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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

There is no such thing! Period....never will. It's like saying that you can please everyone in the world or that the Internet can be fair and balanced!

 Red Corsair wrote:
Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Because each of these events has a little thing called a tournament pack, filled with house rules, and new missions, and secondary objectives, etc.

At that point, your data isn't coming from games of 40k - you've got data from Adepticon's version of 40k, which may well be telling you different things to what LVO 40k told you, or Grand Tournament 40k told you.

And to add to that, the feedback from any of them is different to what you're observing in casual games at Warhammer World...

 Dysartes wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Because each of these events has a little thing called a tournament pack, filled with house rules, and new missions, and secondary objectives, etc.

At that point, your data isn't coming from games of 40k - you've got data from Adepticon's version of 40k, which may well be telling you different things to what LVO 40k told you, or Grand Tournament 40k told you.

And to add to that, the feedback from any of them is different to what you're observing in casual games at Warhammer World...

This is true, but I would rather them making decisions based on a thousand tournament games than the 6 games they played in the studio when "play-testing" the Codex.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Because each of these events has a little thing called a tournament pack, filled with house rules, and new missions, and secondary objectives, etc.

At that point, your data isn't coming from games of 40k - you've got data from Adepticon's version of 40k, which may well be telling you different things to what LVO 40k told you, or Grand Tournament 40k told you.

And to add to that, the feedback from any of them is different to what you're observing in casual games at Warhammer World...

This is true, but I would rather them making decisions based on a thousand tournament games than the 6 games they played in the studio when "play-testing" the Codex.

When it comes to making calls on what unclear rules need amending, or what actual FAQs are needed? I heartily agree.

Balance decisions, on the other hand, should be based on games played using the rules as sold, not as house-ruled by others

You mean 1000 games based on a thousand different versions of 40k. Data taken from a tournament will be biased to reflect the parameters of the tournament - and might not look like any one particular table out there in the world, but at least it's a consistent environment to minimize all that noise by utilizing the same rulesets, generally consistent tables, etc.

You're maximizing internal validity at the expense of external validity - but I would argue that basing balance decisions off games played in the studio with the designers, playing games "using the rules as sold", lacks just as much external validity.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

All the QA in the world for a company like Blizzard, issues still make it through, they get fixed, balance happens, people are happy, people are mad.

But GW isn't afforded the same courtesy? Bit silly

You're not seriously suggesting Blizzard's fans are more courteous about balance changes, are you? If anything the vitriol in their community is worse.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
You mean 1000 games based on a thousand different versions of 40k. Data taken from a tournament will be biased to reflect the parameters of the tournament - and might not look like any one particular table out there in the world, but at least it's a consistent environment to minimize all that noise by utilizing the same rulesets, generally consistent tables, etc.

You're maximizing internal validity at the expense of external validity - but I would argue that basing balance decisions off games played in the studio with the designers, playing games "using the rules as sold", lacks just as much external validity.

He's not saying that it should be based on games played in the studio, he's saying it should be based on data from events(such as those run at Warhammer World by GW) where the rules as written are played rather than whatever homebrew set that event X or ITC pretends is 40K.

Unless you are in the studio playing with a designer, I can guarantee you that you are playing some homebrew version of 40k. Even at a GW event at Warhammer World.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

All the QA in the world for a company like Blizzard, issues still make it through, they get fixed, balance happens, people are happy, people are mad.

But GW isn't afforded the same courtesy? Bit silly

You're not seriously suggesting Blizzard's fans are more courteous about balance changes, are you? If anything the vitriol in their community is worse.

Yeah. Go and read the forum of any game that is minimally "mainstream". You end up with the idea that the game is the worst one ever

 Elbows wrote:
Andy is describing the "catch" in all of this.

One game for two audiences. When people ask me how 8th is, I say "good fun, with the usual caveats". The caveats are that it sucks as a competitive/tournament minded game. The game is as broken as it's ever been. So to me, "competitive" 40K is a sham. However, as a basis for creating a fun game between friends, it's well above some previous editions.

