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.

Curious where I fit as well. I told you enough about myself, all I got was an accusation that I misunderstood the statement.

Help me understand. Tell me where I fit into your categorization system.

is it cheesey to take two IG vet squads fully loaded with a sargent with two plasma pistols, three plasmaguners, carapace armour all in a chimera with a lord commissar along for the ride, backed up with a fully loaded LRBT bolter exterminator type and three armoured sentinel at 1000pts?

Abit on the wiffy side but my fluff dictates that the world that they are froma world that gets attacked by C:SM alot hence the need for SM AP-2 killers and light to med anti-armour, any thing AV 14 and i'm screwed but thats half the fun

Can i make an army list that can table folks? Yes i can (I have the tank spam abilaty), do I do that. No as A; thats uncool, B;I like to have fun and C; it wouldn't fit my fluff for my regiment.

 Ribon Fox wrote:
is it cheesey to take two IG vet squads fully loaded with a sargent with two plasma pistols, three plasmaguners, carapace armour all in a chimera with a lord commissar along for the ride, backed up with a fully loaded LRBT bolter exterminator type and three armoured sentinel at 1000pts?

No, just slightly illegal. As far as I recall, the new codex only allows sergeants to swap out one weapon, so no plasma gunslingers. Other than that, sounds like a cool list.

just checked, doesn't say i can't, says "The Sergeant may tke items from the melee Weapons and or Ranged weapons list" nothing about one of the two

Oh, I thought it said 'may swap laspistol'. I may be thinking of Commissars, then, as I'm pretty sure they can't dual-wield now. At least, they can't in the MT codex.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.

And that's just wrong.

Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.

For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.

And that's just wrong.

Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.

For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.

I actually did the same though. While I like the miniature, bought and painted one, the codex rules actually made me stop playing Tau. Playing with mini's I like is one thing that's fun. But there is heaps of minis I like. Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.

 SHUPPET wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.

And that's just wrong.

Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.

For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.

I actually did the same though. While I like the miniature, bought and painted one, the codex rules actually made me stop playing Tau. Playing with mini's I like is one thing that's fun. But there is heaps of minis I like. Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.

Exactly.

But if wining is fun . Then the only other possibility is losing being fun ,and that would make no sense , because we are talking about a game here and the objective of any game is to win .

 SHUPPET wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.

And that's just wrong.

Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.

For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.

I actually did the same though. While I like the miniature, bought and painted one, the codex rules actually made me stop playing Tau. Playing with mini's I like is one thing that's fun. But there is heaps of minis I like. Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.

Yeah well, your supposedly OP army has a 51% win record against the other armies in the top 5, I wouldn't even call that OP.

I'd rather find a handicap system that works so I can play my models.

Be it taking useless options or re-costing the broken ones, I don't really care, it's infinitely better than having to roll minis you don't like.

I like the challenge, but it mostly comes from the opposing player and their vision of the game, not from the codex, except for the very worst performing codexes. At least that's my vision at the moment.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.

I agree, if me and my opponent are in a knock down drag out fight, that flip flops back and forth untill the last turn, now that to me is fun.

When playing an army and without rolling dice you already know the result, and your getting hammered every round with little hope of turning it around. How can that be fun? If your opponnet is not having fun and you can see it on thier face, exactly what did you just prove? and, then get mad at him for wanting to quit at turn 3. Why is it his fault? Why is he the poor sport?

I've been playing Eldar since 3rd I don't run a Seer Star or more than 3 Wave Serpents, why because the last thing I want to happen is have people avoid playing me.



Now if your in a grand tournament (not a small local event) you had better be prepared for fighting that WAAC TFG. But you know what, they have the right to pay like that in that venue its within the rules.

Its really only a question of why is there no balance between codexes and the units inside? I'm not talking about out of date codexes I'm talking about releases within the same edition. Why create a rules system that allows combinations of units that break the rules themselves? They had a game that already allowed for that, it was called apocalypse and thats where it should have stayed.

Now I 'm the jerk because I'm refusing to play: certin lists, dataslates, and units. While enforcing a reasonable force organization and one ally. Well shame on me for wanting a knock down drag out fight, that flip flops back and forth untill the last turn.

Makumba wrote:
But if wining is fun . Then the only other possibility is losing being fun ,and that would make no sense , because we are talking about a game here and the objective of any game is to win .

not correct,

the object of a GAME is to have fun,

the object of a competition, is to win.



I have had plenty of fun losing, and plenty of fun winning tournaments... that is what its about, otherwise, no matter what happens, 50% of people "didnt have fun" because they lost.

 easysauce wrote:

Makumba wrote:
But if wining is fun . Then the only other possibility is losing being fun ,and that would make no sense , because we are talking about a game here and the objective of any game is to win .

not correct,

the object of a GAME is to have fun,

the object of a competition, is to win.



