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.
Damn, so we all now must walk backward through a corn field and on a 6+ must buy poxy pre ordained terrain determined that the greater good to give us a playable game?
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
That assumes GW game is somehow complex and hard to figure out. It's not. Broken comboes are found with elementary school level intelligence.
GW games are broken because it suits GW. It helps sales when tournament try-hards pretend to be competive(lol) and chase newest meta buying new armies chasing the newest hotness(and some even think they are somehow special for figuring out what's broken when GW makes it damn obvious what's broken).
It's pointless to wonder who is best for making game balanced when rules are done by side which has vested interest in game NOT being balanced. Balance would be super bad for GW as players would focus on improving on their play rather than buying newest hotness to stay on power level.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Neither. Designing rules is a job for designers, not players. You want input from players, ex-players, people who play other games but are familiar with the rules, but the people writing them should be none of those groups.
This all goes back to Mark Rosewater's design rules, which are extremely relevant to all types of games. One of those rules is that players are good at finding problems but bad at solving them. That's fine, because the designers are the ones that need to solve the problems. There are a couple of other rules in that list that are relevant here as well. Things like making the fun way to play also the best route to winning, or making sure the aesthetics and the rules match are important and are usually not the kind of things your average tourney player cares about.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
I don't know anything about american football, but eveytime I hear a former coah or player, including top ones, talking about how to change football (soccer for american/canadian and aussie/NZ friends) they always end up with pure nonsense. All top former players and coaches for example were openly hostile towards the VAR, and a lot of them still are, and yet now it's impossible to even think about football without the VAR.
Players should play. Coaches should coach. Other than that they shouldn't do anything else than commenting games or news. People who write the rules should be good in writing the rules, former players and coaches typically have biased opinions that are influenced by their personal experience, which isn't everyone's experience, just theirs. That's why I don't trust tournament players writing 40k rules.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
That assumes GW game is somehow complex and hard to figure out. It's not. Broken comboes are found with elementary school level intelligence.
GW games are broken because it suits GW. It helps sales when tournament try-hards pretend to be competive(lol) and chase newest meta buying new armies chasing the newest hotness(and some even think they are somehow special for figuring out what's broken when GW makes it damn obvious what's broken).
It's pointless to wonder who is best for making game balanced when rules are done by side which has vested interest in game NOT being balanced. Balance would be super bad for GW as players would focus on improving on their play rather than buying newest hotness to stay on power level.
It's a compromise between the imbalance that drives people buying more stuff, and the balance to keep them around the game. A perfect imbalance we might call it. It's not that easy to achieve, actually. A few broken combos are clearly unintentional though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/02 12:25:56
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
That assumes GW game is somehow complex and hard to figure out. It's not. Broken comboes are found with elementary school level intelligence.
GW games are broken because it suits GW. It helps sales when tournament try-hards pretend to be competive(lol) and chase newest meta buying new armies chasing the newest hotness(and some even think they are somehow special for figuring out what's broken when GW makes it damn obvious what's broken).
It's pointless to wonder who is best for making game balanced when rules are done by side which has vested interest in game NOT being balanced. Balance would be super bad for GW as players would focus on improving on their play rather than buying newest hotness to stay on power level.
Is that why the LVO winner used Drukhari, Custodes, or GSC? Oh...he didn't? He used the most nerfed army? Weird.
That doesn't disprove what tneva82 wrote. It only shows that one person did something different.
And he's right. People find the problems with the rules within mintes of getting a hold of them. Doesn't mean that all the combos wombos are found right away, but despite what the perpetual 'wait and see' crowd might like to peddle, people who have been doing this for a while can figure out the rules without much time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/02 13:15:22
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
There shouldn't be any hostility between competitive and casual players with regard to the formal rules of the game.
It should also go without saying that people who are experienced at playing the game with the actual written rules at a high level of game skill probably ARE better are helping advise how the rules should be worked and modified over those who tend to play the game more casually and might use additional user-added rules of their own to the game.
Also note that by their very nature, narrative/casual are highly diverse. Some people are just playing competitive games with a story behind them; others are crafting whole narrative and campaign systems of hteir own and using loads of custom rules and such. There's no general point of unity nor agreement. So one narrative group to the next can have huge variations in the style of game they play
In the end ALL groups start out with the core rules of the game. Building them into a balanced, even system that works well should be the goal. We know that GW rarely aims for that goal (or at least never seems to reach it); however it "should" be the ideal. From that common starting point then you can branch out.