If you play 40K hyper competitive, or your enjoy beat-face tournaments, you really have little room to complain, as you've elected to play the game in that fashion. You don't "have" to play it that way, and honestly GW never posited that it was supposed to be played that way. So when you choose to play a competitive game of 40K without reigning in the nonsense with your own common sense...you're kinda asking for trouble.

The game is always in the hands of the players. We're not beholden to anything unless we choose to be (i.e. tournaments, and even GW's rules etc.). 40K is not, and has never been, a properly balanced game suitable to serious competitive play. I don't think GW will change this in the future, regardless of the people who want it to.

This guy gets it!
Apologies if you're a girl, it's hard to tell with a name like elbows!

It is worth pointing out that GW were not simply taking data from the tournament at Adepticon. They had several long meetings with both the 40k and aos playtesting teams, who they don't usually get to meet on the flesh. I can't imagine they didn't look at the faqs. There were also more than 300 40k players gathered together from the American scene where 40k is the most popular. It would have been a great opportunity for GW to take the temperature of the room with regards to 40k.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Because each of these events has a little thing called a tournament pack, filled with house rules, and new missions, and secondary objectives, etc.

At that point, your data isn't coming from games of 40k - you've got data from Adepticon's version of 40k, which may well be telling you different things to what LVO 40k told you, or Grand Tournament 40k told you.

And to add to that, the feedback from any of them is different to what you're observing in casual games at Warhammer World...

That is partly true, but missions have little to do with unit to unit interactions. In fact, you don't even NEED a mission to play two armies against each other and see how certain units dominate over others. So it's not really true to suggest the data collected from these events is somehow tainted.

By the way technically terrain needs to be discussed and agreed upon by both parties prior to any games I have ever played. That right there is a house rule as you call it.

Nobody needs to go that far though, it's perfectly fine to use data from adepticon and draw the conclusion that flying hive tyrants were a massive mistake. Jesus, when the book came out and they got a 4++ AND deepstrike most players already new that, now we have multiple tournaments worth of games to support that claim.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Of course GW wants to appraise tournaments for the viability of their rules.

Here's the thing, if a change in the rules via a FAQ can cause people to change up their armies, GW will do it for one small reason and one big reason.

The small reason is that people will see that GW is at least attempting balance and will get more satisfaction out of the game by perceiving multiple army builds as feasible.

The big reason is that changing up the rules means changing up the meta, which means that more kits are sold as everyone scrambles to try out new armies or fit the new netlist. A big fat FAQ is a way to shake up the game without releasing a new edition and to get people to buy more kits.

GW isn't dumb. They know that there are lots of people that gravitate towards the netlists. But if lots of people build netlists, that means that there's hundreds of kits that GW produces that aren't being bought. If all the competitive Tyranid players only bought Rippers, Flyrants, and Mawlocs, then all of the Hormagaunt, Termagaunt, Carnifex, Lictor, Venomthrope, Zoanthrope, and half a dozen other kits will go unbought.

Shift the meta, add a rule that limits the number of Flyrants you can have, and boom, you've got people filling out their Tyranid lists with other things, which means sales of other kits.

 Galef wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

While I can certainly relate to this sentiment, after playing for over a decade, I can say this is not the game to expect to be static.

Even if you wait for the FAQ before buying something, there is a ticking time limit on when something else will eventually change those rules.
On average, I would say most units only have about 2-3 months of "safety" before they are fair game to be altered by some kind of change, whether directly (FAQ/Errata the unit) or indirectly (some other unit gets better or becomes a hard counter to that unit).

In my experience, you just gotta buy what you want and not be too upset if it isn't "competitive". Eventually most units become good to some degree
-

I'm going to continue building and painting whatever I think is or looks cool, because I'm not concerned to the extent of others about having a fully-optimised or WAAC-style army. I've been playing since Rogue Trader, and gak changes constantly anyway. I'm more concerned about having a good time with toy soldiers in an aesthetically-pleasing situation.

