should a codex be rules or guidlines

[kire]

after reading Gav thorpe's post about CSM (link at bottom) i am far more struck by the attitudes expressed about the nature of a codex than the details of CSM. his opinion as i understand it is that a codex and in a larger scene the rules as a hole are a guideline rather than actual rules. for starters this attitude explains GW's infuriating inability to give answers to even the most basic rule discrepancy in there own material. however this aside the question becomes in this school of thought on the part of game designers good for the hobby or not?

my core disagreement with thorpe's ideas is that treating codex's rules hurts nobody, treating it as guidelines hurts gamers. in this case i use gamers to refer to those who like me enjoy 40k as a game first and as a hobby second. there are many ways to enjoy 40k as model collecting, as model making, as a medium of storytelling, and in many other ways. but in all of these cases codex as rules is no different than codex as guidelines.

however many like myself like 40k as a game and to us codxes as guidelines hurts our experience. the problem with any formalized competition of with 40k is a example is that even the most altruistic and sportsmen like player has a natural tenancy to have outcomes good for them(hence why you roll scatter dice next to the template). therefor an impartial mediator is necessary in sport a referee is used but due to the abstract simplification of games a rule set can be construed such that all (or at least the vast majority of situations) have a prescribed outcome. this allows for a fun ad strategic matching of wits with your opponent.

when i talk about this i am not talking about tournaments i mean simple friendly competition. as of now if i am playing a pickup game i have to break out a list of hose rule and see if we agree on them before we can play. if we disagree we have to figure out who's rules we will use. and in order to get to this point i have had to go true a dozen awkward "well the rules don't really say" moments. what is particularly frustrating is when a lack of rule at a crucial moment in a game causes a dice off to see what happens. in these situation a victory seems hollow an artifact of chance rather than a victory of skill.

some would tell me that i have house rules so whats the problem. to me the problem is that i'm not a game designer i don't get payed to know 40k like the back of my hand. i want a fair balanced rule set and in order to archive that you need an impartial mediator in the rules. any interpenetration hurts some and helps others and i want someone to make there decisions so that the game will fun and balanced i want a game designer not a rules speculator.

some may say that such a set of hard fast rules would discourage the use of homebrew rules and army's. but i would point out that many games with vary hard and fast rules have a huge swath of homebrew material. the type of people will make there own rules without encouragement. a tight rule set dose not hurt anyone

while i understand that given the complexity of 40k some discrepancy in play are unavoidable the bar of game design should be set at making a real rule set not a detailed list of suggestions. i think that such a low standard of quality is the low make of an otherwise excellent game and it is my hope that that this may be corrected and that 40k be allowed to reach its full potential

i know that was a long post but am i the only one that feels this way?


http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

[Culven]

I completely agree. I think that the "we write guidelines" excuse is just a cop-out that GW uses to skip-out on responsibility for their half-arsed rules. It also leads to the "players should play for fun, not competatively" mindset, as though writing a comprehensive ruleset would prevent casual players from being able to have fun, story driven games. If GW is expecting players to use houe rules as a matter of course, why not force the casual players to use them in order to tailor their game to their needs?

Some may claim that it is impossible to have a set of rules for a game that are both solid tournament-level rules that are also fun for the casual gamer; which, is why GW writes their "guidelines". I think this is incorrect, and I would point to Magic: The Gathering as an example.

In the end, I think that GW can and should own-up and just write solid rules instead.

[Chumbalaya]

I would post something, but you two covered it very well.

[Lord Inquisitor]

The 40k rulebook is first a book a rules that must be followed. Second the codex provides stats for units to be used with the rulebook. It can also sometimes provide exceptions that trump the rulebook. If a codex is merely a "guideline" then why cant I follow there "guideline" and make my own units and rules? I don't think Gav would get to far at a tournament if he tried to tell a ref that a codex is a guideline and he can do as he pleases.

[Dragonmann]

My soul hurts like the Emperor just took a bite out of it to light the astronomicon...


This i fundamenatally why I believe that GW should switch completely to a living rulebook system.

You could have tournament rules and non-tournament rules easily.

You could introduce new units anytime.

Fix broken units on a whim.

Clarify rules.

Have s system in place for saying this is gospel and that is guideline.


Arrgggggghh.... find me Andy Chambers and give him control...



