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.

 Nem wrote:
Problem with balance is its subjective to many different things. 40k has many rules, this allows it to open up and you get much more verity in potential play styles across armies with a lot of variance in results, this aspect is one of the things that keep 40k strong and put it a cut above other miniature games. Some are more balanced, but in my experience this is because they are far more limited in capacity. For me in terms of enjoyment, versatility and strategic thinking wins against balance in casual play.

This is especially true for casual games where balance is much less of an issue, particular units which a heavily unbalanced are so in competitive play because they are spammed, in casual play they are not. Which means it is in fact there is no 'broken balance'

Its not about putting 1 unit against one unit and comparing what it can do against each other and the points cost, that is a terrible way to try and balance a game and will remove the veriaty. Units are not equal to units in all repects and they should not be, this makes games boring. Very boring. There are miniature games which balance based on this kind of thing and if its balance you want above all else go for those, really. At the end of the day, you can stat and point check off every unit in 40k and some will still be able to demolish others, you have to start stripping rules and at some point you've reduced it to a game of chess. When you have veriaty, you have some Armies which are better than other armies. You then have Meta's which decide how many of each army is being played. You then have the Play2Win players choosing between the statisically best army against the most played, and then the statistically best units.

'This unit should at least be as good as this.....' I don't agree with. Some abilities or mechanics are rarer than others, or have particular impact on the meta as a whole, other little bits and pieces of rules are often not taken into account by players when considering balance, players only generally see the part which is detremental to them (But completley useless against another army). One of the things that was pointed out in the new Tyranid Codex was the increase in the Tyranid Prime cost. People hated this, but it was internally balancing based on other changes to the new codex and the versatility of the Prime as an I.C, drop in cost of Carnifex’s, 6 ed rules... etc...

Balance is also subject to a FLGS meta. Doesn't matter how much 1 unit is broken mathhammering wise if its useless in the local meta it is still useless. Meanwhile that 1 crappy unit which costs nothing can be spammed and just be the answer to everything you need.



Tornament wise, we can expect some armies to come in higher than others. This is 40k.
Win / loss ratio shows a pretty good balance overall.

Perfect balance is impossible and no one is claiming every unit should have a 50% chance of defeating equal points of any other units, what we are advocating is that some effort be put into making sure that a model's statline and capabilities be reflected in its point costs in a way that is largely consistant across the codices and some thought be given to preventing obvious overpowered exploits with special abilities. It doesn't have to be perfect, mistakes are bound to be made and some exploits overlooked, but paying as much as we are for these rules, let alone the models, we have a right to expect some minimal effort be put into their writing.

absolutely, the Khorne lord of skulls puts to rest any thought that they put anything but minimal effort into their points costing balance. 888 points really?

Breng77 wrote:
absolutely, the Khorne lord of skulls puts to rest any thought that they put anything but minimal effort into their points costing balance. 888 points really?

BUT ITS SO FLUF- wait isn't khorns number like 6 or something?

NO it is 8, but still totally went for "fluff" with not thought put into value.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
absolutely, the Khorne lord of skulls puts to rest any thought that they put anything but minimal effort into their points costing balance. 888 points really?

BUT ITS SO FLUF- wait isn't khorns number like 6 or something?

No it's 8, but still.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

The point is that for the price we pay for books and models, we should expect GW to do some balancing not toss whatever they want and handwave away complaints with "But it's not a competitive game!". Balance is something that all games need, not just competitive ones.

I really and truly cannot fathom the idea that imbalanced rules are okay and the player should say "Well this is clearly OP, I'll take this weak unit instead" as being a valid way to handle it.

Also it is a competitive game...2 players are competing against one another in every mission in the book.

IF it were like a scenario game where, players were given different army restricitons, different goals etc....things could have less balance, but with the missions as given...it is not.

Like I said it is really not even much effort for them to balance. Release free experimental rules (either PDF, or with the models when you buy them), let players buy models (the horror) and give feedback. Then make slight tweaks to how things work based on that feedback.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Problem with balance is its subjective to many different things. 40k has many rules, this allows it to open up and you get much more verity in potential play styles across armies with a lot of variance in results, this aspect is one of the things that keep 40k strong and put it a cut above other miniature games. Some are more balanced, but in my experience this is because they are far more limited in capacity. For me in terms of enjoyment, versatility and strategic thinking wins against balance in casual play.

