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.

If you had $129,000,000 you could buy 51% of GW shares. If I had that kind of money, I would be buying an island, exotic cars and exotic women, not a failing toy soldier company.

Hell, if you have that kind of money, set up your own toy soldier company.

 asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
is it possible to BUY enough shares of GW to "OWN" the company? or does it not work that way?

correct me if i'm wrong i'm not a financial person i dont have a clue how stocks work

It's possible, you could buy them all to gain total ownership or buy 51% to gain a controlling stake (effectively the same thing if all you want to do is dictate how it runs)

You'd need a huge amount of money to do it, but it's possible. However, given that Tom Kirby is one of GW's largest shareholders, and that the other big ones are all hedge funds, you may face some bidding wars as well.

Guns don´t kill people, people do.

Miniatures don´t ruin a game, people do.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 asdrubeal vect124 wrote:
is it possible to BUY enough shares of GW to "OWN" the company? or does it not work that way?

correct me if i'm wrong i'm not a financial person i dont have a clue how stocks work

It's possible, you could buy them all to gain total ownership or buy 51% to gain a controlling stake (effectively the same thing if all you want to do is dictate how it runs)

You'd need a huge amount of money to do it, but it's possible. However, given that Tom Kirby is one of GW's largest shareholders, and that the other big ones are all hedge funds, you may face some bidding wars as well.

Kirby's at 13%, you could make him an irrelevance, and hedge funds aren't emotional, offer them a return and you'd likely be ok.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Guns don´t kill people, people do.

Miniatures don´t ruin a game, people do.

And those people work for the company that sells the game, because they don't care about making a game.

Glad you finally came round

 RunicFIN wrote:
Guns don´t kill people, people do.

Miniatures don´t ruin a game, people do.

RTS (though not a miniatures company) would disagree with this statement. It is quite possible for the company to be its own ruin.
If GW were more aware of their customers, they'd realize that there's a problem and work to fix it. It's their game so it's their responsibility.

WayneTheGame wrote:
And those people work for the company that sells the game, because they don't care about making a game.

Glad you finally came round

Wayne gone and got himself sucked into the Warp again, where reality is everything but.

 RunicFIN wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
And those people work for the company that sells the game, because they don't care about making a game.

Glad you finally came round

Wayne gone and got himself sucked into the Warp again, where reality is everything but.

Oh I knew what you were saying, just couldn't resist twisting it. We agree to disagree, so no use rehashing that fight.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Okay. We all know GW is at fault for not being able to produce codexes with perfect internal balance, where each unit is worth considering. But we all know blaming GW will get us nowhere. If we, as a community want to do our part in fixing 40k, aka actually changing stuff, we need to really change our mentality. Because if we dont start with ourselves, how can we expect our opponents to?

When I look at armylists, I realize 4 out of 5 times that people see it as an exercise of putting their grey cells to work in how to maximize damage while not exceeding the points value, rather than seeing it as a framework that allows you to bring some of your collection to the table and show off your modeling and painting progress to your friend you'll be playing against. People tend to forget 40k is a 2 person game, not a 3D equivalent of playing a video game where you develop the mentality of slaughtering all your enemies. Saying that in 40k, both players want to win isnt far from the truth. But more importantly, both players want to have fun. How many of us give thought to that when we spend hours modifying our armylists?

It seems only 3 out of 10 people play games of 40k as an opportunity to see each other's collection. It seems only 3 out of 10 people have "favorite units" in their army based on the way they look, or their background, rather than the amount of damage they inflict on the battlefield.

The reason why you see the same units over and over again in the meta is not (only) because GW sucks at writing balanced codexes, but because we as a community have done our part in powergaming. When we build lists, we think about what causes maximum distruction for its points rather than what unit looks cool/stylish/awesome lorewise and thus include it in our army. When a player starts a new army, he ends up getting advice of what units are must haves based on their battlefield performance rather than what units have the most aesthetically pleasing sculpts. And so, he ends up buying the former and does his part in creating the situation we have today. Advice like "one is none, two is one" subliminally influences people to spend their money more on acquiring an effective armylist than a varied collection. And then they act all surprised and get angry when their codex gets updated and good units become meh and meh units become good (case in point: the Dark Eldar update). We are the reason we see Riptides and Wraithknights, Tigurius and Centurions, Flyrants and Night Scythes instead of Sniper Drones and Harlequins, Cassius and Scout Bikers, Genestealers and Lychguard. We are part of the problem, and part of the reason why the battlefields of 40k dont get to see most of the variety of miniatures in the GW catalogue.