Hey Gav, let's play for 5000$, you use any codex you like, I'll use these guidelines. I know I know, genestealers and Leman Russ Companies don't go together, but I figured it was just a guideline and I was making my own cult. OH and I thought genestealers were overpriced, so I made them give me extra points instead. You don't mind do you, it is just a guideline.

One man's informed opinion is another man's sphincter pustule of nurgle

[mountaincycle661]

I can't determine if i agree with the opinions shared on this thread, mostly because nobody uses correct punctuation and/or spelling. Furthermore, there is a complete and total disregard for COMMAS here. Run on sentences are freakin annoying. I cant understand the jist of what you're telling me.

For godsake, proofread.

But, in an effort to stay on topic, I would say that rules are rules. Stick to them. If you want to make house rules and do something wild between friends and friendly games, by all means.

[Sangre]

My soul hurts like the Emperor just took a bite out of it to light the astronomicon...


This i fundamenatally why I believe that GW should switch completely to a living rulebook system.

You could have tournament rules and non-tournament rules easily.

You could introduce new units anytime.

Fix broken units on a whim.

Clarify rules.

Have s system in place for saying this is gospel and that is guideline.


Arrgggggghh.... find me Andy Chambers and give him control...



Hey Gav, let's play for 5000$, you use any codex you like, I'll use these guidelines. I know I know, genestealers and Leman Russ Companies don't go together, but I figured it was just a guideline and I was making my own cult. OH and I thought genestealers were overpriced, so I made them give me extra points instead. You don't mind do you, it is just a guideline.

One man's informed opinion is another man's sphincter pustule of nurgle

B-b-b-but Dragonmann, that would involve GW losing out on £30 a pop for the rulebook, and £12-18 each Codex!

[Prometheus]

I feel this thread is going to get crazy fast and so I am going to say this simple thing and come back when I have time to type until my fingers hurt.

In "friendly" gaming codexs should be used as rules but with the idea that if the game isn't fun, the rules need to change. In a "tournament" setting the rulebook/codexs are set in stone, no exceptions what-so-ever.

[Nabterayl]

You know, this raises a question I've had about GW for a while - do they have anybody on staff qualified to write a really tight rules system? Anybody with a serious background in mathematics, game theory, or anything like that?

[Culven]

I don't know that a background in mathematics and game theory really has anything to do with writing solid rules. Such a background would be useful for writing balanced rules, but that isn't really the recurring problem as I see it in teh various forums. I think that GW needs a technical writer or two to read through and make sure that terms don't have multiple meanings depending upon context (ex. "wound") and that the rules are thorough and clearly written.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I can't determine if i agree with the opinions shared on this thread, mostly because nobody uses correct punctuation and/or spelling. Furthermore, there is a complete and total disregard for COMMAS here. Run on sentences are freakin annoying. I cant understand the jist of what you're telling me.


I agree, but do you mean "can't?" as a contraction of "can not?"

[entendre_entendre]

You know, this raises a question I've had about GW for a while - do they have anybody on staff qualified to write a really tight rules system? Anybody with a serious background in mathematics, game theory, or anything like that?

hmmm... interesting question, as sometimes it feels like a bunch of 12 y/o's are writing some of the rules.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Sorry for the quick second post, but I just finished actually reading Thorpe's pathetic whine. H.R. Puffinstuff anyways! What the hell is he talking about? What do they pay this man for? Talk about double-speak! "I write rulebooks that are not rulebooks." Are these Pirates of the Caribbean "guidlines?"

I also love his sniffling-dribble about people taking personal shots at him. I have a somewhat public-profile job (not to his degree) too and guess what? People take shots at you. It is true, those who disagree with you will actually blast you with personal attacks. That is life. Deal with it.

Get rid of this clown (yeah, I called him a clown).

[Nabterayl]

hmmm... interesting question, as sometimes it feels like a bunch of 12 y/o's are writing some of the rules.
I don't know that I'd go that far, but it does often seem to me that they have only recently started seriously applying math to the question of balance (the Punisher cannon is a good example of that). "Balance" is one of those things that there's actual theory behind - with a background that merely consists of years of professional game design you might design a balanced game, but I have no particular faith that you're likely to.