I really don't think you understand the concept of balance at all...
No one is saying compare one unit to one unit. Despite having lots of rules it is entirely possible to achieve much better balance than 40k has, most other games on the market prove this and have just as many options and whatnot as 40k.

I'm really not sure about the overall balance of all comparatable games with as many rule sets and optional rules, armies, models, slots, unit types, unit options, rules, special rules, powers, mission types, armies, allies, DS, suppliments... it's generally quieter front though. Many games are certainly more balanced - but with so much bias being around from company to another, its hard to actually make a objective comparason - Even to the extent as to how balanced 40k is between armies, I think people get a shock when it transpires the win ratio difference just isn't as much as they thought it was. The balance between army A and army B is not always 50%, but I don't want A to have a 50% chance of beating B, A will have a 40% chance of B, 60% chance on C etc etc, the thread is entitled Broken balance between armies. What is actually the issue is a small number of units or mechanical combinations which go too far. The action then is what can they do about those? The options are....

- More play tests before release- Slow releases, or higher price through time management, combinations and some things will still get through the gaps. Its possible but I quite like the rate of updates considering how much I personally play, keeps people on there toes.
- Living rules - At any time rules can be updated. This is my prefered method, though it will cost the company a lot of players. People go out and buy models, models get nerfed next month, internet hulks out.

Even without that there's maybe 1 or 2 units more play tests were not needed I guess. Just sack the person who passed 2++ rerollables.

 Nem wrote:
This is especially true for casual games where balance is much less of an issue, particular units which a heavily unbalanced are so in competitive play because they are spammed, in casual play they are not. Which means it is in fact there is no 'broken balance'

That's all well and good until someone shows up looking for a casual game and everyone is testing their tourney lists, so they have the option of getting steamrolled or not playing. Or when new players get into the game and one starts winning every game because the model he loved the look of is too powerful.

I appriciate that, but that is in the end a player issue not a company issue.

 Nem wrote:
Its not about putting 1 unit against one unit and comparing what it can do against each other and the points cost, that is a terrible way to try and balance a game and will remove the veriaty. Units are not equal to units in all repects and they should not be, this makes games boring. Very boring. There are miniature games which balance based on this kind of thing and if its balance you want above all else go for those, really. At the end of the day, you can stat and point check off every unit in 40k and some will still be able to demolish others, you have to start stripping rules and at some point you've reduced it to a game of chess. When you have veriaty, you have some Armies which are better than other armies. You then have Meta's which decide how many of each army is being played. You then have the Play2Win players choosing between the statisically best army against the most played, and then the statistically best units.

Again, I think you're missing a core concept of balance here, units don't have to be equal at all, but they should be appropriately priced for what they do. There is no chance of reducing 40k to chess by balancing it. Balance does not mean stripping away the unbalance, it means fixing it.

I agree with fixing it, just some people here talk about whole armies needing overhauls, like I mentioned above, the Army balance between all other armies really not that bad, its a issue with a few spercific units or unit combinations which disjoint some aspects of the game.

 Nem wrote:
This is especially true for casual games where balance is much less of an issue, particular units which a heavily unbalanced are so in competitive play because they are spammed, in casual play they are not. Which means it is in fact there is no 'broken balance'

That's all well and good until someone shows up looking for a casual game and everyone is testing their tourney lists, so they have the option of getting steamrolled or not playing. Or when new players get into the game and one starts winning every game because the model he loved the look of is too powerful.

I appriciate that, but that is in the end a player issue not a company issue.

What?!

How?!

Nothing done legally within the unmodified rules of 40K is a player issue. If a player chooses to do something allowed by the rules that is fundamentally unbalanced in terms of power, it is a company.

Like I said though the army balance between all armies is bad, in part because combos exist, and in large part because units exist that are not thought out. The idea that it is a player issue is false. Players are not cheating, when they buy and play powerful armies. So the existence of things that are too powerful is a company issue.

That said living rules would be great...and I don't think it would cost you any players. First you release playtest rules for free...with the idea that they are playtest rules. Then players have input into the rules (not decisions, but x is too strong etc, maybe even suggestions on fixes).

It won't cost them anymore players than what they do now. Releasing units with terrible rules (so people buy models and cannot use them), or nerfing units in cycles so that they sell more models.