It's kinda like in a traffic jam - everyone hates how he is stuck in a traffic jam, views it as a foreign, blockading entity ruining his day, but doesnt realize he is part of the traffic jam.

Competitve players shows whats broken, they don't break the game they show whats broken...

And with just some modicum of work GW could have the best expertise at their fingertips when balancing the game.

It's interesting that nobody who plays WMH, infinity, malifaux, etc complain about competitive players ruining the game. It's not that competitive players and "just for fun" players don't exist in those games, the companies just know how to write rules so that 2 different types of player can have a game without it ending on turn 3 reregardless of tactics.

Give it 20 years and the bloat will come for them too.

 Toofast wrote:
It's interesting that nobody who plays WMH, infinity, malifaux, etc complain about competitive players ruining the game. It's not that competitive players and "just for fun" players don't exist in those games, the companies just know how to write rules so that 2 different types of player can have a game without it ending on turn 3 reregardless of tactics.

This is literally the exact opposite view that I've heard about Warmachine from anyone I've spoken to not on a forum. I keep hearing it's competitive and cheesy.

But ultimately, all games can be cheesed to some extent, and competitive players will always find a way to do that. I've never seen a game that could accommodate competitive and friendly players, together, where both have fun in equal measure.

The best wa to have fun is to make sure, no matter the game, that you and your opponent are on the same page as to what kind of game you're looking for.

So now length of time a game has existed is an excuse? GW is fully ruining their own game largely because they have made a ton of sweeping changes to it rather than small tweaks to improve mechanics/ balance. Better balance would be very easy to achieve, But Gw is unwilling to do things like release beta test rules for public use. If they did it is unlikely the worst abuses would make it through.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Okay. We all know GW is at fault for not being able to produce codexes with perfect internal balance, where each unit is worth considering.

Orks...no?

 Las wrote:
Give it 20 years and the bloat will come for them too.

I doubt it. GW's rules bloat problem doesn't exist because the game is old, it exists because it's a game run by people who just add more rules without any guiding vision of how the game is supposed to work.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
It's interesting that nobody who plays WMH, infinity, malifaux, etc complain about competitive players ruining the game. It's not that competitive players and "just for fun" players don't exist in those games, the companies just know how to write rules so that 2 different types of player can have a game without it ending on turn 3 reregardless of tactics.

This is literally the exact opposite view that I've heard about Warmachine from anyone I've spoken to not on a forum. I keep hearing it's competitive and cheesy.

But ultimately, all games can be cheesed to some extent, and competitive players will always find a way to do that. I've never seen a game that could accommodate competitive and friendly players, together, where both have fun in equal measure.

The best wa to have fun is to make sure, no matter the game, that you and your opponent are on the same page as to what kind of game you're looking for.

I generally keep my mouth shut about it, because it's not in my nature to badmouth games, but yes, WMH can be cheesy too, and at the FLGS, you hear it all the time, especially from new players.

As you say, pretty much *any* game gets cheesed by people. All lists are not equal, and you can't just pick whatever you want, add it up to 50 points, stick it on a board and expect decent results (I mean, not even close...). However, WMH is a lot more forgiving because:

(a) the vastly smaller pool of possibilities and unit types restricts huge imbalances
(b) the unit counts are way, way lower
(c) the price range of models is about $6 - $100 (and it's not like you're going to stack colossals) -- whereas GW models range from $2 to $200 for core models, and up to a thousand dollars for ForgeWorld stuff. And there are a bazillion models to choose from if you choose IoM, which is what a ton of people choose as their first faction.

