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.

Balance is the primary reason I left 40k. Not because it was so unbalanced I couldn't enjoy it, but because it felt like for what I was paying I shouldn't have to work so hard to make the game play fairly.

For what I pay for the rules (which to me include codices), my buddy and I should be able to both take a reasonable 1500 point army no matter what codex we use and have a fun, fair game. I simply was not getting that experience, so to me the value wasn't there and we decided to try something different.

So....lengthy pre-game negotiations and play to win endorsed by the player base. That's some of why I don't play 40K anymore.

We basically have adopted the BOA Tourney rules for house rules and things have been fine.

We announce when we're going to do "actual rules" nights so folks can bring what they want.

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

 Sillycybin wrote:
> Then they will quickly learn to bring some variant lists / models along

Dude, this is just pay to win. It costs money and a lot of time to make a nice army. If i have enough points to play 1250 even if its not optimized doesn't mean I should be the underdog, That's what a point cost system is about. Why have points at all if my 1500pts doesn't equal the potential of your 1500 points?

This is the main problem with the rules. The whole system is built on the presumption that there is a balance in the game. What we are experiencing is the equivalent of eyeballing an army of models and going... yea that's about 1500 points.

Sorry I want to have a fair game with the battle force I bought, I didn't know I had to have multiple copies of the entire army I play so i can have a fair game. That only costs like 2 grand and a year of building and painting.

ill be honest if i had ONE army at 1250 pts or 1500 and thats ALL i had to play it would see maybe 3 games before i bought more for it cos id be bored of it. you would be playing the same game every time.
and i have seen it, people buy a small force and expect the world from it and have to use the same tactic to try and win game after game. and when they get stomped on its no fun cos thats all they have and they cant customize it. so news is this, prepare to expand your army, spend money and time building and painting because as you do and you expand the game will open up more and more. tying yourself to one small force.. just no for me, boring, i dont think i have run the same list twice, and dont really intend to.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Sillycybin wrote:
> Then they will quickly learn to bring some variant lists / models along

Dude, this is just pay to win. It costs money and a lot of time to make a nice army. If i have enough points to play 1250 even if its not optimized doesn't mean I should be the underdog, That's what a point cost system is about. Why have points at all if my 1500pts doesn't equal the potential of your 1500 points?

This is the main problem with the rules. The whole system is built on the presumption that there is a balance in the game. What we are experiencing is the equivalent of eyeballing an army of models and going... yea that's about 1500 points.

Sorry I want to have a fair game with the battle force I bought, I didn't know I had to have multiple copies of the entire army I play so i can have a fair game. That only costs like 2 grand and a year of building and painting.

ill be honest if i had ONE army at 1250 pts or 1500 and thats ALL i had to play it would see maybe 3 games before i bought more for it cos id be bored of it. you would be playing the same game every time.
and i have seen it, people buy a small force and expect the world from it and have to use the same tactic to try and win game after game. and when they get stomped on its no fun cos thats all they have and they cant customize it. so news is this, prepare to expand your army, spend money and time building and painting because as you do and you expand the game will open up more and more. tying yourself to one small force.. just no for me, boring, i dont think i have run the same list twice, and dont really intend to.

Half the problem with it is the game ca largely be won or lost in the list building stage, which IMO is not a good thing, at least not from a "game" perspective.

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

 Sillycybin wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

ill be honest if i had ONE army at 1250 pts or 1500 and thats ALL i had to play it would see maybe 3 games before i bought more for it cos id be bored of it. you would be playing the same game every time.

You do realize that for a 1500 point army you can get a playstation and call of duty which will last you more then 3 games.

What are they going to do when the games are 2k? What about Apocalypse? Are they going to have to just accept that they have units they will never use, and should never have bought in the first place? The principle here is you play games in point values smaller then your whole force, but the principle remains that if I want to use my entire 1500 point force. I should have a fair chance of winning against another 1500 point force.