I talked to some non-GW game designers at the last convention I attended and they said, GW has one model, but it is not very sustainable, a better model is to have living rules, and release new units not always just cycle old stuff through buffs and nerfs.

 Nem wrote:
I'm really not sure about the overall balance of all comparatable games with as many rule sets and optional rules, armies, models, slots, unit types, unit options, rules, special rules, powers, mission types, armies, allies, DS, suppliments... it's generally quieter front though. Many games are certainly more balanced - but with so much bias being around from company to another, its hard to actually make a objective comparason - Even to the extent as to how balanced 40k is between armies, I think people get a shock when it transpires the win ratio difference just isn't as much as they thought it was. The balance between army A and army B is not always 50%, but I don't want A to have a 50% chance of beating B, A will have a 40% chance of B, 60% chance on C etc etc, the thread is entitled Broken balance between armies. What is actually the issue is a small number of units or mechanical combinations which go too far.

The win-loss ratios are slanted towards the average by virtue of the fact that Eldar vs Eldar would enter the statistics as one loss and one win and the same goes for BA vs BA. Moreover, it also gets further "averaged out" because top tier armies will often face other top tier armies and bottom tier armies will often face other bottom tier armies, which is a more "even" match-up, and top tier armies will ascend to higher brackets far more often leading them to face each-other more often than they face bottom tier armies who often get moved to a "second chance" bracket or kicked out of the running altogether depending on the tournament rules.

I'm pretty sure that if you made a statistical analysis of specific match-ups or only games that involved "high tier armies" vs "bottom tier armies" the result you'd get would be FAR more lopsided.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
This is especially true for casual games where balance is much less of an issue, particular units which a heavily unbalanced are so in competitive play because they are spammed, in casual play they are not. Which means it is in fact there is no 'broken balance'

That's all well and good until someone shows up looking for a casual game and everyone is testing their tourney lists, so they have the option of getting steamrolled or not playing. Or when new players get into the game and one starts winning every game because the model he loved the look of is too powerful.

I appriciate that, but that is in the end a player issue not a company issue.

What?!

How?!

Nothing done legally within the unmodified rules of 40K is a player issue. If a player chooses to do something allowed by the rules that is fundamentally unbalanced in terms of power, it is a company.

Because we do make the distinction between playing casually and playing competitively (which spans more than just the table top gaming world) there is a difference in resources, play and motivation. If I jump on a video game to play casually against competitive, there will be imbalance in resources and ability, not really the manufacturers fault. If I shoot archery casually, against competitive there is imbalance in my resources and ability, not really my bow makers fault.

There are some units or combination of units which tip the scales too far, GW can manage this.

But I think for the rate of how often tournament lists are created by accident for the love of models, against how reasonable groups are in their actual house rules - which will always be necessary in some circumstances as not all units can be as effective as the next in each unique combination - that is something GW cannot control.

Just to expand on army Balance

Blood Angels (from the 7300 tournament games I quoted) , Have won more than 45% of the time against 3 Armies in the game, against all other armies they have a 20.6% win percentage.

Chaos Daemons only have a less than 45% win percentage against eldar (43%), and only less than a 55% against 4 armies total. Against all others they have a 66.6% win percentage. So against 71% of the armies in the game, they win 2/3rds of the time.
If we look at what are considered the top books (Eldar Tau and Daemons) vs the rest of the game. Only 4 armies have above 45% winning percentages against any of those armies. The average win percentage against those books is 33.5% for all other books. (34.2% against Daemons, 33% against eldar, and 33.3% against Tau.) No book has above a 45% win percentage against all 3.

When 3 books are that far ahead of the field...I see balance issues.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
This is especially true for casual games where balance is much less of an issue, particular units which a heavily unbalanced are so in competitive play because they are spammed, in casual play they are not. Which means it is in fact there is no 'broken balance'

That's all well and good until someone shows up looking for a casual game and everyone is testing their tourney lists, so they have the option of getting steamrolled or not playing. Or when new players get into the game and one starts winning every game because the model he loved the look of is too powerful.

I appriciate that, but that is in the end a player issue not a company issue.

What?!

How?!

Nothing done legally within the unmodified rules of 40K is a player issue. If a player chooses to do something allowed by the rules that is fundamentally unbalanced in terms of power, it is a company.