To your point: personally, I think that on forums it's simply a case of great frustration at GW for some people, so they pick another game to say, "See, this is better" -- except it often comes out as, "See, this is perfect".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Las wrote:
Give it 20 years and the bloat will come for them too.

I doubt it. GW's rules bloat problem doesn't exist because the game is old, it exists because it's a game run by people who just add more rules without any guiding vision of how the game is supposed to work.

Who knows. For PP to be profitable in the long run, it needs its playerbase to keep buying new stuff. Especially since all PP is monopose, there isn't really a reason to collect multiples; and anyhow, most people who collect to model spend way more money on GW than PP. No, I don't have a statistic -- but I know a lot of gamers and modellers locally, and the ones that have 1,000+ completed model collections are pretty much all GW or historical. I have never walked into an FLGS with a display case with hundreds of painted WMH models, but these are in almost every shop that sells 40k/WHFB.

So, long-term, PP generates money by writing fluff and books (but that only goes so far), by new edition rules every few years (since that's a free cash grab), and by creating rules that make new units attractive. Or, new units with attractive stats.

Ultimately, I'm sure they would love if more people bought more of their models.

They've already started down the dark path -- as they replace metal minis with plastic ones, and keep the price the same (or raise them). Remember when the battleforce box sets were metal instead of plastic?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Las wrote:
Give it 20 years and the bloat will come for them too.

I doubt it. GW's rules bloat problem doesn't exist because the game is old, it exists because it's a game run by people who just add more rules without any guiding vision of how the game is supposed to work.

Especially when you consider the game actually shrunk from 2nd -> 3rd. Rules bloat is not the same as having an expansive universe, I totally expect the universe to expand over the life of a game (though there's arguments to be made for the occasional consolidation there as well). Rules bloat like 40k has is less to do with how big the universe might be and more to do with poor rules management and writing.

I really like the original post, and I agree to some extent, as I have had many unpleasant games against Spam or Cheese lists in my FLGS but almost never in a game at a mate's house or mine.

So to me it does come down to people interacting with other people, and on a larger scale than in a lot of games. It is because we spend so much money and time and thought into preparing for these games that--for some people--the victory or defeat becomes so significant. It's a lot different from picking up a PS4 controller or pulling out a Monopoly board. Who wants to spend a ton of money and toil away converting, basing and painting only to get massacred on the tabletop by someone who has a Cheesy Spam list with a basecoat and some drybrushing and decals? (Sorry for the generalization, but it's a lot of what I've seen) When that happens, odds are the social interaction that occurs during and after this pummeling is not going to have a lot of "value added."

So it matters who you play against, and in what context. If it's competitive, then gloves are off--you are going for the win. And if some people are "math-hammery" (I'm not) and are just more successful at winning, they are generally not going to avoid this in order to be polite or make someone feel better about their painting skills.

But it is a hobby too--and in that context, we have painting contests, and Army on Parade displays, and you always feel good when someone compliments your fine-looking force. That should be satisfying in its own right, and it is part of 40k in my opinion and experience.

The bottom line is: it's hard to win this game, and some people take that part of it more seriously than others. Other people are talented painters, or modellers, and love the aesthetic. Both types can play this game, but both cannot necessarily take equal satisfaction in both areas. It's hard to find a group of gamers (or just colleagues or people in general) who can get along, encourage one another, and enjoy one another's company, and that is certainly true in 40k. But I still like the game, and the hobby, and will also keep looking for good people to play a game against, even if I don't win.

 Las wrote:
Give it 20 years and the bloat will come for them too.

Pretty much this. We´ll see how WM/H fares then.

 Jimsolo wrote:


This is literally the exact opposite view that I've heard about Warmachine from anyone I've spoken to not on a forum. I keep hearing it's competitive and cheesy.

Competitive - yes. Cheesy - no? Are things over the top? Yup. Thing is, everything is over the top, when everything is broken, nothing is.

You need to realise that a lot of the things folk complain about (fluffy vs power gaming, cheesy, competitive play etc) are really only complaints when seen through the prism of gw gaming, which is a narrow skew. Because sadly. the 40k player base does a great job of being a fractured mess at its own throat most of the time.