This is what they are trying to accomplish with maelstrom objectives. To stop the game being won or lost in list building unfortunately they dont understand this comes with adjusting their fundamental system so points reflect ability. Will you argue that a riptide is the equivalent of a forge fiend?

wait so your saying random objective values is GREAT NEWS. because you cna then run any list you want and still do well?

bad news, part of the game is the list building. a BIG part. a modern war scenario also involves making sure you take the right tools for the job. just turning up with a random mish-mash SHOULDNT be a way to win. the game isnt won in list building but it SHOULD be a good 50% of it to be honest. bring a saw to do a hammers job? it just doesnt work. list building is integral to the game. what you see with those random point objectives is now shooty armies are even better, because they will just shoot you OFF them and you cant score...

and cool so for the cost of my armies (look in the sig) i could buy a new car and all sorts of other things.

If you want to play your entire 1500 pt force and have a good game (accepting you have bad units in it) then you want your opponent to have an equally scrabbly list. i have 20,000 points odd of CSM so i can pick and choose anything i want, i play usually at the 1850 mark so less than 1/10 of my force sees the table top in any one game and guess what its good, it means i can play anything i want. i can write a fun list (Thousand sons led by Ahriman) it wont win but itll be a fun fluffy list. or i can write a very shooty nasty list thats intent is to win. Why should players be rewarded for taking total trash. i can understand the dissapointment of buying a model thats no good or that gets wrecked with updated rules. (helldrake buffed then nerfed hard, i have 3. mutilators i have 3 as well. warptalons i have 10 etc) but thats part of how GW works. it keeps you buying more and expanding your collection. Being in the mind set of you only need to buy once and for a couple of hundred $$ and your good in a game that would span years of hobbying is just nonsensical.

now in your case, you say run 1250 pts because you have 1500 pts of models. how many variations of that army do you run? how much of that 1500 pts is "competitively optimised"?

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Sillycybin wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

ill be honest if i had ONE army at 1250 pts or 1500 and thats ALL i had to play it would see maybe 3 games before i bought more for it cos id be bored of it. you would be playing the same game every time.

You do realize that for a 1500 point army you can get a playstation and call of duty which will last you more then 3 games.

What are they going to do when the games are 2k? What about Apocalypse? Are they going to have to just accept that they have units they will never use, and should never have bought in the first place? The principle here is you play games in point values smaller then your whole force, but the principle remains that if I want to use my entire 1500 point force. I should have a fair chance of winning against another 1500 point force.

This is what they are trying to accomplish with maelstrom objectives. To stop the game being won or lost in list building unfortunately they dont understand this comes with adjusting their fundamental system so points reflect ability. Will you argue that a riptide is the equivalent of a forge fiend?

wait so your saying random objective values is GREAT NEWS. because you cna then run any list you want and still do well?

bad news, part of the game is the list building. a BIG part. a modern war scenario also involves making sure you take the right tools for the job. just turning up with a random mish-mash SHOULDNT be a way to win. the game isnt won in list building but it SHOULD be a good 50% of it to be honest. bring a saw to do a hammers job? it just doesnt work. list building is integral to the game. what you see with those random point objectives is now shooty armies are even better, because they will just shoot you OFF them and you cant score...

and cool so for the cost of my armies (look in the sig) i could buy a new car and all sorts of other things.

If you want to play your entire 1500 pt force and have a good game (accepting you have bad units in it) then you want your opponent to have an equally scrabbly list. i have 20,000 points odd of CSM so i can pick and choose anything i want, i play usually at the 1850 mark so less than 1/10 of my force sees the table top in any one game and guess what its good, it means i can play anything i want. i can write a fun list (Thousand sons led by Ahriman) it wont win but itll be a fun fluffy list. or i can write a very shooty nasty list thats intent is to win. Why should players be rewarded for taking total trash. i can understand the dissapointment of buying a model thats no good or that gets wrecked with updated rules. (helldrake buffed then nerfed hard, i have 3. mutilators i have 3 as well. warptalons i have 10 etc) but thats part of how GW works. it keeps you buying more and expanding your collection. Being in the mind set of you only need to buy once and for a couple of hundred $$ and your good in a game that would span years of hobbying is just nonsensical.

now in your case, you say run 1250 pts because you have 1500 pts of models. how many variations of that army do you run? how much of that 1500 pts is "competitively optimised"?

