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.

Thekbob - Ferrari make a certain type of car to do x. X will never include carrying a chest of drawers, despite significantly cheaper, different cars being able to.

GW is Ferrari, in that their stated aim is not a pure pug ruleset, and certainly jot a tournament set. So complaining that they don't cater to your needs (a pug ruleset) is like complaining that Ferrari do not make a car that fits your need (carrying a chest of drawers). Apologies, I thought the analogy was clear. Is that better?

Note: this isn't making a comparator within war gaming companies, I'm not saying GW is Ferrari. Although they are both following not too disimilar strategies of raising prices and cutting production, just for different aims and with different levels of success.

Finally , both Bentley and RRMC have been German owned since about 1998 (with VW hilariously losing out on RRMC as it turns out they bought something the vendor Vickers wasn't able to sell...) and they make some damn reliable cars. Britain makes great cars, were just usually crap at actually running the companies full disclosure - I work for one of the two firms

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thekbob - Ferrari make a certain type of car to do x. X will never include carrying a chest of drawers, despite significantly cheaper, different cars being able to.

GW is Ferrari, in that their stated aim is not a pure pug ruleset, and certainly jot a tournament set. So complaining that they don't cater to your needs (a pug ruleset) is like complaining that Ferrari do not make a car that fits your need (carrying a chest of drawers). Apologies, I thought the analogy was clear. Is that better?

Note: this isn't making a comparator within war gaming companies, I'm not saying GW is Ferrari. Although they are both following not too disimilar strategies of raising prices and cutting production, just for different aims and with different levels of success.

Finally , both Bentley and RRMC have been German owned since about 1998 (with VW hilariously losing out on RRMC as it turns out they bought something the vendor Vickers wasn't able to sell...) and they make some damn reliable cars. Britain makes great cars, were just usually crap at actually running the companies full disclosure - I work for one of the two firms

What are the rules good for though? Pugs, nope. Tournament? Nope. Narrative? Utter trash as per usual. So what exactly is 40k good at? I suppose you can say that the fluff is good particularly as the mindset of editing out the fluff you dislike can make it more appealing (because, let's be honest, there is a lot of Star Wars expanded universe bad level material out there) and the models are usually rather good (bar finecast ) but really, what does it fit into? A game where you have to rework the rules and go through them with pen and marker to balance the game yourself despite the fact that we are simply customers. Should one have to pay almost 100 dollars for the rules then 50 more for the codex just to play a set of rules that are absolutely atrocious?

 Grimtuff wrote:
So, they say a picture is worth 1000 words. Here's the state of 40k right now.

Spoiler:

Riddle me this. How is that good for the health of a wargame?

If only 40k played that fast!

GW are in NO way comparable to Ferrari. Nothing about their business strategys are similar, no matter what GW wants to believe.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Did i read that transporting a large army "2000 points" is very difficult? that its too hard to move that many models then allow me to point you in the direction of THIS bad boy

http://us.battlefoam.com/black-label-rj-16-space-marine-load-out/

now with basic marines it fits. 170 basic marines + so much more. i customed mine up and i fit over 13,000 (yep THIRTEEN THOUSAND) points in one of them (base models theres also a million (nearly haha) magnetized bits), and it has WHEELS and a handle.
Now imagine what you can do with a smaller one.... where you need 1/6 the space..

now i hate to say it transporting this stuff isnt too bad, 1500 points is a shoebox, if you like to keep nicely painted models shell out 40 bucks on some cheap foam pluck trays and a plastic box. and transport is sorted.

the bigger barrier is a 2k army, which if you magnetize the options in a kit up is much easier to do. or bitz things up, devastator boxes come with twice as many weapons as there is bodies or is it 3x? i cant remember. fleshing out options for your army isnt really that hard is it? because if you do that kind of thing your 1500pt base army is now customisable to an extent and saves you owning 50000000 models and is easier to transport. this is just to put ideas out there to those that say my 1500 pt force cant be touched up.

now as to not getting games, if you have a local store that you play at. set up a FB group or something for it so you can have LF games things to make organizing easier and while your at it you can discuss the options for the game, and this is how you can start your own clubs. and grow from there.

this doesnt sort internal ballances, but i see more complaining about getting games at a min. then it seems to be games that "you" approve of, rather than none at all.

for me though ill settle with BRB and go for it without adding in clauses as to what to bring, there is enough other rules discussions to have during the game

You read that transporting models was an added barrier.

