No, I'm saying whatever advice they give is meaningless, because they can't print useful advice.
Actual useful advice = "Having less than an 18 primary attack stat is not a good idea unless your build compensates for it"
But people like playing halfling fighters, and when every player at the table have equivalent builds, there's no problem ... 'cos the DM can simply adjust the encounters accordingly.
The higher a level anything is played at, be it soccer or chess or whatever, the smaller the player pool.
Yes, most folks who have played more than a few chess games will know that opening with rook's pawn is a bad idea.
But so long as they play socially with people of their approximate skill level, there's no problem.
Now, if there's a product that's exceedingly complex and arcane, requiring at least a basic understanding of probability theory to even begin to play ... then elite gamers may enjoy it.
But how do people get to be good at it, or even to get into it in the first place?
It's fail at selling a game.
The game has to be accessible to a wide audience first, and through playing people acquire skills.
Or not .. and either quit, continue to suck, ask for advice, or buy guidebooks.
How to play well belongs in those strategy guides, not rulebooks.