Heck a solid rules system is the BEST thing for then building a campaign system from; or a narrative story element; or Crusade and such. Because you start with known variables from the balanced core game so it becomes much easier to chop and change things and have a general idea how they will influence the game.
As someone looking for a narrative strategical wargame, I am just not the target audience anymore.
It's all about the meta, the model sales and enticing new players (not keeping them).
A solid wargame based around flanking, maneuvering and the dynamic between strategic and tactictal victories / losses is something 40k is just not going to be.
Maybe I can find some to try chain of command 40k with me. I probably wont.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/02 14:11:38
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
Agreed. Being a fan of a game and picking your favorite team because as a child you really liked penguins or the color teal, etc. doesn't mean you don't know anything about the game. I've certainly met plenty of sports fanatics that had no professional experience playing but otherwise extremely deep technical understandings of gameplay and could discuss the underlying game theory better than most players can or could. Its also worth noting that in many sports coaches, general managers, league leadership, etc. are often not former professional players themselves.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
I think you obviously want a designer writing the rules who has the proper, larger perspective about the game/concept/business plan/etc. and experience players giving feedback on the granular stuff for the designers to consider.
Custodes, because they're the easiest army to transport.
Do you honestly believe this to be the reason?
Yes it's absolutely a factor. Cheap to collect. Easy to finish painting. Easy to transport.
Otherwise why wouldn't they do Drukhari? Of 54 player IDs who took Custodes 34 of them had played Custodes prior. Seven of them had played DE previously and opted not to take them to LVO.
Of the people who didn't have Custodes before -- 6 of them never played before now and Custodes is their first army.
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
Agreed. Being a fan of a game and picking your favorite team because as a child you really liked penguins or the color teal, etc. doesn't mean you don't know anything about the game. I've certainly met plenty of sports fanatics that had no professional experience playing but otherwise extremely deep technical understandings of gameplay and could discuss the underlying game theory better than most players can or could. Its also worth noting that in many sports coaches, general managers, league leadership, etc. are often not former professional players themselves.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
Not really. If they would actually start paying attention to their bloody FAQ submissions, they would have been in a better situation than having to deal with trash like ITC.
Oh, and just go ahead and say what it really is:
"If GW wants balance, they need to partner with people who write lists gud". Skill has extremely little to do with anything in 40k. And listwriting isn't a skill.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/02 16:49:34
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
The only metric that matters to GW in regards to writing rules for the game is.....
Overread wrote:The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
That's... insane. Sorry, but winning a round robin or swiss tournament or whatever doesn't prove jack to anyone, except winning the handful of games on offer that week(end).
At best its a couple data points amongst several thousand needed for tournament data to be converted into something vaguely useful to ballpark diagnose problem areas.
It doesn't prove understanding of game design, balance, or anything else. It certainly isn't a 'metric' to show why GW should pay attention to someone. If the person behind a win wants to 'prove themselves' useful for balancing purposes, they need solid logic and reason and a depth of understanding of design principles, same as everyone else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/02 16:54:00
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
Agreed. Being a fan of a game and picking your favorite team because as a child you really liked penguins or the color teal, etc. doesn't mean you don't know anything about the game. I've certainly met plenty of sports fanatics that had no professional experience playing but otherwise extremely deep technical understandings of gameplay and could discuss the underlying game theory better than most players can or could. Its also worth noting that in many sports coaches, general managers, league leadership, etc. are often not former professional players themselves.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
I think the point here is that the "metric" GW is using to evaluate players isn't actually measuring their technical knowledge/understanding of gameplay, at least not in terms of their ability to identify design and balance issues. I.E. GW has a metric that they now are going to use, but that metric isn't actually measuring what they think its measuring/what they want it to measure, and the end result of that is that using that metric is going to create more problems than it will solutions.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Yes it's absolutely a factor. Cheap to collect. Easy to finish painting. Easy to transport.
Otherwise why wouldn't they do Drukhari? Of 54 player IDs who took Custodes 34 of them had played Custodes prior. Seven of them had played DE previously and opted not to take them to LVO.
A factor, absolutely. And fair enough, I might have underestimated ease of use, but with 14/54 players (if I got that right) there was still a good amount of hopping going on. Why not play Dark Eldar instead or switch from DE to Costodes? They likely deemed Custodes to be stronger/easier to pilot or opponents to be less well prepared for what is a fresher codex. Anyway, it's all speculation at this point and I would love to hear from one of the participants as to what their motivation was.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
OK, just want someone who has won something to tell me in precise terms what a Land Raider needs to be both fun and balanced.