How in the feth is a $400 carry case not another barrier. Sure the smaller ones will be cheaper, but you are comparing it to space Marines - some of the costlypiest points for standard infantry available, 5 TAC marines no upgrades costs as much as 15 termagants - and this is before we mention that TAC marines are one of the cheapest units in your army, AND would have upgrades as well. A lot of armies travel much harder than power army does, my friend. You could probably fit ore than 2 landraiders in the space it takes a 140 pt Harley's wingpsan and height to fit.

Your post is really narrow minded. At best, doing all that even at good prices, is still just one more barrier. One of many.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Did i read that transporting a large army "2000 points" is very difficult? that its too hard to move that many models then allow me to point you in the direction of THIS bad boy

http://us.battlefoam.com/black-label-rj-16-space-marine-load-out/

now with basic marines it fits. 170 basic marines + so much more. i customed mine up and i fit over 13,000 (yep THIRTEEN THOUSAND) points in one of them (base models theres also a million (nearly haha) magnetized bits), and it has WHEELS and a handle.
Now imagine what you can do with a smaller one.... where you need 1/6 the space..

now i hate to say it transporting this stuff isnt too bad, 1500 points is a shoebox, if you like to keep nicely painted models shell out 40 bucks on some cheap foam pluck trays and a plastic box. and transport is sorted.

the bigger barrier is a 2k army, which if you magnetize the options in a kit up is much easier to do. or bitz things up, devastator boxes come with twice as many weapons as there is bodies or is it 3x? i cant remember. fleshing out options for your army isnt really that hard is it? because if you do that kind of thing your 1500pt base army is now customisable to an extent and saves you owning 50000000 models and is easier to transport. this is just to put ideas out there to those that say my 1500 pt force cant be touched up.

now as to not getting games, if you have a local store that you play at. set up a FB group or something for it so you can have LF games things to make organizing easier and while your at it you can discuss the options for the game, and this is how you can start your own clubs. and grow from there.

this doesnt sort internal ballances, but i see more complaining about getting games at a min. then it seems to be games that "you" approve of, rather than none at all.

for me though ill settle with BRB and go for it without adding in clauses as to what to bring, there is enough other rules discussions to have during the game

You read that transporting models was an added barrier.

How in the feth is a $400 carry case not another barrier. Sure the smaller ones will be cheaper, but you are comparing it to space Marines - some of the costlypiest points for standard infantry available, 5 TAC marines no upgrades costs as much as 15 termagants - and this is before we mention that TAC marines are one of the cheapest units in your army, AND would have upgrades as well. A lot of armies travel much harder than power army does, my friend. You could probably fit ore than 2 landraiders in the space it takes a 140 pt Harley's wingpsan and height to fit.

Your post is really narrow minded. At best, doing all that even at good prices, is still just one more barrier. One of many.

Worst yet when you field chaos daemons. Why are the swords of bloodletters the size of an extra model

When I see carrying cases like that, it makes me so, so, so very glad that I play the game on Computer rather than with models on the TT.

150 guardsmen models? No problem. I'll even paint 'em all for you- it'll take about three clicks.

I dunno, my 2 cents is different then most, i greatly enjoy the hobby aspect as well as playing the game, but i am a strictly for fun guy, you will never see me knowingly bring a WAAC list and/or attitude to the game(Hell my plasma heavy army's blow themselves up every game, bet on it) i just enjoy playing it, and seeing what unfolds. But the other end of the spectrum, i can see where high level player's would be asking for balance, but i also think it's to early in the edition's lifespan to say it's a failure or bad.

Just think of it like the NFL draft for your favorite football team, sure that shiny 1st round pick may live up to the hype, or it could take a little time, you can't just judge him game 1 of the season, let it marinate a lil bit.

But thus far all my game's have been enjoyable, and i dont have a win under my belt yet in 7th lol (Calgar and some marines took out my DA my first game with em, and then the SoB mollywhopped all my DA the 2nd go round!), but as i said thats my 2 cents.

I think everyone should take a deep breath, i see alot of topic's on these forum's which seem to draw 2 or more combatant's trying to beat each other over the head with their own ideology. Were all different, we all have different ideas/opinions, but we all share the same interest, 40k..