Because we do make the distinction between playing casually and playing competitively (which spans more than just the table top gaming world) there is a difference in resources, play and motivation. If I jump on a video game to play casually against competitive, there will be imbalance in resources and ability, not really the manufacturers fault. If I shoot archery casually, against competitive there is imbalance in my resources and ability, not really my bow makers fault.

There are some units or combination of units which tip the scales too far, GW can manage this.

But I think for the rate of how often tournament lists are created by accident for the love of models, against how reasonable groups are in their actual house rules - which will always be necessary in some circumstances as not all units can be as effective as the next in each unique combination - that is something GW cannot control.

The difference is that essentially in those instances we are playing with the same rules. If I shoot archery, and lose to a better archer it is not because his bow is auto aiming and firing for him. He does not win simply because he shows up with a different bow than I do, he wins because he has practiced more, and is more skilled. Same with the video game example, the opposing player does not win simply because he brings a different controller or something, we have all the same options and I lose because I lack skill. Right now I could choose to play Blood Angels, and against equally skilled opponents (so not professional archers) I have something like a 20% chance to win the game....

GW can absolutely control things that are too powerful...it is not hard at all. They just refuse to do it. I can see not asking them to forsee every broken combination, but when the community finds them asking them to fix them is not asking too much nor is it even remotely difficult. I still don't buy the casual vs comptetitive dichotomy, because I have frequently come across things that were super powerful by accident more or less, and it is not impossible for others to do the same.

Breng77 wrote:
Just to expand on army Balance

Blood Angels (from the 7300 tournament games I quoted) , Have won more than 45% of the time against 3 Armies in the game, against all other armies they have a 20.6% win percentage.

Chaos Daemons only have a less than 45% win percentage against eldar (43%), and only less than a 55% against 4 armies total. Against all others they have a 66.6% win percentage. So against 71% of the armies in the game, they win 2/3rds of the time.
If we look at what are considered the top books (Eldar Tau and Daemons) vs the rest of the game. Only 4 armies have above 45% winning percentages against any of those armies. The average win percentage against those books is 33.5% for all other books. (34.2% against Daemons, 33% against eldar, and 33.3% against Tau.) No book has above a 45% win percentage against all 3.

When 3 books are that far ahead of the field...I see balance issues.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
This is especially true for casual games where balance is much less of an issue, particular units which a heavily unbalanced are so in competitive play because they are spammed, in casual play they are not. Which means it is in fact there is no 'broken balance'

That's all well and good until someone shows up looking for a casual game and everyone is testing their tourney lists, so they have the option of getting steamrolled or not playing. Or when new players get into the game and one starts winning every game because the model he loved the look of is too powerful.

I appriciate that, but that is in the end a player issue not a company issue.

What?!

How?!

Nothing done legally within the unmodified rules of 40K is a player issue. If a player chooses to do something allowed by the rules that is fundamentally unbalanced in terms of power, it is a company.

Because we do make the distinction between playing casually and playing competitively (which spans more than just the table top gaming world) there is a difference in resources, play and motivation. If I jump on a video game to play casually against competitive, there will be imbalance in resources and ability, not really the manufacturers fault. If I shoot archery casually, against competitive there is imbalance in my resources and ability, not really my bow makers fault.

There are some units or combination of units which tip the scales too far, GW can manage this.

But I think for the rate of how often tournament lists are created by accident for the love of models, against how reasonable groups are in their actual house rules - which will always be necessary in some circumstances as not all units can be as effective as the next in each unique combination - that is something GW cannot control.

The difference is that essentially in those instances we are playing with the same rules. If I shoot archery, and lose to a better archer it is not because his bow is auto aiming and firing for him. Which is what happens now. GW can absolutely control things that are too powerful...it is not hard at all. They just refuse to do it. I can see not asking them to forsee every broken combination, but when the community finds them asking them to fix them is not asking too much nor is it even remotely difficult. I still don't buy the casual vs comptetitive dichotomy, because I have frequently come across things that were super powerful by accident more or less, and it is not impossible for others to do the same.