I have had plenty of fun losing, and plenty of fun winning tournaments... that is what its about, otherwise, no matter what happens, 50% of people "didnt have fun" because they lost.

A game is about fighting to win. It's the journey that matters not the goal, but the journey takes place with a goal anyway, which is winning.

 easysauce wrote:

Makumba wrote:
But if wining is fun . Then the only other possibility is losing being fun ,and that would make no sense , because we are talking about a game here and the objective of any game is to win .

not correct,

the object of a GAME is to have fun,

the object of a competition, is to win.



I have had plenty of fun losing, and plenty of fun winning tournaments... that is what its about, otherwise, no matter what happens, 50% of people "didnt have fun" because they lost.

I prefer a quote that I often see on the Warmachine Forum :

The objective of the game is to win. The purpose is to have fun.

Those two concept are not exclusives...

morgoth wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.

And that's just wrong.

Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.

For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.

I actually did the same though. While I like the miniature, bought and painted one, the codex rules actually made me stop playing Tau. Playing with mini's I like is one thing that's fun. But there is heaps of minis I like. Winning with an OP army is not fun. Nor is it at all satisfying.

Yeah well, your supposedly OP army has a 51% win record against the other armies in the top 5, I wouldn't even call that OP.

I'd rather find a handicap system that works so I can play my models.

Be it taking useless options or re-costing the broken ones, I don't really care, it's infinitely better than having to roll minis you don't like.

I like the challenge, but it mostly comes from the opposing player and their vision of the game, not from the codex, except for the very worst performing codexes. At least that's my vision at the moment.

That's because there are 13 armies in total, not 5.

 SHUPPET wrote:
That's because there are 13 armies in total, not 5.

That's what you should tell GW.
They clearly got it right for 5 codexes, they can probably do something for the other 8.

morgoth wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
That's because there are 13 armies in total, not 5.

That's what you should tell GW.
They clearly got it right for 5 codexes, they can probably do something for the other 8.

This is a mistaken assumption, I think. Really, given how relatively balanced (ie not OP, therefore terrible accoring to the internet) SM, DA, CSM, are Nids are, along with the later 5th Ed books who have only been buffed/nerfed by quirks of edition changes, Ithink it's fairly obvious that the top armies (Demons, Tau, Eldar) are actually the anomolies; they got it wrong with those, but in a way some people are happy to exploit. Even then, it's a case of a few units being mistakes.

Take Tau, subtract Riptide spam: balanced with other books.
Take Eldar, subtract Seer Council 2++ rerolls and Serpent Spam: balanced with other books.
Take Demons, subtract Screamerstar and Belakor: balanced with other books.

So the only 'mistake' has really been the failure to foresee the overuse (Riptides, Serpents) or combination (Seer/Screamerstars) of units that has caused there to be such imbalance. There's no requirement for a new book to be objectively 'better' than the current 'best' book, especially if the status of the latter is upheld only by the spam or reliance on a single 'OP' unit.

The issue with this is that we're stuck with those combos until next edition codexes as GW won't FAQ it, but that's a tangent altogether.

Okay stay with me here because this might be an over the top analogy, but I have a view of what the main problem with 40k tends to be:

Okay so essentially the rules section of the codex is supposed to be a Legal document, type format. Where rules must be followed strictly, there is no pick and choose, you must follow the law to the letter. However just like a legal document there are loopholes than can be exposed to get around certain rules we don't like and a certain amount of abuse is inevitable.

The background section on the other hand; Is essentially the bible of 40k. It is collections of stories and scenarios that are supposed to guide us to make the right choices with our armies, to be inspired to follow the true spirit of the game. The problem, like the real bible, is that this is all open to interpretation, people pick and choose bits of fluff they like and ignore those that they don't. Some people merely misunderstand certain stories or skip past them entirely. The background, like the bible, can mean totally different things to different people and none of them are right or wrong. Also like the bible, the 40k background contradicts itself with accounts at times, leaving somethings ambiguous on purpose, often only giving one sides view point, things also get revised and changed, so that older players will often have different takes on fluff than newer ones.

The trouble arises because like a far right religious organisation, GW (in the best of intentions) thinks that the 'message' of their book is clear. They want us to follow it religiously, creating only armies that make sense in the background. However, we know from modern society that while a bible (background section) can be used to inspire the rules and ethics we live by; they are too vague to be considered legal practice. Instead we have to come up with a system of very clear rules (or laws) to be followed for society to function fairly.