Deuces!

Urban

 SHUPPET wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Did i read that transporting a large army "2000 points" is very difficult? that its too hard to move that many models then allow me to point you in the direction of THIS bad boy

http://us.battlefoam.com/black-label-rj-16-space-marine-load-out/

now with basic marines it fits. 170 basic marines + so much more. i customed mine up and i fit over 13,000 (yep THIRTEEN THOUSAND) points in one of them (base models theres also a million (nearly haha) magnetized bits), and it has WHEELS and a handle.
Now imagine what you can do with a smaller one.... where you need 1/6 the space..

now i hate to say it transporting this stuff isnt too bad, 1500 points is a shoebox, if you like to keep nicely painted models shell out 40 bucks on some cheap foam pluck trays and a plastic box. and transport is sorted.

the bigger barrier is a 2k army, which if you magnetize the options in a kit up is much easier to do. or bitz things up, devastator boxes come with twice as many weapons as there is bodies or is it 3x? i cant remember. fleshing out options for your army isnt really that hard is it? because if you do that kind of thing your 1500pt base army is now customisable to an extent and saves you owning 50000000 models and is easier to transport. this is just to put ideas out there to those that say my 1500 pt force cant be touched up.

now as to not getting games, if you have a local store that you play at. set up a FB group or something for it so you can have LF games things to make organizing easier and while your at it you can discuss the options for the game, and this is how you can start your own clubs. and grow from there.

this doesnt sort internal ballances, but i see more complaining about getting games at a min. then it seems to be games that "you" approve of, rather than none at all.

for me though ill settle with BRB and go for it without adding in clauses as to what to bring, there is enough other rules discussions to have during the game

You read that transporting models was an added barrier.

How in the feth is a $400 carry case not another barrier. Sure the smaller ones will be cheaper, but you are comparing it to space Marines - some of the costlypiest points for standard infantry available, 5 TAC marines no upgrades costs as much as 15 termagants - and this is before we mention that TAC marines are one of the cheapest units in your army, AND would have upgrades as well. A lot of armies travel much harder than power army does, my friend. You could probably fit ore than 2 landraiders in the space it takes a 140 pt Harley's wingpsan and height to fit.

Your post is really narrow minded. At best, doing all that even at good prices, is still just one more barrier. One of many.

i was asnering the complaing that its sooo hard to transport a 2000 point army. if i can fit 13000 points in 1 case, you can surely get a case to carry 2k. and sure flyers take more space.. i have 3 heldrakes. they DO take more space, but in the end if you want to take in the other example termagants custom the tray up they take less space than marines do. and bloodcrushers, they are the Khorne infantry yeah? sure the swords are bigger but they still go in a single marine type slot.

the argument came around because people wanted to take 1500 pts as a single list, which people said, make a few lists and take 2000 pts of models, the excuse became its too hard to transport that many models. and if we are honest its really not. make your own trays and get a plastic tub, you dont need ot buy a 400$ case. the case i use is jsut an example where i can say confidantly i can move LOTS easily, heck i can put that thing into checked luggage and have nothing break. flying america to australia... so you know. all i am doing is showing options for those that firmly believe there is none.

Nobody said it was impossible to transport models, or else nobody would ever have a game against anyone bar their roommates.

It's undeniably an extra barrier, when you have to transport multiple lists to account for a casual or competitive opponent, that you won't know unit you get there.

If you are coming in prepared against an opponent and know roughly what you might be facing, it won't be an issue. The fact that it is if you aren't however shows that the game is undeniably unbalanced. I don't even see how it's a question. In fact it's not. The question was the effect on 7th to balance, the answer is "very little".

 SHUPPET wrote:
NIf you are coming in prepared against an opponent and know roughly what you might be facing, it won't be an issue. The fact that it is if you aren't however shows that the game is undeniably unbalanced. I don't even see how it's a question. In fact it's not. The question was the effect on 7th to balance, the answer is "very little".

Not even that, the fact that this is a topic that has gotten past a page is all the factual evidence you need to see that 40k may well be the worst balanced game on the market. The concepts of 'fluff lists' and 'competitive lists' are a uniquely 40k phenomenon.