And none of that sounds like a good game.

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

@MW, care to list any specifics? cos you have grabbed a nice wall of text there

and sure you can say writing lists shouldnt matter BUT in a game where there is customization ofcourse choices matter, or we would just play checkers.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
@MW, care to list any specifics? cos you have grabbed a nice wall of text there

and sure you can say writing lists shouldnt matter BUT in a game where there is customization ofcourse choices matter, or we would just play checkers.

List making should matter, but it shouldn't determine the winner. There could always be bad match ups, but not to the extent that GW does it. Little Timmy comes in with his shiny new Blood Angels army and goes up against Tau and Eldar. He has no chance. Even an experienced player would not have good odds.
The balance issue is a serious problem for many people and makes the game fun when the type of army they like is utterly useless. GW should reward fluffy armies, not punish them.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
@MW, care to list any specifics? cos you have grabbed a nice wall of text there

and sure you can say writing lists shouldnt matter BUT in a game where there is customization ofcourse choices matter, or we would just play checkers.

List making should matter, but it shouldn't determine the winner. There could always be bad match ups, but not to the extent that GW does it. Little Timmy comes in with his shiny new Blood Angels army and goes up against Tau and Eldar. He has no chance. Even an experienced player would not have good odds.
The balance issue is a serious problem for many people and makes the game fun when the type of army they like is utterly useless. GW should reward fluffy armies, not punish them.

i agree here, what i see though is that example is used alot, and i use it too, eldar and tau are what i think are 6th ed oddities, as in they are powerhouses, that no one before or after matches up to... atleast they cant really ally any more. it also comes from BA are a heavy CC type force and CC is weak in 6th/7th though i think BA have decent delivery systems compared to other CC based forces.

IF you were to look at the other 6th books besides eldar and tau would you say they are all rather similar in power level? not a massive difference between them, sure some of the 6th books are better than others but they are reasonably close. (jsut talking the books released in 6th here).

Ive played probably 12 or so games of 7ths ranging from 500-1000 points and I actually really don't have any complaints so far. Im just in it for the fun factor, never play in tournaments or anything. Just fun games at the FLGS!

There are some issues with the psychic phase and powers like invisibility (i think that it's gona be reasonable the moment you make it 3 WC) and possibility to fail a 1' charge but i find the 7-th rulebook is good on it's own.

The problem lies within awful codex ballance. When there are simultaniously codexes like dark angels and eldar no ruleset is gona make them even close to each other in power levels.

I've played around 10 games so far in 7th (between 1000-1500 points) and maelstrom missions are really fun and add another level of tactics to the game since you can't rely on holding 1-2 objectives the entire game and win .... ya it adds alot more randomness to the game but you have to think in those terms to win. I play C:SM White Scars, AV 13 Wall Necrons, and Nidzilla, so far i've had great and dynamic games so far in 7th using TAC lists.

The only thing with this edition that can be annoying is playing against a lord of war without knowing before hand (or a trans c'tan in general), but if you have forewarning you can minimize the damage and play to the objectives, I think the main problem most people are having is TFG pick up games (which regardless of the edition is going to lessen the fun of playing) and not adjusting play styles to the new missions / rule changes.

After reading the rules discussions for 7E, I didn't even buy them. The previous edition was already on the path to being a mess and 7E was a higher price that addressed nothing. Pure random outcomes as objectives is an absolute joke to anyone who might actually like to enjoy a rousing game with an opponent. Asymmetrical design has already been done better in 40k at tournaments and in other games, like Malifaux.

It needs a whole lot of love to get playable outside of groups of like minded folks or heavily controlled events.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
@MW, care to list any specifics? cos you have grabbed a nice wall of text there

and sure you can say writing lists shouldnt matter BUT in a game where there is customization ofcourse choices matter, or we would just play checkers.