 Da-Rock wrote:
There is no such thing! Period....never will. It's like saying that you can please everyone in the world or that the Internet can be fair and balanced!

What is no such thing? Your entire reply is a non sequitur.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

I'm a casual player. My interest in competitive play died when 5th Ed 40K came out. Or maybe when I first heard the phrase 'Hull Point'.

Yet I understand the need for a tight and balanced* ruleset, well-proofread, well-tested, and willing to make significant changes to fix problems (preferably before publication). If someone doesn't care about that then that's their own deal (but as I said, having what I described doesn't hurt them, so there's no reason not to), but being actively against a better ruleset makes zero fething sense to me.

I also don't think that tournaments should have phone-books worth of special house rules to 'balance' the game to whomever wrote it's specifications. No game should require that.

*Balanced. Balanced. Not perfectly balanced. Not a 'perfect' set of rules. Just balanced.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

While I can certainly relate to this sentiment, after playing for over a decade, I can say this is not the game to expect to be static.

Even if you wait for the FAQ before buying something, there is a ticking time limit on when something else will eventually change those rules.
On average, I would say most units only have about 2-3 months of "safety" before they are fair game to be altered by some kind of change, whether directly (FAQ/Errata the unit) or indirectly (some other unit gets better or becomes a hard counter to that unit).

In my experience, you just gotta buy what you want and not be too upset if it isn't "competitive". Eventually most units become good to some degree
-

I'm going to continue building and painting whatever I think is or looks cool, because I'm not concerned to the extent of others about having a fully-optimised or WAAC-style army. I've been playing since Rogue Trader, and gak changes constantly anyway. I'm more concerned about having a good time with toy soldiers in an aesthetically-pleasing situation.

even as someone whose mearly been playing with 5th edition, I've learned not to be too focused on such things. with 40k as it stands now it chanegs so fast chances are by time you finish a 2000 point army the meta will have changed anyway

 Azazelx wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

While I can certainly relate to this sentiment, after playing for over a decade, I can say this is not the game to expect to be static.

Even if you wait for the FAQ before buying something, there is a ticking time limit on when something else will eventually change those rules.
On average, I would say most units only have about 2-3 months of "safety" before they are fair game to be altered by some kind of change, whether directly (FAQ/Errata the unit) or indirectly (some other unit gets better or becomes a hard counter to that unit).

In my experience, you just gotta buy what you want and not be too upset if it isn't "competitive". Eventually most units become good to some degree
-

I'm going to continue building and painting whatever I think is or looks cool, because I'm not concerned to the extent of others about having a fully-optimised or WAAC-style army. I've been playing since Rogue Trader, and gak changes constantly anyway. I'm more concerned about having a good time with toy soldiers in an aesthetically-pleasing situation.

I'd like to echo this sentiment. I collect, paint and play with what I like the look of on the table. Rules come and go every edition.

To collect an army specifically to jump on a netlist bandwagon is always going to be a recipe for disaster.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

The thing I always find funny is that people bandy the word 'balanced' like some kind of incantation.

What do you really mean when you say 'balanced'? Do you mean that the average variance of power between units is equal to or less than whatever arbitrary percentage you decide on? Do you mean all the units 'feel' balanced when you play with your friends? Do you mean you want to be able to plonk any 2000pts out of your collection down on the table and have the same chance at winning as any other combination of 2000pts?

There's no such thing as a balanced game. The best you can hope for is one where player skill makes a bigger difference than list strength across the board. Even chess favors the player who goes first.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

Compared to what other companies in the industry are doing. Wizzards of the Coast, Riot Games, Activision Blizzard, Fantasy Flight Games, Privateer Press, pick one. None of them are creating flawless games, but all of them are lot closer to how games should be than GW currently is. The good news is that the new management at GW is trying to get there.