I think the greatest asset players can have is solid communication. Our store has a Facebook group that allows all of us to keep in touch, and negotiate games before we even get to the store. This is an awesome way to cut down game time, as we don't have to spend time talking about how many points, rules, missions, etc. We planned it sometimes days in advance, and we get there, set up, and go.

Sadly, our area doesn't have an abundance of people lingering around the store to play 40k, despite there being quite a good amount of us. We all have schedules, and play accordingly. And it's actually pretty damn nice.

We all know what is fun for the group. We all play big apoc games ever month together, and have a blast. We don't like to pull douche moves and play in methods that aren't reasonable. There is no tournament scene in our area, so we all have very little reason to try to assert 'dominance'. We just want to enjoy the game we put so much individual time on (via painting/modeling, etc). It's good times, win or lose.

That being said, I feel 7th has been OK thus far. I don't feel too many changes from 6th, but that's just me. The biggest impact to my army came from the new Codex, as my Orks were basically playing the same as before anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nobody said it was impossible to transport models, or else nobody would ever have a game against anyone bar their roommates.

It's undeniably an extra barrier, when you have to transport multiple lists to account for a casual or competitive opponent, that you won't know unit you get there.

If you are coming in prepared against an opponent and know roughly what you might be facing, it won't be an issue. The fact that it is if you aren't however shows that the game is undeniably unbalanced. I don't even see how it's a question. In fact it's not. The question was the effect on 7th to balance, the answer is "very little".

I transport half my models in shoeboxes or a bucket! (YAY BOYZ! XD)

Melevolence wrote:
I think the greatest asset players can have is solid communication. Our store has a Facebook group that allows all of us to keep in touch, and negotiate games before we even get to the store. This is an awesome way to cut down game time, as we don't have to spend time talking about how many points, rules, missions, etc. We planned it sometimes days in advance, and we get there, set up, and go.

Oh definitely. Mine has the same thing, although we are fairly competitive it's just a great thing to have and helps strengthen the community.

Nobody is saying balance issues can't be fixed with a little preparing. However, the fact that communication or negotiation IS necessary for others to work out a happy medium, proves that the game is not balanced.

However, who cares! I like having stronger and weaker armies! It lets me pick between "hard mode" and "easy mode". I personally enjoy hard mode for my armies - it adds to the skill required to win.

I guess this could be achievable if all the dexes were equal by picking the weaker models, but I'm the kind of person who needs the line drawn for me, I want to build the strongest list possible with a less used army, I can't draw that line myself. Plus it would have me choosing from a smaller pool of minis - however I guess this is already the case, having to choose from the pool of minis that ARE useable in a weaker dex. My main issue is internal balance.

At the end of the day, I don't mind some armies being stronger than others - it's been a part of 40k since day 1 thx to their approach to writing rules. I would however, likelike to see all the units in dexes balanced on a similar level to each other - I mean is that too much to ask, should be pretty easy.

So underwords people need 2 armies? One real army for normal games and one casual? I have enough problems with transporting my AM at 1500pts. If I were to transport 2 armies, I would need someone to drive me to the shop and back. And how would people even fit in to the store, if everyone suddenly poped up with 2 armies?

 SHUPPET wrote:
However, who cares! I like having stronger and weaker armies! It lets me pick between "hard mode" and "easy mode". I personally enjoy hard mode for my armies - it adds to the skill required to win.

Welcome to handicaps, available in most competitve games (just look at golf). If every codex and unit was balanced you could get a much more enjoyable "hard mode" game by giving yourself a handicap of 100, 500 points, whatever and not need to intentionally gimp your list. A large part of the enjoyment is trying hard to win so when you artificially limit yourself by playing poorly or choosing poor units I find it much less fun.

The game is unplayable for anyone with a mind more complex than a 7 year olds.

40 k is now a game of chutes and ladders that costs $400.00 to play.

Fire Jervis Johnson, worst head of a rules department in the history of the position.

dresnar1 wrote:
The game is unplayable for anyone with [...].

Thanks for insulting all 40k players. 40k has not been a tactical game for a long time now and still is mostly decided by army list, not individual skill. If you don't like that, that's ok, but don't go around insulting us. Thanks.

It's not an insult. It's a compliment to those who recognise he's correct.

Anyway it is off topic.