I don't know that a background in mathematics and game theory really has anything to do with writing solid rules. Such a background would be useful for writing balanced rules, but that isn't really the recurring problem as I see it in teh various forums. I think that GW needs a technical writer or two to read through and make sure that terms don't have multiple meanings depending upon context (ex. "wound") and that the rules are thorough and clearly written.
That's fair enough - seemingly they don't have anybody with a background that qualifies them to do that, either. I suppose having tech writers (or lawyers) proof their drafting would probably be a bigger boon to the player base than having mathematicians do the drafting in the first place.

On the other hand, I think that for people to have the "complete" codices they want, you really do need highly trained professionals, not just guys who have been doing this for twenty years. You can't just throw up a list of all the units and entities in the 40K universe and come up with rules for them; that would lead to disaster. You have to create rules for each unit or entity in the context of every other unit or entity, and the 40K universe is big enough that to do that "completely" requires more expertise than it seems to me GW has at its disposal.

[Aldramelech]

I have to say if a Codex is just a guideline, how the hell do you regulate that? In order for the system to work there has to be hard and fast rules. Where would we be if everybody just made it up as we went along?

I don't pay GW £15 of my hard earned cash for "Guidelines"! Ridiculous!

[Denzark]

oops

[Aldramelech]

I must get pedantic here and go off topic.

1. 'Can't determine if i agree' needed a capital 'I'.

2. 'Run on sentences' should actually be 'run-on' or it doesn't make sense.

3. 'freakin' is an abbreviation of 'freaking' and thus should be written (freakin') - brackets instead of apostrophes to show where it goes.

So climb down from out of your own arrse and don't patronise other people's gramma unless yours is 100% you patronising twaat.

Not worth an infraction mate, leave it;)

[Denzark]

Not worth an infraction mate, leave it;)

Yes mate you're quite right and sorry all who are offended just lost a 6000point apoc 30 mins ago so quite growly sorry to all the ladies.

[Xas]

I think it should be both.

It should be a consistant rule-work which does actually that: WORK! (I'm in for the vote that GW trows in the 5000 bucks every few years and lets an actual lawyer proofread their rules. or get a law-student as an intern to do that. discrepanzies suck!)

and it should be an inspiration to those who are ready to do the next step and modiviy it for more fun.

[TSINI]

I personally don't understand why GW should have to make things "Tournement perfect" at all, I'm perfectly happy with a set of rules that let me get on with the game at hand. When I meet problems or something the rulebook didn't cover, me and my opponent can come to a reasonable conclusion together about what we should do to overcome it.

For example: The discussion on "what happens when 2 vortex grenades hit each other" - the general consensus was that they should merge into a larger template, nothing ruleswise on the subject so we go with what sounds the best.

When I play in tournements I play for fun, its really interesting to meet new people and have some beers, whilst playing fairly competitively. I have heard so many stories of unfriendly behaviour at larger tournements, it makes me dread to even consider going into such a setting, nothing makes me sadder than seeing supposedly grown up and mature people crying, throwing temper tantrums and generaly being hostile towards each other over a game that was initially created for fun.

My point being, if you want to have a solid set of rules for a tournement, you put the effort in and sort them out, i don't see why GW should have to bother, "we must spend valuable working hours making sure competitive people are satisfied" is probably not in their company mission statement, whereas "making games for people to have fun" probably is.

[Skragger]

I think the idea of it being a set of simple guidelines is pretty silly myself. Without a set of hard rules this game would be pointless, otherwise I suddenly decide that my Ork boyz have 4 wounds a pop. Hey, saying they only have 1 would is just a guideline, a suggestion really.

P.S. I envy you wonderful brits, with your fifteen pound sterling codecies.. I have to fork out $27CDN for one! :mad:

[Aldramelech]

Yeah?, you got Disney World, stop complaining! lol

[entendre_entendre]

Yeah?, you got Disney World, stop complaining! lol

:confused: I mean that's not even the same country. Do you have a place in Spain?

[Skragger]

No we dont! Thats the Americans! We have.. well.. um.. the worlds tallest phallic symbol but thats about it... oh and our Poutine!

[Aldramelech]

No we dont! Thats the Americans! We have.. well.. um.. the worlds tallest phallic symbol but thats about it... oh and our Poutine!

I'm sorry, is Canada not part of the North American Continent anymore? :D

Trust me there's nowt Great about living in Great Britain lol

[Aldramelech]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Aldramelech]

:confused: I mean that's not even the same country. Do you have a place in Spain?