List making should matter, but it shouldn't determine the winner. There could always be bad match ups, but not to the extent that GW does it. Little Timmy comes in with his shiny new Blood Angels army and goes up against Tau and Eldar. He has no chance. Even an experienced player would not have good odds.
The balance issue is a serious problem for many people and makes the game fun when the type of army they like is utterly useless. GW should reward fluffy armies, not punish them.

i agree here, what i see though is that example is used alot, and i use it too, eldar and tau are what i think are 6th ed oddities, as in they are powerhouses, that no one before or after matches up to... atleast they cant really ally any more. it also comes from BA are a heavy CC type force and CC is weak in 6th/7th though i think BA have decent delivery systems compared to other CC based forces.

IF you were to look at the other 6th books besides eldar and tau would you say they are all rather similar in power level? not a massive difference between them, sure some of the 6th books are better than others but they are reasonably close. (jsut talking the books released in 6th here).

They're used because it's a quick and easy way to make the point because the power difference is so blatant that even people who don't care about power balance can see it and go "dayum that's fethed up". There are many more examples, but they tend not to be so blatant as they're at a unit level rather than codex. Compare some necron untis such as the lychgarde or praetorians to wraiths. The lychgarde and praetorians are hugely overcosted/underpowered in comparison for units that fill a similar roll. Then you compare CSM zerks to plague marines, CSM bikes to warp talons, SM bikes to assault squads and you see many examples of extremely poor internal balance in the codices which results in greatly limited choices if you want to be competitive and the risk of unintentionally having greatly disparate power levels between players in a game. Most codices can field a decent list but if you stray too far from it you're boned which sucks.

Sucks to be the non-waac player taking 800 points of necron lychgarde and praetorians (20 models) for his low model count elite list against the non-waac player taking a nurgle list with 800 points of nurgle bikers (30 models) for example. That's only going to end one way no matter how many times you play.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

wait so your saying random objective values is GREAT NEWS. because you cna then run any list you want and still do well?

bad news, part of the game is the list building. a BIG part. a modern war scenario also involves making sure you take the right tools for the job. just turning up with a random mish-mash SHOULDNT be a way to win. the game isnt won in list building but it SHOULD be a good 50% of it to be honest. bring a saw to do a hammers job? it just doesnt work. list building is integral to the game. what you see with those random point objectives is now shooty armies are even better, because they will just shoot you OFF them and you cant score...

and cool so for the cost of my armies (look in the sig) i could buy a new car and all sorts of other things.

If you want to play your entire 1500 pt force and have a good game (accepting you have bad units in it) then you want your opponent to have an equally scrabbly list. i have 20,000 points odd of CSM so i can pick and choose anything i want, i play usually at the 1850 mark so less than 1/10 of my force sees the table top in any one game and guess what its good, it means i can play anything i want. i can write a fun list (Thousand sons led by Ahriman) it wont win but itll be a fun fluffy list. or i can write a very shooty nasty list thats intent is to win. Why should players be rewarded for taking total trash. i can understand the dissapointment of buying a model thats no good or that gets wrecked with updated rules. (helldrake buffed then nerfed hard, i have 3. mutilators i have 3 as well. warptalons i have 10 etc) but thats part of how GW works. it keeps you buying more and expanding your collection. Being in the mind set of you only need to buy once and for a couple of hundred $$ and your good in a game that would span years of hobbying is just nonsensical.

now in your case, you say run 1250 pts because you have 1500 pts of models. how many variations of that army do you run? how much of that 1500 pts is "competitively optimised"?

Makumba wrote:

ya it adds alot more randomness to the game but you have to think in those terms to win

Ok how to you outthink your opponent getting objectives in his deployment unlike you or him getting missions he can do unlike you ?

You're forging a raging narrative there!
(I really dislike random objectives like this)

 Musashi363 wrote:
So....lengthy pre-game negotiations and play to win endorsed by the player base. That's some of why I don't play 40K anymore.

1) If by "lengthy" you mean 1 or 2 minutes, then yes, "lengthy"
2) Pay to win, and thisis no more true than MtG - in fact, far less so. And, in general, it is only really extreme already pay to win armies that suffer with codex changes, e.g. carnispam nid 4th edition being nuked by 5th edition. Happens every codex change, in general.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
So....lengthy pre-game negotiations and play to win endorsed by the player base. That's some of why I don't play 40K anymore.