Yes it's absolutely a factor. Cheap to collect. Easy to finish painting. Easy to transport.
Otherwise why wouldn't they do Drukhari? Of 54 player IDs who took Custodes 34 of them had played Custodes prior. Seven of them had played DE previously and opted not to take them to LVO.
A factor, absolutely. And fair enough, I might have underestimated ease of use, but with 14/54 players (if I got that right) there was still a good amount of hopping going on. Why not play Dark Eldar instead or switch from DE to Costodes? They likely deemed Custodes to be stronger/easier to pilot or opponents to be less well prepared for what is a fresher codex. Anyway, it's all speculation at this point and I would love to hear from one of the participants as to what their motivation was.
not a related player, but with local tournaments coming up again and me thinking to join them just to support the local clubs organizing them, Custodes are my go to Army
not like I have more than enough different Marines, Chaos and Xenos around to get myself an army, but to make a tournament army now I would need to invest time and money on all of them to get something I would play at an event
Yet going with Custodes would be cheaper and less time consuming because less models, while being easier to transport around (during the event) and easier to play
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
Because you still don't understand what a casual or narrative player is, or what they want.
As a casual/narrative player I couldn't care less about knife edge tournament balance, "interesting" list building choices, or tactical gotcha-traps.
I just want my units to feel like they accurately reflect their lore and that, should two people decide to play a pickup game, every game doesn't end up with one side steamrolling the other.
If you have some bad matchups where player A brings pure gunline and player B brings foot slogging melee, then adjust/add more terrain or change to a scenario that slightly advantages the disadvantaged player.
But I would 100% of the time prefer someone passionate about the setting and the hobby writing a wonky but whimsical ruleset over a diehard number-cruncher writing a soulless "chess but with gothic hats" competitive game.
Because the vast majority of people that know about or engage with 40k, do so because of the aesthetic and setting/lore. That's pretty unarguable given the number of people who only consume the games, books, and fan content or paint but don't play. So I would much rather the game do a good job of reflecting that than some forced, tortured conception of a gentleman's duel.
And before someone tries to claim "well you could do both man! It's not one or the other", how many changes to come out of the competitive scene have ever made the game more reflective of the lore or weren't just fixing problems that competitive players themselves created? Because I struggle to think of any casual/narrative players even contemplating things like "oops all hive tyrants".
If you had to choose who would write the rules for the NFL next year, and it was between a group of former Super Bowl winners and a group of people who chose their team based on their favorite animal or color, which would you pick?
Wow. What a horrible, condescending way to dump on someone else's hobby. So because I prefer narrative play and don't participate in competitive tournaments I should have no say on the rules of the game? Holy gatekeeping, Batman!
This encapsulates all the worst aspects of the competitive community, and also shows why too much focus on this (comparatively small) group potentially can ruin the game for everyone else. Please have a think about what it is you are saying.
Agreed. Being a fan of a game and picking your favorite team because as a child you really liked penguins or the color teal, etc. doesn't mean you don't know anything about the game. I've certainly met plenty of sports fanatics that had no professional experience playing but otherwise extremely deep technical understandings of gameplay and could discuss the underlying game theory better than most players can or could. Its also worth noting that in many sports coaches, general managers, league leadership, etc. are often not former professional players themselves.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
I think the point here is that the "metric" GW is using to evaluate players isn't actually measuring their technical knowledge/understanding of gameplay, at least not in terms of their ability to identify design and balance issues. I.E. GW has a metric that they now are going to use, but that metric isn't actually measuring what they think its measuring/what they want it to measure, and the end result of that is that using that metric is going to create more problems than it will solutions.
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
Because you still don't understand what a casual or narrative player is, or what they want.
As a casual/narrative player I couldn't care less about knife edge tournament balance, "interesting" list building choices, or tactical gotcha-traps.
I just want my units to feel like they accurately reflect their lore and that, should two people decide to play a pickup game, every game doesn't end up with one side steamrolling the other.
If you have some bad matchups where player A brings pure gunline and player B brings foot slogging melee, then adjust/add more terrain or change to a scenario that slightly advantages the disadvantaged player.
But I would 100% of the time prefer someone passionate about the setting and the hobby writing a wonky but whimsical ruleset over a diehard number-cruncher writing a soulless "chess but with gothic hats" competitive game.