Nope, but I dont live in Europe, I live on the British Isles! lol ;)

[mountaincycle661]

I must get pedantic here and go off topic.

1. 'Can't determine if i agree' needed a capital 'I'.

2. 'Run on sentences' should actually be 'run-on' or it doesn't make sense.

3. 'freakin' is an abbreviation of 'freaking' and thus should be written (freakin') - brackets instead of apostrophes to show where it goes.

So climb down from out of your own arrse and don't patronise other people's gramma unless yours is 100% you patronising twaat.

HA! When was the last time anyone wrote "i" with a capital "I"? Or wrote freakin' with brackets around it? Jesus, all i asked for was a little structure and punctuation to the posts. And then someone loses an apocalypse game and has to go off and start throwing names around...

And maybe you could correct me on one other thing, but...Isn't it spelled "grammar"? Because "gramma" is actually any grass of the genus Bouteloua, of South America.

Get over it.

[Sangre]

i think the idea of it being a set of simple guidelines is pretty silly myself. Without a set of hard rules this game would be pointless, otherwise i suddenly decide that my ork boyz have 4 wounds a pop. Hey, saying they only have 1 would is just a guideline, a suggestion really.

P.s. I envy you wonderful brits, with your fifteen pound sterling codecies.. I have to fork out $27cdn for one! :mad:

27 cad = 15.03 gbp :)

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I'm sorry, is Canada not part of the North American Continent anymore? :D

Trust me there's nowt Great about living in Great Britain lol


The beer is good, weather sucks though. Why is American beer like sex in a canoe? They are both F***ing close to water.

[Skragger]

The beer is good, weather sucks though. Why is American beer like sex in a canoe? They are both F***ing close to water.

Huzzah! Python! :D

[Skragger]

HA! When was the last time anyone wrote "i" with a capital "I"? Or wrote freakin' with brackets around it? Jesus, all i asked for was a little structure and punctuation to the posts. And then someone loses an apocalypse game and has to go off and start throwing names around...

And maybe you could correct me on one other thing, but...Isn't it spelled "grammar"? Because "gramma" is actually any grass of the genus Bouteloua, of South America.

Get over it.

Aha! Grammar ****'s unite!

Nothing like trying to read and understand a long, complex idea when its in a massive whack of text without proper punctuation or natural breaks for the flow of information to go smoothly into my squishy pink brain!

[Nabterayl]

I personally don't understand why GW should have to make things "Tournement perfect" at all, I'm perfectly happy with a set of rules that let me get on with the game at hand. When I meet problems or something the rulebook didn't cover, me and my opponent can come to a reasonable conclusion together about what we should do to overcome it.

For example: The discussion on "what happens when 2 vortex grenades hit each other" - the general consensus was that they should merge into a larger template, nothing ruleswise on the subject so we go with what sounds the best.

When I play in tournements I play for fun, its really interesting to meet new people and have some beers, whilst playing fairly competitively. I have heard so many stories of unfriendly behaviour at larger tournements, it makes me dread to even consider going into such a setting, nothing makes me sadder than seeing supposedly grown up and mature people crying, throwing temper tantrums and generaly being hostile towards each other over a game that was initially created for fun.

My point being, if you want to have a solid set of rules for a tournement, you put the effort in and sort them out, i don't see why GW should have to bother, "we must spend valuable working hours making sure competitive people are satisfied" is probably not in their company mission statement, whereas "making games for people to have fun" probably is.

There's two different questions here. One is how tight the rules are - how tightly they are balanced, and how tightly they are drafted. In this instance I agree that GW is sloppier than necessary, particularly in the drafting. If you draft a sentence of rules, it should be susceptible of fewer constructions than GW's sentences typically are.

The second question is how broad the GW rules are, and in this case, I have to say I agree more with Gav than it seems many people do. Take the case of the Iron Warriors Basilisk, for instance - no option for it in the codex. Gav's attitude seems to be, "If you know Iron Warriors use Basilisks, why do you need me to put it in the book before you give yourself permission to use Basilisks in your Iron Warriors army? Why do you feel like the only things you can do on the tabletop are the ones in the book?" And that, I feel, is a very sensible viewpoint to take. A codex should be a "guideline" in the sense that nobody should feel that it describes (or tries to describe) all the things that a particular faction ever does or might do. You have to draw the line somewhere, so you'll always be treating a codex as a "guideline" in the sense of breadth.