1) If by "lengthy" you mean 1 or 2 minutes, then yes, "lengthy"
2) Pay to win, and thisis no more true than MtG - in fact, far less so. And, in general, it is only really extreme already pay to win armies that suffer with codex changes, e.g. carnispam nid 4th edition being nuked by 5th edition. Happens every codex change, in general.

An army doesn't have to be good to be nuked. It just merely needs to exist in 40k. Space Marine White Scars list prior to the 6E codex weren't exactly tearing up the scene, but players had them. Deathwing was pretty damned gross in 5E, but *poof* gone so fast in 6E. So on, so forth.

DW "Gross" in 5th? Thats why they won so many....no, wait, they generally lost to weight of fire armies like BA, GK, and necrons.

Whitescars in 6E are only amazing if you alter the models to take advantage of new weapons, grav. Otherwise they are merely good.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

1) If by "lengthy" you mean 1 or 2 minutes, then yes, "lengthy"

In fairness if your views of the game and what you want are so different it could take longer though at that point you are probably best off just finding a different opponent.

It then gets easier as you get to know the group at the FLGS/Club or whatever as you can go in and see gamers X, Y, Z who all play tight tourney lists and A, B, C who play weaker lists. You can then based on the kind of list you brought sidle over to the relevant group and play and maybe arrange a game with a different one for the following week.

In both the "Pay to Win" instances it only matters for "tourney" grade list chasers, my CSM have no cultists, no heldrakes, no oblits and they do just fine for making a fun army to play 40k with.

Makumba wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

wait so your saying random objective values is GREAT NEWS. because you cna then run any list you want and still do well?

bad news, part of the game is the list building. a BIG part. a modern war scenario also involves making sure you take the right tools for the job. just turning up with a random mish-mash SHOULDNT be a way to win. the game isnt won in list building but it SHOULD be a good 50% of it to be honest. bring a saw to do a hammers job? it just doesnt work. list building is integral to the game. what you see with those random point objectives is now shooty armies are even better, because they will just shoot you OFF them and you cant score...

and cool so for the cost of my armies (look in the sig) i could buy a new car and all sorts of other things.

If you want to play your entire 1500 pt force and have a good game (accepting you have bad units in it) then you want your opponent to have an equally scrabbly list. i have 20,000 points odd of CSM so i can pick and choose anything i want, i play usually at the 1850 mark so less than 1/10 of my force sees the table top in any one game and guess what its good, it means i can play anything i want. i can write a fun list (Thousand sons led by Ahriman) it wont win but itll be a fun fluffy list. or i can write a very shooty nasty list thats intent is to win. Why should players be rewarded for taking total trash. i can understand the dissapointment of buying a model thats no good or that gets wrecked with updated rules. (helldrake buffed then nerfed hard, i have 3. mutilators i have 3 as well. warptalons i have 10 etc) but thats part of how GW works. it keeps you buying more and expanding your collection. Being in the mind set of you only need to buy once and for a couple of hundred $$ and your good in a game that would span years of hobbying is just nonsensical.

now in your case, you say run 1250 pts because you have 1500 pts of models. how many variations of that army do you run? how much of that 1500 pts is "competitively optimised"?

So another words to play w40k you need to buy 20k points of armies. Nice starting cost . The problem is not that if someone makes an army full of vespid and non sniper kroot and it sucks, but that someone has a whole codex that has 1 way to play or that a codex that was just updated doesn't work in a new edition. I have 1500pts , most people here have 1500 points armies. New edition or codex we of course update, but when suddenly fast MSU and psyker spam is the thing to do and your army can't do either , it sucks for both old players with armies and any new that may want to start.

ya it adds alot more randomness to the game but you have to think in those terms to win

Ok how to you outthink your opponent getting objectives in his deployment unlike you or him getting missions he can do unlike you ?

To be honest i didn't vote as its a bit of a moot point.

Take into account the fact that "club metas' " exist as well as the well known pitfalls of the rules, make these discussions go round in circles.

If you want to play it fine, nobody is stopping you, however threads like this are adequate warning even if they do to some extent "concentrate" the totally fair gripes.