I would have said that 7th was a bit less unbalanced than 6th because they toned down Allies and Escalation units but they introduced Maelstrom objectives and Unbound armies and that restored the kujibiki unbalance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thekbob - Ferrari make a certain type of car to do x. X will never include carrying a chest of drawers, despite significantly cheaper, different cars being able to.

GW is Ferrari,...

So what other marketing hype do you believe in?My previous remarks were to highlight how bad your analogy (and car analogies in general) was, but I assume you didn't get it.

Let me say it clearly: Your analogy is bad.

Warhammer 40k is a game and fails to be so without a significant amount of group think or negotiation to operate; almost every individual on this forum that says "the game is fine" either plays in a very small group of people with either a spoken or unspoken agreement on how the game is to be played. THIS DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY OTHER CURRENT POPULAR TABLETOP GAME. Emphasis added so you cannot skim past it. The idea of "WAAC", player base division, and more, is all an outcome of the mismanagement of the game by Games Workshop.

The idea is that a core set of solid, functional rules is a much sturdier foundation to move off of. As long as the game exists as a player vs player game, this is utterly critical. Unlike a true narrative game, such as a pen and paper RPG or a simulation based historical wargame, the outcome is based entirely on how well the rules operate as players work the levers and dials.

So no, Games Workshop is nothing like a "Ferrari" unless you mean in cost alone. They don't make the best models anymore. The have never made the best game. Their sales are falling and people are bailing out like no tomorrow. This is all a direct stemming from the company which has been sown into the rules. The game isn't balanced and any player saying it is relies specifically on what I stated previously.

To put it another way...

A Ferrari is a vehicle designed to get you from Point A to B very quickly and in maximum "style" (as such things are subjectively defined).

GW is not a Ferrari. It does not get you from Point A to Point B without you, the driver, first sitting down with all the other drivers on the road, whether they drive Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches, Fords, Chevys, Kias or Yugos, to decide upon how the driving will be done.

It doesn't get you there in maximum style, because there also exist Lambos, Porsches, Mustangs, classic muscle cars, roadsters, and 100 other makes and models of cars that, subjectively speaking, may appeal to a wider audience. (Hint: This means there are other Wargames on the market to play, and they are generally believed to be better-written and better-designed than 40K.).

The idea that it was never designed to carry a chest of drawers is true... Ferrari makes no cargo-hauling vehicles... but what is it, for purpose of analogy, that the chest of drawers is supposed to represent? Does that represent PUG play? Does that represent Tournament Play? Does that represent the "beer and pretzels" play of a local group?

If we use that to mean PUG play... then 40K again fails as a wargame, as it takes a massive stroke of luck to put any army build on the table against any other random army build at the FLGS and have a game where one side does not utterly destroy the other side, or where disputes over rules interpretations do not arise (either during the game or in the after-action review of the game). Most (none?) other TT wargames do not have these kinds of results because, in those games, there's no such thing as a terrible army-build. Their armies are balanced internally and externally to where a given army list has a reasonable chance to beat any other army list put on the table. Are there ways to optimize your chances of winning against certain other armies in those games? Certainly. Could you build a list that is "hard mode" against certain other lists? Most definitely.

What these other games present players with, though, is the option to buy basically any assortment of models for their respective armies and have a pretty good chance to win against any other list from the same game, provided decent-enough skill and luck with dice.

40K's ruleset ensures that there will be some lists that are entirely useless against other lists, and certain units in certain armies that actively reduce your chances of winning a game, regardless of what you play against.

Or did we want the chest of drawers to represent Tournament play?

In that case... well, this simply cannot be true, as GW used to host tournaments using their ruleset. Obviously, GW had, at one time, intended their game to be "tournament level play".

As a "beer and pretzels" game amongst friends?

Folks, if that's the chest of drawers that the 40K Ferrari isn't hauling... then what the hell *is* it hauling? If it cannot be used for this style of game, which is what the developers have described it as, then what good is its ruleset? But this returns us to the first point. If you *must* house rule a game to play it, because otherwise it is a broken mess of badly-written rules, poor playtesting and poorly-edited publications, then we're not driving a Ferrari here, we're driving a Ford Pinto with bad shocks and two flat tires.