Some people might argue that they don't want to expand the codex themselves, since that way they [presumably] get a more balanced expansion than if they had done it themselves. There's something to that, but I think on the whole even "gamers" put too much stock in balance. My "gamer" goal isn't to win, it's to be the better general - and if I need a "balanced" codex to out-general you, well, then I must not be out-generaling you by very much.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I would post something, but you two covered it very well.


My feelings in spades...

Rules can be taken away from for fun when not competing,
Excessive disinterest/disengagement from designers can create bad mojo for competing.

[Axel]

I appears to me that, particularly with the Codex: CSM and Codex: Daemons, a lack of self-restraint is a significant problem. People go running around making game-effective combinations "because the rules say I can". No thought is given to the "fact" that a Blood Thirster would just as happily smack a Lord of Change in the back than the Space Marine Captain shooting at it. Still, if that's your idea of having a fun time in the hobby more power to you!

In all seriousness, when was the last time you saw a non-aligned CSM army (Night Lords or Alpha Legion style perhaps)? Or someone playing "recent renegades" using Codex: Space Marines but with all the Imperial bits'n'bobs filed off and no Chaplains? I'd love to play against a "renegade PDF" army that used Codex: Imperial Guard without any Commissars or Priests. The sky is the limit to your imagination.

A number of problems arise, giving rise to internet whinges and nerd rage in spades, when the game is taken into an ultra-competitive environment, ie a tournament. I don't think GW is overly keen to pursue this narrow avenue of the hobby, and certainly not at the expense of other avenues (such as painting, modelling or writing). This hypothesis is supported by the drop-off in support for "gaming only" tournaments. Many GW-sponsored tournaments are now almost like a side-show of a much larger event, like Games Day.

Those advocating a perfectly balance between Codex: I'm a Nerd and Codex: Girls Laugh at Me on the basis of sporting events being equal forget that sporting events aren't equal at all. As someone who's played various team sports every year, year round since he qualified for the local "Under 7" soccer team I can tell you that not having enough money to buy the best equipment (even shoes) can impact a game. Not having enough money for proper training facilities or equipment can impact a game. Your star player having to leave 10 minutes early to go to his brother's wedding can impact a game. Your coach's ex-wife turning up before the game to harrass him over child support will impact a game. 40k is not a professional level competition like most sport on TV. Amateur sport is not an even competition.

I support Gav's position on "guidelines over rules". Those advocating silliness such as 4 wound Orks in a "rulebook match" are taking things out of context. It could be quite enjoyable to play a game where all the Orks have 4 wounds. It would have to be a small game, simply from a book-keeping perspective. Perhaps a Guard Storm Trooper platoon making a near-suicidal drop to kill the Ork Warlord (who has 10 wounds). All the Stormies would then have, say, 2 wounds (3 for a Sergeants), and be led by a "Storm Trooper Captain" with, say 6 wounds and a stat-line similar to a Lord Commissar. Guard objective (instant win): Kill the Warlord. Ork objective: Kill all the Guard.

By all means, the "rulebook match" is a good starting point for a game against a stranger. If they were a good, clever and fun opponent, ask for their phone number after the game. Give 'em a call later and see if they want to play some form of scenario next week. It's about making friends as much as giving your oldest friends a blood nose each week.

[Kahoolin]

It's like this:

Games and sports are of two types.

A: You play co-operatively with your opponent, with the assumption being both of you are trying to have a laugh. The game is a game of compromise and guidelines will work fine.

B: You play adversarially against your opponent and the assumption is that you are each trying to win at all costs, even at the expense of the "spirit of the rules". You need hard rules.

GW has always presented their games as type A.

It sounds harsh, but if you want a game of type B, either accept that GW will never give you what you want and play anyway, or go play another game that does.

[TSINI]

It's like this:

Games and sports are of two types.

A: You play co-operatively with your opponent, with the assumption being both of you are trying to have a laugh. The game is a game of compromise and guidelines will work fine.

B: You play adversarially against your opponent and the assumption is that you are each trying to win at all costs, even at the expense of the "spirit of the rules". You need hard rules.

GW has always presented their games as type A.

It sounds harsh, but if you want a game of type B, either accept that GW will never give you what you want and play anyway, or go play another game that does.