Because the vast majority of people that know about or engage with 40k, do so because of the aesthetic and setting/lore. That's pretty unarguable given the number of people who only consume the games, books, and fan content or paint but don't play. So I would much rather the game do a good job of reflecting that than some forced, tortured conception of a gentleman's duel.
And before someone tries to claim "well you could do both man! It's not one or the other", how many changes to come out of the competitive scene have ever made the game more reflective of the lore or weren't just fixing problems that competitive players themselves created? Because I struggle to think of any casual/narrative players even contemplating things like "oops all hive tyrants".
In theory a balanced competitive system for a wargame aims to give you exactly what you want. A situation where two opposing armies can have a decent chance of winning. Yes there will be bad choices in that and good choices. If you decide to bring an entire army of termagaunts with almost no synapse beyond the minimum then yes its going to break because you are so far outside of the expected. However in theory a good balanced system won't have huge swings of balance between good and well build armies.
The issue comes when people who are influential want not a competitive balanced game, but an easy win. When they push for unbalanced systems. That has less to do with competitive vs casual and more the attitude and maturity of the person.
And before someone tries to claim "well you could do both man! It's not one or the other", how many changes to come out of the competitive scene have ever made the game more reflective of the lore or weren't just fixing problems that competitive players themselves created? Because I struggle to think of any casual/narrative players even contemplating things like "oops all hive tyrants".
Basically every single casual player I have ever met across any system I have played or even looked into has built their army/list around "how do I take the most possible of the models I like best?"
The thing is how does a casual player prove to GW their experience and understanding? There's no test, exam, performance grades, metrics or anything to measure them by.
EXCEPT the competitive event system. That's the metric people's skill in the game is measured by and those who run the competitive system (judges etc....) have also had to prove their worth in that system
The average casual player has no metrics to show GW why GW should pay attention to them. The most easy, simple and quick method is for GW to pair with competitive event organisers, judges and players because there's at least a base line of proven metrics for those groups. If the casual player wants to prove themselves then, right now, they have to enter that same system of eventing.
Because you still don't understand what a casual or narrative player is, or what they want.
As a casual/narrative player I couldn't care less about knife edge tournament balance, "interesting" list building choices, or tactical gotcha-traps.
I just want my units to feel like they accurately reflect their lore and that, should two people decide to play a pickup game, every game doesn't end up with one side steamrolling the other.
If you have some bad matchups where player A brings pure gunline and player B brings foot slogging melee, then adjust/add more terrain or change to a scenario that slightly advantages the disadvantaged player.
But I would 100% of the time prefer someone passionate about the setting and the hobby writing a wonky but whimsical ruleset over a diehard number-cruncher writing a soulless "chess but with gothic hats" competitive game.
Because the vast majority of people that know about or engage with 40k, do so because of the aesthetic and setting/lore. That's pretty unarguable given the number of people who only consume the games, books, and fan content or paint but don't play. So I would much rather the game do a good job of reflecting that than some forced, tortured conception of a gentleman's duel.
And before someone tries to claim "well you could do both man! It's not one or the other", how many changes to come out of the competitive scene have ever made the game more reflective of the lore or weren't just fixing problems that competitive players themselves created? Because I struggle to think of any casual/narrative players even contemplating things like "oops all hive tyrants".
In theory a balanced competitive system for a wargame aims to give you exactly what you want. A situation where two opposing armies can have a decent chance of winning. Yes there will be bad choices in that and good choices. If you decide to bring an entire army of termagaunts with almost no synapse beyond the minimum then yes its going to break because you are so far outside of the expected. However in theory a good balanced system won't have huge swings of balance between good and well build armies.
The issue comes when people who are influential want not a competitive balanced game, but an easy win. When they push for unbalanced systems. That has less to do with competitive vs casual and more the attitude and maturity of the person.
So I want to open by apologizing for my tone being overly heated in my last post.
That said, if what you took from my message was "a robust competitive system would do you good" then I either did a poor job explaining or you did a poor job listening.
I'd much rather the designers ignore all thoughts of balance and first focus on making all the armies, units, wargear, mechanics, etc feel like they are depicting a reasonable abstraction of a well written/directed 40k book/show. Then, and only after that's done, thinking about how two people selecting things off a list is supposed to be approaching balance.
Because when you do that in reverse you start seeing the designers compromise the identity of units or the thematic function of rules purely to try and pull a bunch of disparate concepts into some state of gameplay equilibrium.
I'd much rather have a moderately unbalanced game where the players adjust on their end through board set up or scenario selection, if it means the units actually feel like the universe that made me interested in this game to begin with.
.