Deadnight wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:


This is literally the exact opposite view that I've heard about Warmachine from anyone I've spoken to not on a forum. I keep hearing it's competitive and cheesy.

Competitive - yes. Cheesy - no? Are things over the top? Yup. Thing is, everything is over the top, when everything is broken, nothing is.

You need to realise that a lot of the things folk complain about (fluffy vs power gaming, cheesy, competitive play etc) are really only complaints when seen through the prism of gw gaming, which is a narrow skew. Because sadly. the 40k player base does a great job of being a fractured mess at its own throat most of the time.

I don't know what game you're playing, but WMH can be plenty cheesy, and it's filled with just as many people I don't want to play with as 40k. This might shock you, but there is are many people who actually enjoy 40k, and have a great time playing it and being immersed in the hobby.

It might also shock some of the peeps posting to threads like this that some people find WMH, it's small scale, and lack of unit diversity underwhelming. I strongly prefer 40k.

In my opinion, either game is enjoyable with people who are fun to play with, and a waste of time, with people that are ***holes.

Competitive 40k is not the problem.

GW actually produces a quality product across the board . . . awesome models, great fluff, lots of great ideas in their rules . . .

except for one serious flaw, in my opinion.


They don't support the rules of their game.

If they addressed this one problem a lot of player discontent would simply go away.

They simply choose to not take ownership of actively supporting the rules of their game. And that decision, which is bad in my opinion, causes damage.

As it is, the community of players is forced to rely on grassroots efforts to make a playable game.

Talys wrote:
For PP to be profitable in the long run, it needs its playerbase to keep buying new stuff.

But that has nothing to do with rules bloat. 40k's rules bloat isn't driven by the need to keep people buying stuff, it's the result of incompetent rule authors who don't care enough to avoid it. You can avoid rules bloat by doing three things:

1) Getting rid of old rules when you add new stuff. That doesn't necessarily mean removing units/models though. For example, if you want to add a more complicated wound allocation system to 40k you might get rid of the different types of power weapons to make up for it. Or some of the USRs could be cleaned up to make room for the new thing. Or maybe you release a new skirmish variant that adds more detail to characters but removes all of the vehicles/MCs/etc. The important thing is that you keep the complexity level relatively constant so that a new player doesn't get overwhelmed.

2) Keeping complexity in the unit/army rules, not the core rulebook. Expansions/army lists/etc are much less of a contribution to rules bloat than the core rules because they aren't all used at the same time. If I'm playing C:SM the new Tau codex doesn't have much impact on me. If I don't play games with the new planetstrike expansion those rules don't matter to me. Etc. Where rules bloat really kills a game is when the core rules, which every player has to learn, start getting too complicated. But as long as you keep the core rules relatively clean and simple you can release a lot of profit-increasing "secondary" products without worrying too much.

3) Making "avoid rules bloat" a priority. Some degree of complexity is ok, the real problem comes in when you start adding three rules to do the job of one or complex rules with minimal gameplay impact because you aren't paying enough attention to how complicated the game is becoming. The Fear USR is the perfect example: most of the time it does nothing at all, and when it does work it doesn't do very much. Does this rule really add anything to the game? No. The nice thing about this part of avoiding rules bloat is that you aren't sacrificing anything (other than a little development time and effort) to gain it.

They've already started down the dark path -- as they replace metal minis with plastic ones, and keep the price the same (or raise them).

But what does this have to do with rules bloat? In fact, it's an argument against the inevitability of rules bloat. If a company can make more money from model changes alone then the need to keep selling new stuff doesn't depend on adding new rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
lots of great ideas in their rules . . .

I strongly disagree with this. 40k's rules suck, from beginning to end. There is nothing worth keeping, and a proper redesign of the game would involve deleting the entire rulebook and starting over. GW could improve things a lot by fixing the superficial issues, but they'd still have the problem of trying to build a modern-style scifi game on the broken foundation of a 1980s fantasy game. Things like IGOUGO, the melee-focused stat line in a shooting-focused game, etc, would continue to be terrible decisions no matter how clear and balanced the rules became.