Perfect balance will never happen. Never. That doesn’t mean you don’t try to get as close as possible.

No amount of playtesting will achieve the number of games played in the wild in the first week of release, and players Will find everything you missed, and you definitely missed Something, and they Will abuse it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

I never said 'balance' was bad or hurt the game but what I'm saying is the game is balanced and plays well if you don't abuse it and try to eek every advantage you can out of it. This idea of balance you are all on about is rubbish, it's meaningless. At the minute the game has a great feel, flows well and each army is getting more character than since 2nd edition. Just look at the dark eldar pre release stuff, sounds great, Custodes play like an army of heroes. My marines play like an elite superhuman army. Even my orks play like they feel right. They don't win every game and some units do better than others but all in all I still love them. When I win a game I can tell why and what happened and likewise when I lose a game, it tends to be clear what went wrong. But I play against nice people who love the setting and story as much as I do, we talk about the back ground of out units, name them come up with stories for the battle, consequences of the result. Win or lose its enjoyable and a fun rich experience. If my mate placed 7 flying tyrants on the board and a load of spores I'd ask him to explain why that army was there and what it's background was and it'd better be good otherwise I'd pack up and leave.
When these tournament armies play each other with powerful lists from Internet the background and stories that make 40k so great become irrelevant. It takes away the best part of the game and you're left with a soulless experience. In the early days of tournaments it was a chance to play new people and see amazing armies but now I haven't seen a single picture of these armies from any events, just the lists. It might as well be a paper exercise. A maths problem. If GW focus too much on trying to please these types of players they will ruin the game for everyone else. If you want balanced games at tournaments then maybe the organisers could provide he army,it's and pick the armies and you turn up and play with what you're given.

ERJAK wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

The thing I always find funny is that people bandy the word 'balanced' like some kind of incantation.

What do you really mean when you say 'balanced'? Do you mean that the average variance of power between units is equal to or less than whatever arbitrary percentage you decide on? Do you mean all the units 'feel' balanced when you play with your friends? Do you mean you want to be able to plonk any 2000pts out of your collection down on the table and have the same chance at winning as any other combination of 2000pts?

There's no such thing as a balanced game. The best you can hope for is one where player skill makes a bigger difference than list strength across the board. Even chess favors the player who goes first.

I agree, one thing most people tend to forget when playing this hobby is lists aren;t rock paper scissors.

It is very much also depending on your skill as a tactician. Do you choose the right unit to shoot at the right time? Have you brought your guys in at the right time? Did you split your shots correctly? How did you place your men?

Yes there is cheese out there but you rarely come up against that in actual games, majority of the time it's how you strategically move and use your units. My list style hasn't changed much since I was 13 (Obviously models have because of evolutions of models and codex, but overall theme has stayed). But now 15 years on I am winning way more games than I used to. Because I'm not charging troop choice down the middle of the board anymore. I'm being conservative and placing them where I think I can get the most.

Yes we need FAQ's and is it frustrating it's delayed? Of course I want to know just as much as the next guy whats changing, But that doesn't mean the game is broken or unbalanced until then, if your struggling with what you have consider evolving your list or change how you use units. When I was younger and I played my best mate all the time who had the Mephiston combat jump list, I had a book of tactics, with MEPHISTED crossed over it. The models stayed the same but I learn't how to deal with Mephiston and he ended up having to change how he used him.

The way you use your models play a big part in this.

Wow I see the Pew Pew gamers are out in force there turning in to the AoS cultists who must stamp on any discussion of issues with the game.

Balance helps a game no matter the target audience and if your that casual that you think otherwise then why bother with rules just keep push8ng models around going pew pew.

Andykp wrote:

I never said 'balance' was bad or hurt the game but what I'm saying is the game is balanced and plays well if you don't abuse it and try to eek every advantage you can out of it.