Well, to a degree that is true. However we also have to take into account the fact that GW is trying to make an effort to "randomize" the game. The primary purpose of that is to allow new players to still get a decent chance of winning and make them believe they are responsible. From a business point it is more than understandable, it helps maintain new players interest and keeps the money rolling in. But as a not-so-new gamer (7 Years) it seems to ruin the game for me. Actual tactics and decisions are easily outmatched by a Deathstar unit or by sheer luck. Though I do believe 7th edition has improved the balance largely compared to 6th edition. But, for me at least, I have to say 5th edition is still my favourite.

However, "Random" tables are just as likely to totally screw over a new player as they are a veteran player. As a balancing mechanic, they fail in that regard quite spectacularly.

yeah random is random, it doesn't help or hinder any one more than another.

Newer players would have a much better chance of winning if they weren't horribly gimped by their choice of units - ie. horrible balancing. "Oooh rough riders, they look fun!"... no, not going to work sorry mate. Nor are the great looking warp talons or lychgarde. Even against an average player with an average list, taking many of these "tier" of units is just going to get you destroyed as a new player which is not really the best introduction to the hobby.

There's a major difference in weight probability through random number generators (RNGs), such as dice or cards, and the straight random of things like warlord traits, pyschic powers, maelstrom objectives, and so on found in Warhammer 40k.

The latter is awful game design. The former is a staple of all games, be it meat space or video game, and controlling those variables in the probability is what makes or brakes many games.

Games are math, whether observed literally or figuratively. Meaning whether you embrace mathhammer or just know tacitly what's good and what's not through play, all games break down to their fundamental mathematical mechanics. And Games Workshops are bad. And truly random is generally not desirable.

i dont know about anyone else here, but almost every post i have read with something positive, or even remotely positive to say has started with the preface that "if both players agree/discuss"...

ANY GAME that requires a moderator to do things like interpret rules, judge something over the top, settle rules disputes and keep the players playing in a PUG environment isnt a good game. while this has to happen in a tournament, because the propensity to cheat is MUCH higher, even having someone there for your game when not in a WAAC setting is just silly

If the terms discussion/agreement/house rules/house banning/house balancing have to be used or instituted to make the game playable for all, its a bad game.

Almost every game tournament will have a rules judge, so don't knock any game for that. It's whether or not those rules judges have been equipped to succeed. Most judges for Warmachine events are Press Gangers and can get feedback on calls they make using the forums or their network of PGs. I would assume the same goes for the same folks for Wyrd, Corvus Belli, etc.

I guess 40K's major problem is they want so much to be able to happen, but have no way to make it implemented smoothly WITHOUT the random charts tables. Example being the Vehicle Damage table, Perils of the Warp table, etc. These mechanics are cool, and I'm not sure what other wargames have them. I mean, I can agree that a vehicle being pummeled by rockets wouldn't just break down, there would be the expectation it would explode. Though I would recommend ways to decrease dice rolling, such as set a flat distance the explosion reaches. Cutting even one dice roll is helpful in speeding things up just a tad.

The perils table again takes more time. Feels like there are TOO many possible results, making it again more tedious as you either have to remember all the results, or look it up. More time wasted. A cool mechanic to show you're Psyker screwed up big time, but poorly implemented.

The game just need streamlining on all this stuff. That said though, I've enjoyed all my games thus far, though I enjoyed all my games in 6th as well. Some changes were good, others not so good. But what can we do? Not a lot. It's one of those 'deal with it, or play older edition' situations, or continue to house rule like we tend to do. *shrug* I just enjoy the game for what it is, on a casual level.

@Melevolence.
There are war games out there with far more detail and scope than 40k, who manage to cover the game play with well defined intuitive rules ,that take up fewer pages of rules than 40k uses.
Simply because the rules are written specifically for the game play.

If you re-write rules for 40k based on current game play using modern game mechanics and resolution methods .You could cover the whole system much more effectively,efficiently and elegantly.

But while the GW sales department set the design brief , (following the directive of Mr T.Kirby C.E.O. and Chairman, '.... selling toy soldiers to children...' ).
You are going to get randomly applied rules to a randomly developed game system that is constantly sub par in every respect.

The OP asked how balanced do we think 7th ed is?

The OP didn't ask how we the players can change the game to make it work.
He/She did not ask for excuses for why allowances should be made for 7th ed.
Neither did the OP ask if we were enjoying the game. The question was, "How balanced do we think 7th ed is?".

So as per the original question I voted, " unplayable".


Later,
ff