GW (like a televangelist) is so sure that the message in the background is strong enough for everyone to follow it, that they time and time again, fail to produce clear and balanced rules to reflect the message they want to promote. And just liek in real society there are people who will purposely abuse this, then everyone else has to abuse it slightly to survive.

A good example would be Slavery. Now in the spirit of the bible 'treat all men with love and respect etc' it might seem clear that slavery is abhorent. However, owing to it's age, there are sections that actually seem to condone slavery. Now left open to interpretation, even if we assume that the purpose of the bible was to promote peace and equality and thus anti-slavery. It only takes a few rich jerks to decide to interpret it their own way and start their own slave trade.
In actuallity, to prevent slavery, we required written laws that forbid it explicitly. These laws are not open to interpretation and thus cannot be broken. No one has to deal with slavery, no one has to consider dropping to their level to compete, everyone is happy.

GW should stop falling back on it's beloved background in arguments. We know the 40k background is strong, we love it or we wouldn't play. Now please GW make some rules that reflect your own message instead of simply vilifying players who quite legally, produce armies that break the spirit of the game. Make rules that encourage players to play fluffy instead of handicapping them for it.

Interesting analogy, but I do wonder why the people that have no respect for the background bother to play the game. I mean, the rules are flawed as we can all see, so that means there are, as far as I can see, 3 reasons why people would play if they don't like the background:

1) Because it is a flawed ruleset that allows certain combinations to be exceptionally powerful. For the small minority that feel the need to prove their superiority in a game by crushing all before them, 40k is the obvious choice, as it's so easy to break compared to other systems.

2) Because it's the only game they can get. This is of course perfectly reasonable, but it strikes me as a little odd that people playing 40k only for the social factor would put such a heavy emphasis on winning and exploiting the imbalance. So I don't think it's these guys that break it.

3) The models. Again, this is fine, and there are plenty of people who paint the models and play the game for the hell if it. I also don't think it's these people that go out of their way to destroy the background to crush their opponents.

So the upshot of all this is that I really struggle to see the reason you'd play this game, flawed as it is, without some respect for the background, unless you were under the impression that beating other guys at Toy Soldiers is somehow a show of strength and betterness. So the question is, why don't people, other than the first category I mentioned, play in the spirit of the game? I don't see how it requires rules to tell you to do so, it's surely common sense for most people.

And no one is 'handicapped by playing fluffy' and in the spirit of the game unless they come up against someone who isn't; if two people are playing fluffy, casual lists, not designed purely to stomp opponents into the dirt, then I can't see many issues arising.

 Paradigm wrote:
if two people are playing fluffy, casual lists, not designed purely to stomp opponents into the dirt, then I can't see many issues arising.

You only can't see any issues because you're repeating the common mistake of assuming that "fluffy" and "powerful" are mutually exclusive concepts. In reality that is not even close to true. For example, my very fluffy IG armored battlegroup list would be a nightmare for a lot of opponents simply because of how many AV 14 tanks I have. Similarly, a Tau player who loves the Riptide's fluff and model will probably have a strong list when they bring three of them, even if they don't deliberately try to exploit any balance mistakes. On the other hand there are plenty of fluffy lists that are at the exact opposite of the power scale, so you can very easily have a game between two fluffy lists where one side slaughters the other effortlessly.

Plus, you're overlooking the fact that fluff is a subjective thing. Your "unfluffy WAAC spam" is someone else's fluffy army. Don't forget this.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
if two people are playing fluffy, casual lists, not designed purely to stomp opponents into the dirt, then I can't see many issues arising.

You only can't see any issues because you're repeating the common mistake of assuming that "fluffy" and "powerful" are mutually exclusive concepts. In reality that is not even close to true. For example, my very fluffy IG armored battlegroup list would be a nightmare for a lot of opponents simply because of how many AV 14 tanks I have. Similarly, a Tau player who loves the Riptide's fluff and model will probably have a strong list when they bring three of them, even if they don't deliberately try to exploit any balance mistakes. On the other hand there are plenty of fluffy lists that are at the exact opposite of the power scale, so you can very easily have a game between two fluffy lists where one side slaughters the other effortlessly.

Plus, you're overlooking the fact that fluff is a subjective thing. Your "unfluffy WAAC spam" is someone else's fluffy army. Don't forget this.

But there is a big difference between imbalance and hard counters. Of course a list without much anti-tank is going to struggle against an ABG, but at the same time, may well pack enough anti-horde to massacre Orks or Nids. But that's in list design, not imbalance, and a gamble one takes before every game at over-specialising in one thing. I'm sure the ABG has hard counters of it's own, it's a very specialist list (melta-pod marines springs to mind)

As for the Riptide example, I really can't think a player would take 3 Riptides simply based on the fluff. Yes, the Riptide is a slightly undercosted unit, but 1 or 2 are not impossible to deal with; I'd consider it very unlikely (but not impossible) that someone would take 3 Riptides purely for the fluff aspect.