This is pretty meaningless though. To be clear, you're exaggerating quite a bit here, right? It's not just at the very, very peak of WAAC-ness that issues arise. What you mean is more like: "if you play casually, without trying particularly hard to produce an effective list, then the game works fine".

And that's true, but it's true because balance doesn't matter very much when no one is particularly trying to win. If everyone is just bringing units that they think look cool, then you're probably ending up with some strong units, some weak units, and relatively little synergy. Imbalances between units will often average out. Certain interactions which are responsible for otherwise-fine units being overpowered just won't come up. You'll still occasionally run into trouble -- some armies are just overall much weaker than others, or have advantages against particular other armies -- but mostly this works. Likewise, the bigger the gap in skill between players, the less the lists will matter. Actually, if both players are relatively unskilled it's going to be much more likely that the game comes down to tactics. I've seen casual games where someone just deployed Predators at the front of their deployment zone where they could easily be charged and locked up. That's an identifiable mistake that cost that player the game, and would have even if that player had been spotted an extra 200 points in list-building, but stuff like this happens much less as players get better.

I'm a little confused at your complaining that GW attending to tournament balance will ruin the game for everyone else. I think that so far almost everything they've done in pursuit of balance should have had no effect on you at all. Mostly they change points, but what do you care about points? If you're even using points at all -- and I'm not sure why you would be -- why is the original set of point values preferable to points that are better balanced for competitive play? They also sometimes introduce weird little rules like the Tau Commander fix, but they're very clear that these rules are only for games where players are trying to build powerful lists. These rules specify that they only apply to Matched Play. That's one of the 3 ways of playing 40k, and it's one that emphasizes "your strategic ability to choose an army that can defeat all opponents" (BRB p212). I assume that's not what you're playing, since you're opposed to its whole reason for existing, so these also shouldn't impact you at all.

SeanDrake wrote:
Wow I see the Pew Pew gamers are out in force there turning in to the AoS cultists who must stamp on any discussion of issues with the game.

Balance helps a game no matter the target audience and if your that casual that you think otherwise then why bother with rules just keep push8ng models around going pew pew.

A bit less rudeness please.

A reasonable level of balance is good, turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

I don't know that it'd kill it. But I think there is a real risk that the 'perfect' balance demanded by some would see some of the character of the game lost.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't know that it'd kill it. But I think there is a real risk that the 'perfect' balance demanded by some would see some of the character of the game lost.

I think it would almost certainly lead to a loss of character and flavour across the board and that would be a real shame. The flavour of the armies is what makes 40k appeal (to me at least).

The thing that I first thought when I saw the adepticon winning tyranid list as a tyranid player myself was, when have you EVER heard of a tyranid swarm in the fluff that consisted pretty much of hive tyrants and mawlocs?! The answer to the best of my knowledge is never.

When 8th dropped they said they wanted to reward players for fielding armies that represented how that army plays in the fluff and I think this is where GW have failed if they've failed at all so far. To me it should be:

Battleforged - +3CP
Battleforged and all TYRANIDS - +3CP and access to tyranid stratagems

After that, there should be faction specific detachment charts with associated restrictions and rules to reflect the way that swarm or chapter or whatever fights. Want the hive fleet behemoth army wide special trait, warlord trait, stratagem etc? Well then you have to have at least one behemoth battalion detachment in your army. What's a behemoth detachment? Well it could be that they get +3CP for each spearhead detachment they use instead of +1 to represent the fact that behemoth specialises in monstrous creatures. For Kraken you could do something around the battalion and troops, or the outrider detachment for Jormungandr or whichever is meant to specialise in raveners and fast attack. Make unfluffy detachments like supreme command -1 or more CP to make them less desirable. Would someone take 7 hive tyrants if they lost a load of command points as well as access to hive fleet traits, strats etc for doing So? Maybe but it's a much less desirable option straight away.

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.