Personally (apathy warning...) its 40k being 40k. No amount of moaning is going to change things unless GW has a eureka moment. Players must agree to their own changes etc, at my club things are ok but its got stale for me currently. No amount of changing army lists is going to stop the boredom when you know by about turn 2 or 3 that you have won or lost. So i've stopped playing for the moment.

That being said nobody has ever used unbound in a game yet. Partly because of the insane risks of players being, to put it politely "stupid", as well as a perceived lack of trust to do things sensibly.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

Why would he need to? Come up against a WAAC list? "No, thanks", then on to next opponent.

Now you came to the store and you didn't get to play a game, that is a win-win right there.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

1) If by "lengthy" you mean 1 or 2 minutes, then yes, "lengthy"

In fairness if your views of the game and what you want are so different it could take longer though at that point you are probably best off just finding a different opponent.

It then gets easier as you get to know the group at the FLGS/Club or whatever as you can go in and see gamers X, Y, Z who all play tight tourney lists and A, B, C who play weaker lists. You can then based on the kind of list you brought sidle over to the relevant group and play and maybe arrange a game with a different one for the following week.

In both the "Pay to Win" instances it only matters for "tourney" grade list chasers, my CSM have no cultists, no heldrakes, no oblits and they do just fine for making a fun army to play 40k with.

I've had OBs since 3rd, so theyre alternating good and bad it seems

Indeed, however even tourney players, of which I'm sort of / sort of not (I don't optimise my lists based on the codex or army level, I play with the models I like, but I then try to do the best I can with what I have) within our group can manage to play with the fluffiest of players, as they know how to make the game fun for both people. Losing a game, being stomped, doesnt mean it HAS to be "unfun" - again, it just speaks volumes about the low EI of some posters here, or of the people they play with really.

Do I wish the game had better external balance? Yes. However there are currently TWO real outliers, tau and eldar, with everything else being reasonably close to parity, or has difficulty with true TAC lists (even Tau to some extent, due to loss of riptide buffing)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

Why would he need to? Come up against a WAAC list? "No, thanks", then on to next opponent.

Now you came to the store and you didn't get to play a game, that is a win-win right there.

Against that one opponent. Or, you know, actually organise yourself a little better and use this thing called communication to help out. It isnt much of an excuse any longer to claim you will never have any way of knowing who will show up to play. It really isnt.

Against that one opponent. Or, you know, actually organise yourself a little better and use this thing called communication to help out. It isnt much of an excuse any longer to claim you will never have any way of knowing who will show up to play. It really isnt.

Yeah and then you wake up and the closest place where you can play against armies that are not good is in another country. That is like tripple win.

sure lots of people have their 1500pt armies but you just flat out cant expect longevity with it, you cant write a list one way and expect it over time to keep on working. thats folly, you need to expand and get other units etc otherwise its NOT going to work. and i didnt think 7th was either fast MSU or Psyker spam (daemon factory just doesnt work on the table) so when does this happen?

My codex is AM. I had a 1500points list of them. It was made with the writer of the codex knowing the rules for next edition. As for fast MSU not being the thing for 7th ed, how many test games have you played ? How can fast MSU not be a thing, when in 7th win=who is able to do 3 missions per turn and clock as many extra VP , before his army goes to the ground.
Psyker spam is not just demon lists. It is invisibility death stars supported by cheap henchman in rhinos or razorbacks or CSM triple sorc builds with invisibility spawn and bikers.
And as expanding goes, that would work if there were units or builds I could expand in to. I already have the best set up from the AM codex. Adding ogryns , rough raiders and other bad units or unbalancing the list will not make it better against most lists and at best it will allow me to tailor. And no one tailors his list here .

I don't think some of you realize how flawed your logic is when compared to other games. Saying "my 1500 points should be competitive with your 1500 points because that's all I own" is like saying (in MTG), "my 60 cards from random boosters should be as competitive as your 60 cards that you carefully selected to form a powerful deck". In what war game or TCG is there balance when one player can choose from multiple copies of everything available to him and the other player is just playing with everything they have? Go ahead and think about it, I'll wait...