Just wanted to draw attention to the poll that's been put up asking the question "Is generalisation of the rules the way forwards?" and get people discussing it here.
It depends as well in what we deem the generalisation and the rules. For me, it comes in the form of army selection within a codex.
Personally, the last era of codexes from I'd say, Orks onwards, have really tried to stick with a formula of WYSIWYG with models and equipment, rather than the days of "My Khorne Lord has this, this and this magic item that you can't see - Oh, and he counts as a Daemon Prince".
I like being able to look across the board at an army and (proxying, count-as etc. etc. aside) that I'm facing a Carnifex that has X number of wounds and Y armour save. Rather than "He's got WHAT upgrades?!" or a Daemon Prince who, Mark aside, I can know what he has and is capable of doing.
This trend got bucked a bit with the Dark Eldar codex (from my own knowledge) with the amount of Arcane Wargear that's knocking about, stuff I've no idea how I'd make to show on a model without him having a spare base beside him to store it all on.
I'm all for generalisation in terms of speeding up the game, player awareness and such, but I do feel it can lose some of the charm in character building and also some set piece moments within the game. It's what I liked about LOTR:SBG for a while, was that you could do all the crazy heroic things that are read about in the books but that's where a player narrative comes into it, I guess.
What do you guys reckon - both in terms of codexes and the rules in general?