Of course, there's a simple litmus test for this; just ask why. If they reply they've taken three because of a specific Riptide-heavy battle in the fluff, or an experimental weapons unit, or the like, then I'll believe you, and game on, it'll make a good narrative. On the other hand, if they reply that they think it's powerful and want to crush your puny, unoptimised army (a slight exaggeration, but you get the point) then I'd probably point out that's not the kind of game I'm looking for. Another example of how simple inter-player communication can solve problems.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I'm a HUGE gundam fan. When riptides came out I thought "Wow! I get to make a riptide army painted up like gundams!" But then I saw how OP they and their dex was and I knew I'd be viewed as TFG if I did that. So I shelved the idea. If the game was balanced I could be running my Zeon themed Tau army with great relish and without fear of tabling every opponent I meet. That just doesn't sound like fun at all to me.

And that's just wrong.

Because if you like a miniature, you'd better be playing it or this hobby is a nonsense.

For any human activity out there, the only way you can achieve anything (including fun) is to have a relatively similar vision of what you're going to accomplish.

Riptides are over-powered, though, but that is GW's fault. Basically, "list abuse" like "forging a narrative" is an excuse for not GW bothering to write good rules.

It doesn't mean that there are no "TFGs" out there, of course, and people need to agree the kind of game they want to play.

 Paradigm wrote:
But there is a big difference between imbalance and hard counters. Of course a list without much anti-tank is going to struggle against an ABG, but at the same time, may well pack enough anti-horde to massacre Orks or Nids. But that's in list design, not imbalance, and a gamble one takes before every game at over-specialising in one thing. I'm sure the ABG has hard counters of it's own, it's a very specialist list (melta-pod marines springs to mind)

Except it IS a balance issue because the ABG list does something that no other army can do. The fact that it is fluffy doesn't change that it's arguably overpowered now that 7th edition made all those LRBTs scoring, and can cause real problems for people who aren't prepared for it. Just saying "play fluffy" doesn't help at all with the balance issues involving this list, and it doesn't really help in general either.

As for the Riptide example, I really can't think a player would take 3 Riptides simply based on the fluff. Yes, the Riptide is a slightly undercosted unit, but 1 or 2 are not impossible to deal with; I'd consider it very unlikely (but not impossible) that someone would take 3 Riptides purely for the fluff aspect.

You honestly can't see how people would want multiple copies of the big new centerpiece model? Are you aware of the huge number of players who love giant anime robots and were drawn to the Tau because of this? It's incredibly easy to see how someone who loves the fluff and/or models would want three Riptides. It's only hard to believe if you assume that "fluffy" is defined entirely as "not good at winning" and "contains a random mix of units and no duplicates". But neither of those things have anything to do with fluff.

Of course, there's a simple litmus test for this; just ask why. If they reply they've taken three because of a specific Riptide-heavy battle in the fluff, or an experimental weapons unit, or the like, then I'll believe you, and game on, it'll make a good narrative. On the other hand, if they reply that they think it's powerful and want to crush your puny, unoptimised army (a slight exaggeration, but you get the point) then I'd probably point out that's not the kind of game I'm looking for. Another example of how simple inter-player communication can solve problems.

How exactly does it solve anything? The player still has the exact same list whatever their fluff is, and the outcome of the game will be the same. All it does is give you an excuse to refuse to play against someone.

 Peregrine wrote:

Of course, there's a simple litmus test for this; just ask why. If they reply they've taken three because of a specific Riptide-heavy battle in the fluff, or an experimental weapons unit, or the like, then I'll believe you, and game on, it'll make a good narrative. On the other hand, if they reply that they think it's powerful and want to crush your puny, unoptimised army (a slight exaggeration, but you get the point) then I'd probably point out that's not the kind of game I'm looking for. Another example of how simple inter-player communication can solve problems.

How exactly does it solve anything? The player still has the exact same list whatever their fluff is, and the outcome of the game will be the same. All it does is give you an excuse to refuse to play against someone.

It solves it in that you either get to enjoy a game with a like minded individual who likely looks for the same things in the game as you (forging a narrative, for want of a better term) or you avoid a game with someone whose view of the game would only end with you losing and not enjoying yourself.

