goes. Nowadays, it just seems like they got tired of players moaning on internet forums, so instead they just said "fine, do what you want" and passed the buck from official rule writing to unwritten rules of player etiquette.

I dislike relying on "etiquette" to circumvent balance issues in the core rules because it places the onus on the guy who doesn't want to face 5 Imperial Knights to explain why he does not want to play against a perfectly legal army list, meaning that he comes off looking like a whiny bad sport who takes it too seriously. It also defeats the point of tactics and army design if you are supposed to intentionally nerf yourself.

You will never have perfect balance when they've got miniatures to sell and we've got choice over what models we take in our armies. But I still think they could do better.

 Krusha wrote:
I get that GW are more focused on models and narrative than game balance, as they think that is what we are concerned about. To an extent, they are right. I also get that they have always exhibited this attitude to some degree. And I don't expect 40k to ever be truly balanced because they are always changing the rules to generate more revenue.

It just sounds to me like they no longer care AT ALL. At least in past editions they made SOME attempt to create balance by imposing restrictions and clarifying core vs optional rules. The balance between armies was there to reflect the flavour of the armies, e.g. a few elite marines vs hordes of lightly armoured Orks. I'm not saying it was always effective, but at least they TRIED. At least there was some kind of plan to deal with this issue. Even a game where you have some OP troops choices is more balanced than one in which anything goes. Nowadays, it just seems like they got tired of players moaning on internet forums, so instead they just said "fine, do what you want" and passed the buck from official rule writing to unwritten rules of player etiquette.

I dislike relying on "etiquette" to circumvent balance issues in the core rules because it places the onus on the guy who doesn't want to face 5 Imperial Knights to explain why he does not want to play against a perfectly legal army list, meaning that he comes off looking like a whiny bad sport who takes it too seriously. It also defeats the point of tactics and army design if you are supposed to intentionally nerf yourself.

You will never have perfect balance when they've got miniatures to sell and we've got choice over what models we take in our armies. But I still think they could do better.

A thousand times, this. That's the biggest problem with this "negotiate with your opponent" bullgak. It makes the person who DOESN'T want to play against the Knights or FW stuff or OP list look like the jerk and not the person who wants to use the OP list in the first place. It empowers the powergamer, which should be the opposite that a "beer and pretzels" and "laid back, casual" game should be doing (not that I agree catering to that end is necessarily good either) and makes the people who are complaining (and rightly so IMHO) about let's say how OP the Eldar are look like whiners who don't want to play a perfectly legal army.

That's the opposite of what it's claiming to be.

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
There seems to be a lot of crying about now, and a lot less keeping head up and eyes forward.

DO YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THIS GAME.

Forge world is making a Warlord titan... guys, this is the direction GW is going. Bigger, no, le, even Titanic.....

Point is you cant balance it yet because they havent made the Imperator or the Emperor model.

God I remember back in 98, when the only titan I ever saw was made from a old washing machine (and just as tall!!).... Now everytime I go to a store everyone and their mother seems to be packing them!!

Anyway back on topic, I always had this feeling 3rd ed was simply made to address the craziness of the first 2 eds. As such it seemed very bare bones imo, relatively easy to understand but from my memory of the time a tad boring, nothing much crazy would happen.

I remember when I started collecting in 98 very little emphasis was placed on winning, the narrative was much more important. However I also remember the explosion of kids playing the game (which I was myself). Most kids don't like to loose and I tend to find a completive groups tend to turn a more fluff based player or collector to the same mindset. As a result I feel ever since third ed, that 40k has been getting increasingly competitive where GW never really intended on the game being played that way.

Speaking as a casual gamer who has never been to a tournament, I don't have a "win at all costs" attitude, but I want to at least have a fun game with a bit of carnage, even if I lose in the end.

I played a 2000 point game against skitari yesterday and it was a lot of fun, especially the fight against his knight paladin. It was fun because the knight was like an end of level boss on a Sega megadrive game - it had an epic fight with my nobz before I finally bombed it and rammed it to death. Gork smiled that day. However, I would have been tabled if I had to face a whole army of them.

Orks aren't exactly a top tier army, but even I don't use the most competitive build (as many wagons as you can squeeze in) because it's a bit boring and I want some model variety. When I got spanked by the Tau battlesuit army (the only time I have ever rage quit a game) I genuinely wondered how my opponent was even having fun.

I can also accept a certain amount of imbalance for the sake of making the narrative side interesting, e.g. I get that Commander Farsight hates Orks, so this is fluffy and fun even though it inevitably means they get a bonus against Orks which is technically unfair.

I think that in a game like this, the player does have a certain responsability towards his opponent's enjoyment of the game. And I don't think that it is exclusive to Games Workshop at all.

Maybe it's because I play in a small gaming community so the last thing I want is to be 'that guy' and who suddenly can't find a game for love nor money. Therefore my opponent's enjoyment of a game is just as important to me as my own. So yes I could take a Van Saar Necromunda gang in the new campaign and have easily the most powerful gang within half a dozen games (barring some unlucky deaths or injuries) and happily table everyone a couple of times until no-one plays anymore. Then the whole thing collapses for everyone. Wargaming in my view was never a hobby to decide who was the best tactician (leave that to chess or something like that) it was (and still is for us) a very enjoyable way to spend a few hours with your like-minded friends. I don't want to send them home with their tails between their legs having had no fun at all..... They're my friends at the end of the day.

Incidentally I stopped playing 40k after the Imperial Guard Codex that gave them Orders.
"Great" thought I "at last my beloved Guardsmen may be useful rather than being something I take because I'm proud of the paintjob and try not to whimper too much while my opponent sweeps them away with a dustpan and brush" and for a month I was a happy wargamer.
Then the next Codex was Blood Angels that gave every sod a jump pack and I was repacking my army by turn 2.......

Once the game became a case of rock-paper-scissors and the game itself became an afterthought (I'm bringing Imperial Guard... Oh you're Tau are you?... I'll shake your hand now and instead find a worthwhile game for next week then.....) it lost all fun for me and I found other games.

Now we're playing 2ed 40k and haven't had as much fun with wargaming as this for a long time. But we write our lists with the intention of having a good fun game that goes to the wire. If it's looking one-sided early then we'll just tweak something in one or both of the armies and start the game over.

Sorry guys, rant over.....

The players have a responsability to be polite and communicative about how they like to play the game with their opponent.
This is expected in all war games.

However, expecting the players to agree to interpret poorly worded rules in the same way.
And expecting players to be able to sort out all the balance issues in an agreed way, because the game developers could not be bothered to play test the game enough.

Is NOT expected in any other game other than 40k and WHFB.AFAIK.

E.A. has a similar amount of units in game to 7th ed 40k.It has far more complexity in the game play, yet managed to cover everything in less than 140 pages of rules .(Including all the army lists.)

GW plc do not care about game play any more, just selling the latest product to anyone who will buy it for the price they want to charge.