Tournament wise on those particular problem units yes GW can fix this, but for forging a narrative you can get some really crazy stuff, its possible for one of those top armies to produce a list which can't contend with another on the bottom tier through a spercific playstyle which the former has not brought the counter to - only by balancing all codex units against each other codex units (or codex types) can forging a narative play be truely balanced, across all armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even within codex's, lists can be far more inbalanced against other's utilising units which are not prominent in competative lists, I don't think all units in all codex's can be balanced for every eventuallity, and all possible types of lists. Too many variables.

Yes it will always be possible to bring absolute garbage. Like a list of nothing but Gretchin. Like I said, what I want is for every unit to be good at its role, for its points. That can be balanced in every way. Sure you can always bring nothing to kill AV 14, like all guardians with no upgrades and howling banshees and face land raider spam....and auto lose. But what should be dealt with is all armies having viable answers to land raiders, and those being costed by their effectiveness, durability, mobility etc. within the confines of their own book.

Units like pyrovores should be good at their anti-infantry role, a walking unit with little durability and a flamer is terrible. Make it like a beast, or let it deepstrike, and give its flamer torrent. Something, then cost it at like 20 points and let you have squads of 5 or more...I don't know you test it to figure out the specifics.

Same with say ork kommandos, if you are not going to let them assault out of reserves...you need to give them a reason to be there, let them take melta equivalents, or throw a bomb or something, so it is not them walking on to get shot in the face. Simple stuff like that.

IN any game with list building it is always possible to build a terrible list, through poor unit selection. That is not the issue. The issue is that

1.) Every unit should be viable in some role, and be as viable (given appropriate support) as basically any other choice (if there is an advantage it should be slight, not the difference between say using Pyrovores as your Anti-infantry answer and using Devourer Gants.).

2.)Every codex should be able to produce lists that are fairly on par with every other codex. Balanced lists should be fairly comparable to one another. Can someone make an extreme list to leverage some mechanic sure, but that should be a risk, and not the auto choice it often is now.

Essentially any list that has been given a little bit of thought should have a chance to compete (so again not spamming say pyrovores, and having no anti-tank), but if say I took some Zoanthropes to crack vehicles, and some pyrovores to cook the guys that pile out. That should on some level be possible, and able to be played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Essentially what needs to happen, is GW puts out a unit. And it gets played, and players say "this is too good, at what it does." or "this unit is terrible at what it is supposed to do." Then GW, makes changes.

Like I said if you changed the pyrovore to being able to deepstrike and it had T4, 2 wounds, and a 4+ save, and its flamer had the torrent special rule. And you made them say 25 points each in squads of 3-9. Or bring back pods, remove torrent and cost these guys at like 18 points.

Is that some kind of uber unit? No. Is it horribly under powered? No. But it could be a way to say clear cheap troops of rear objectives.

The game needs less auto-includes, and more units that fill a role but are weak against certain things.

"Forging a narrative" technically doesn't need any rules at all since everything you do should, in theory, be for the outcome of the story. So you could in theory play a 1,000 point game and treat models as though it was Kill Team (as often happens in the novels; individual warriors go off on their own and don't stay with their squad). That still doesn't mean the rules are good.

The rules should have been based on the assumption of competitive play from the outset, if for no other reason than this would have encouraged thinking in balanced terms first, and then you allow for flexibility with those rules as it suits the narrative. Instead, the rules are way too spread out to encourage narrative, and fall down completely in anything else, because it's a lot harder to add restrictions than it is to allow for exceptions.

In other words, if the Riptide was 0-1 that would help competitive play, but if you were doing a narrative involving let's say an Ork horde attacking an Earth Caste research outpost, it's easier to agree to use multiple Riptides (representing the ones being worked on/repaired) for the purposes of that storyline; this has no bearing then on the tournament others are having at the same time because they don't allow for that exception and the Riptide stays 0-1.

Again, easier to add exceptions in a narrative game than restrictions for a normal game.

I honestly don't understand how people could argue that broken and unbalanced units/armies is a good thing for the game.

I'm going to stay out of this one.
(Runs for cover.)

It isn't "remotely difficult" to reprint books?

Which is why you don't realease the rules in book form right away. You release them either in the model box or as a free PDF on line for the playtest...Then release the books. It is also a failing of GW to use the codex model for releases as that model make balance much more difficult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and in the digital age we have now, they could just make digital copies of rules that update....in addition to any books, so if you had the digital codex for something it could update when rules changes occur.