Personally, I'd enjoy playing against Triptide if there was decent fluff behind it; it would make a good fiction piece after the fact, which is something I always look for in games, and as with so many things, it is also the nature of the individual that makes the game enjoyable or not. If he's taken those Riptides for a fluffy reason and has a clear interest in the background, then it's apparent that he's out to tell a good story in the process of the game, which is something I too look for, even if that story is me losing; if he's taken them for sheer power, then it's likely he's only out to win and has little concern for players not after the same thing, and hence, the game would be less enjoyable for both sides.

It doesn't solve the inherent problems on a global level, but only GW can do that. Instead, it mitigates it somewhat and ensures that more of your games are enjoyed by both participants, which is, afterall, the point of all this.

 Paradigm wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
That's because there are 13 armies in total, not 5.

That's what you should tell GW.
They clearly got it right for 5 codexes, they can probably do something for the other 8.

This is a mistaken assumption, I think. Really, given how relatively balanced (ie not OP, therefore terrible accoring to the internet) SM, DA, CSM, are Nids are, along with the later 5th Ed books who have only been buffed/nerfed by quirks of edition changes, Ithink it's fairly obvious that the top armies (Demons, Tau, Eldar) are actually the anomolies; they got it wrong with those, but in a way some people are happy to exploit. Even then, it's a case of a few units being mistakes.

Take Tau, subtract Riptide spam: balanced with other books.
Take Eldar, subtract Seer Council 2++ rerolls and Serpent Spam: balanced with other books.
Take Demons, subtract Screamerstar and Belakor: balanced with other books.

So the only 'mistake' has really been the failure to foresee the overuse (Riptides, Serpents) or combination (Seer/Screamerstars) of units that has caused there to be such imbalance. There's no requirement for a new book to be objectively 'better' than the current 'best' book, especially if the status of the latter is upheld only by the spam or reliance on a single 'OP' unit.

The issue with this is that we're stuck with those combos until next edition codexes as GW won't FAQ it, but that's a tangent altogether.

Wow you basically just said exactly what I said in another thread before I clicked this link

See here

You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...

There is no reason that making the game balanced would be anything but good for both parties

While it's less relative to two casual gamers, it certainly improves the narrative, and allows you to "narrative" somewhat better against a competitive player

Somehow the divide has nurtured this idea that balance is bad for narrative. I think its mostly that casual players are bitter about the way competitive ones play the game and how it isn't fun to them, and it turns to statements like "this game was never intended to be competitive its for casual play blah blah blah" when this attitude is really doing nothing but shooting themselves in the foot unfortunately.

 Paradigm wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
That's because there are 13 armies in total, not 5.

That's what you should tell GW.
They clearly got it right for 5 codexes, they can probably do something for the other 8.

This is a mistaken assumption, I think. Really, given how relatively balanced (ie not OP, therefore terrible accoring to the internet) SM, DA, CSM, are Nids are, along with the later 5th Ed books who have only been buffed/nerfed by quirks of edition changes, Ithink it's fairly obvious that the top armies (Demons, Tau, Eldar) are actually the anomolies; they got it wrong with those, but in a way some people are happy to exploit. Even then, it's a case of a few units being mistakes.

Take Tau, subtract Riptide spam: balanced with other books.
Take Eldar, subtract Seer Council 2++ rerolls and Serpent Spam: balanced with other books.
Take Demons, subtract Screamerstar and Belakor: balanced with other books.

So the only 'mistake' has really been the failure to foresee the overuse (Riptides, Serpents) or combination (Seer/Screamerstars) of units that has caused there to be such imbalance. There's no requirement for a new book to be objectively 'better' than the current 'best' book, especially if the status of the latter is upheld only by the spam or reliance on a single 'OP' unit.

The issue with this is that we're stuck with those combos until next edition codexes as GW won't FAQ it, but that's a tangent altogether.

My conclusion is based on the only statistics I've seen on that topic, which list Necron, Space Marine, Eldar, Tau and Demons as top 5 armies with win-rates between 49 and 51% within their top-5 group.

Tau Riptides have been seriously toned down since 7th (no buffmander), Eldar SeerStar only works because of a DE character, and Serpent Spam has never been the top competitive build so you're probably mistaken on its imbalance.
Can't speak for demons, but according to the top-5 balance, nothing much is wrong with them either.

Which statistics have you seen because 51% is significantly less than what I have seen from Eldar or Tau as of... damn I forget but I think it was like the last massive championship held in.. I want to say Vagas?


Anyway can I ask just what sort of people you play with? Your augments are coming off very much like you're not personally seeing these things happen in your local meta therefore they don't happen.

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...

There is no divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players.

There's a divide between people who like playing (winning and losing within a fair ruleset) and people who don't like losing because it makes them feel bad (not enjoy themselves).