I agree, I truly believe people are forgetting that the tournement element is still basically a fanfictional addition to Games Workshop games.

GW never seem to be hands no involved in any major tournements, in fact the few i know of that were directly ran by GW gave out no prizes for first place.

Big Prize winning tournements are always ran by other gaming groups, because thats the way they see the game. its always these gaming groups that impose the "No forgeworld" "no this" "no that" because they deem themselves more qualified than the game designers at Forgeworld / White Dwarf. if they deem themselves that much more qualified, why don't they ammend all the rules systems themselves, hand out these rulebooks 4 weeks in advance of their tournement and make everyone play those rules instead. instead of moaning at a "fun games" company for not doing it for them.

[Culven]

. . . on the basis of sporting events being equal forget that sporting events aren't equal at all
Isn't this an issue of balance, not an issue of clarity and mutability of the rules? As I read Gav's article, he was discussing mutability of rules, not game balance. He refered to fluff as a reason why some players may want to modify the rules, and I see no problem with that. However, his claim that the rules themselves should be more of a "guideline" than hard-and-fast rules seems, IMHO, iinappropriate for a game company to say the least.

If we were to apply Gav's logic to amature sports, then two teams should feel free to change the rules as they see fit for the enjoyment of all involved in the game. This is fine, except in a tournament setting. If the rules organizations for those sports were to claim that everyone should be playing to have fun and just settle any rules issues amongst themselves because they don't want to write solid rules, I think that some people would be upset.

In the end, I think that allowing the rules to be modified by consenting players in a casual setting is a great thing to be done with the rules in order to make the game more enjoyable, but only in a casual setting. That doesn't mean that the rules should be written loosely nor should they have obvious holes which need to be addressed by the players or judges. A solid rule set is possible, and casual players (who are more likely to change the rules for their enjoyment anyway) can still do so. In fact, well written rules may even benefit casual games since the players will (hopefully) have a better understanding of the core rules and will be better able to modify them to suit their needs.

[Aldramelech]

27 cad = 15.03 gbp :)

ha! Lmao :)

[Aldramelech]

All this is fine, but you tell me how liberal you feel about the rules when someone turns up with their 'Special' Nids army complete with attached Baneblades.............

Silly? In my experience if you give people an inch they'll take a light year.

[Nabterayl]

In the end, I think that allowing the rules to be modified by consenting players in a casual setting is a great thing to be done with the rules in order to make the game more enjoyable, but only in a casual setting. That doesn't mean that the rules should be written loosely nor should they have obvious holes which need to be addressed by the players or judges. A solid rule set is possible, and casual players (who are more likely to change the rules for their enjoyment anyway) can still do so. In fact, well written rules may even benefit casual games since the players will (hopefully) have a better understanding of the core rules and will be better able to modify them to suit their needs.

This is true, but I don't think it's what Gav was talking about. He wasn't saying, "We felt like our last codex was too precise, so we decided to write the new one with more ambiguous wording." He was saying, "We felt like our last codex tried to give the players rules for too many variants, so we decided to write the new one with more focus on a mutable core 'variant.'"

You might feel like they failed to do that, but I think it's a reasonable objective, and has nothing at all to do with whether the rules that get into the codex (however few or numerous they be) are well drafted.

[TSINI]

All this is fine, but you tell me how liberal you feel about the rules when someone turns up with their 'Special' Nids army complete with attached Baneblades.............

Silly? In my experience if you give people an inch they'll take a light year.

in my experience, the people that take that light year quickly lose friends who were innitially willing to play games against them.

Seriously, the game is designed for fun, not tournement play. People that crush you into the ground arent fun to play against. The people who cry when you beat their "unbeatable" army list, are not fun to play against. The people who jake and have a laugh and try to beat you with what they brought along because it looks cool, are fun to play against.

[Kahoolin]

Exactly, all these cries of "but if there's no rules I can just say all my guys have x wounds" are false arguments.

Really? You go round to your friend's place to play a game and he says he doesn't want to follow the rule book to the letter this week, and your instant response is "Oh OK, then all my orks have 4 wounds and you automatically lose?" Maybe if you're six years old.

The game is clearly, obviously and always has been designed to be played between friends. The rule book and codices contain firm enough guidelines for two strangers to play a game without having to agree on everything beforehand, assuming they don't have the mindset of a selfish six year old. I don't think that's an unfair assumption to make.