Breng77 wrote:
Which is why you don't realease the rules in book form right away. You release them either in the model box or as a free PDF on line for the playtest...Then release the books. It is also a failing of GW to use the codex model for releases as that model make balance much more difficult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and in the digital age we have now, they could just make digital copies of rules that update....in addition to any books, so if you had the digital codex for something it could update when rules changes occur.

FREE? What sort of heresy is this??? Report to your local Inquisitor for cleansing, citizen.

Hey they could just do data slates for everything and update them, then we wiykd gave to pay for them...but I was looking for the way they would sell more models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or you know include a code with the purchase of a model that unlocks the digital rules or something

Breng77 wrote:
Hey they could just do data slates for everything and update them, then we wiykd gave to pay for them...but I was looking for the way they would sell more models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or you know include a code with the purchase of a model that unlocks the digital rules or something

Common sense and embracing the internet as something other than a way to shill more overpriced stuff would be including a code for the digital/PDF copy with the physical copy, so you get both. But this is GW we're talking about.

Very true, like I said this is what I think should happen not what I think will happen.

isnt gw a mini's company first, and a rules company last? forget about rules and balance, that isnt their focus. it will only lead to frustration if you allow yourself to get hung up on the shortcomings.

sand.zzz wrote:
isnt gw a mini's company first, and a rules company last? forget about rules and balance, that isnt their focus. it will only lead to frustration if you allow yourself to get hung up on the shortcomings.

That's the lie they keep repeating in order to shift blame of unbalanced rules...

Yes, GAMES Workshop totally isn't a GAME company. News flash to GW if there was no Game their models don't sell nearly as well.

WayneTheGame wrote:

sand.zzz wrote:
isnt gw a mini's company first, and a rules company last? forget about rules and balance, that isnt their focus. it will only lead to frustration if you allow yourself to get hung up on the shortcomings.

That's the lie they keep repeating in order to shift blame of unbalanced rules...

its not a lie if its obviously the approach they take to the rules they write.
you dont have to look very hard to see evidence that rules/balance/parity arent their number one priority. so its probably just a lesson in frustration to focus on the ruleset.

as far as selling less mini's w/o a game to go along with them: of course thats true, but thats not what we're discussing here.

It absolutely is though, because the game is a game first...the fact that they say otherwise is lazyness.

sand.zzz wrote:
isnt gw a mini's company first, and a rules company last? forget about rules and balance, that isnt their focus. it will only lead to frustration if you allow yourself to get hung up on the shortcomings.

As long as "rules" is one of their better selling products, they are a rules company.

You're still an ice cream company if your only flavors are salt and vinegar.

Pointless.

There is such a degree of randomness and rock-paper-scissors to army lists that unless you use the absolute best net-lists, very few wins can be certain.

It is not a competitive game, the variables/randomness take away too much from strategy.

It is made to look pretty and field what you want and feel like something is happening. The Fluff players like it for this: flexibility and play what you want and not get beaten up too much if your opponent does the same.

This kind of thread has happened many times and can get quite heated but in end I find this from the more argumentative:

It allows less tactically gifted players to win against gifted ones so it makes them feel good and rub other people's noses in it who beat them in anything else. This is why this game will always have massive support for WAAC players: you can live in the "grey zone" of the rules.

So two extremes find a place to play and there are plenty of games out there for those who like a greater mental challenge.

The level of absolute confusion and misinformation in this thread is baffling. How can people honestly believe balance in a tabletop game is a bad thing?! I can't even wrap my head around what kind of utter madness infects them. The idea that all armies would end up the same is ridiculous. Look at a game like Infinity, Firestorm Armada or Battletech (what are they up to, two thousand Mech designs?), where units are fairly balanced but the playstyles and options can vary drastically.

As to the earlier posts about "hard counters" (although most people were misusing the term and actually meant "soft counters") and RTS video games, you have to remember you aren't paying $700 to build and paint a bunch of Zerglings. So if your Zerglings get hard countered by an air unit you just switch gears and build something else. It's not like you then have to pay ANOTHER $700 for Mutalisks. Whereas you DO have to if the meta shifts in a tabletop game, or changing hard counters are involved.
That's why the comparison between a virtual game with virtual resources and an analog game with physical resources never works.

"Yeah man the 40k meta shifted, so ditch your old stuff you spent 6 months painting, drop another thousand dollars, and get up to speed!"