Talys wrote:

I don't know what game you're playing, but WMH can be plenty cheesy, and it's filled with just as many people I don't want to play with as 40k. This might shock you, but there is are many people who actually enjoy 40k, and have a great time playing it and being immersed in the hobby.

It might also shock some of the peeps posting to threads like this that some people find WMH, it's small scale, and lack of unit diversity underwhelming. I strongly prefer 40k.

In my opinion, either game is enjoyable with people who are fun to play with, and a waste of time, with people that are ***holes.

'Cheesy' and 'people I don't want to play with' are two different things. And yes, there are tfg's in WMH who I refuse to play, who noobstalk and have done a great job of driving people away from the hobby, and it think they're unwanted, and bad news for the game too. But if you put down bradigus wold war, or Haley, I'm gonna have a go. Cheesy? Not when you have a plan! here's the thing. Hit me with something hard in WMH? Well,fine. I can play that game too and give as good as I get. different story to wave serpents and vespids. that all being said, I think some casters (Haley, denny) need a redesign. Not because they're op, or cheesy. But because they're 'not fun' to play against. At least IMO.

As to bring 'surprised' that folks enjoy 40k enjoy playing it, and being 'immersed' in the hobby - eh, no. Not surprised at all. I think if you've got good mates with a similar mind set, it can be great fun. Even then though, I've seen some heads shook, and eyes rolled. I don't play 40k, but I too still am among those who 'actually enjoy 40k'. Imperial armours. The recent fw heresy stuff. Etcetera. As to being immersed in the hobby - you should see my painting/modding desk at the moment. I've got iron fangs, steelheads, infinity's operation ice storm.. And a limited edition sm captain from a few years ago I'm gonna enjoy painting.

And why would things 'shock' me about WMH? Not everyone wants skirmishes (I'd rather play epic or dzc for those massive battles though, to be fair). Lack of diversity? Meh, I'll disagree here. I'd rather have ten or twenty 'real' options than 40k's hundred pseudo options where only two are ever worth taking. But I'll raise my issues with WMH. Jack marshals are lacking. Tough Is a pita. Id like to see a way to allow people to play jack-heavy builds a bit easier than it is now. I'd like to see some asymmetric mission types and a campaign book. They're getting there, but they need to sort out their plastics. Pp get legitimate criticism too.

I completely agree with the OP. Even though I would slightly change the core message to "competitive players are ruining the game for themselves". My enjoyment of the game is not impacted by their mad ravings at all.

They say they like the competitive play, yet they complain about every under average dice roll, every new codex release and every stupid meta that emerged solely from the drive to win as much and has hard as possible. Because someones gotta be at fault (it couldn't possibly be them) all the hate goes towards GW and even individuals in management.

Of course the competitive player would do everything different given the chance. What they just don't realize is the simple fact that you cannot balance a game of such a scale and scope. More balance would only yield less variety and more of the same in different army colours. Balanced 40k is a pipe dream. GW knows that and so they smartly try do drive the game in a different direction, namely a shared and positive gaming experience where the focus is strictly not on winning. The win and the loss is just a storytelling device amongst many.

Of course every competitive players loves competitive play, right? The thing is, I don't complain 24/7 about the things that I love, I take them for what they are. And if they turn out to be something that I can't love anymore I turn around and go, but severe cognitive dissonance is holding all those players hostage.

Just let it go man. Let it go. Don't post in the thread that's about why you left the game on the forum that is about the game cause then you haven't left the game yet. Your quest for self affirmation only leads to further pain. Let it go. Play war machine. Let it go.

bearseamen wrote:
I completely agree with the OP. Even though I would slightly change the core message to "competitive players are ruining the game for themselves". My enjoyment of the game is not impacted by their mad ravings at all.

They say they like the competitive play, yet they complain about every under average dice roll, every new codex release and every stupid meta that emerged solely from the drive to win as much and has hard as possible. Because someones gotta be at fault (it couldn't possibly be them) all the hate goes towards GW and even individuals in management.

Of course the competitive player would do everything different given the chance. What they just don't realize is the simple fact that you cannot balance a game of such a scale and scope. More balance would only yield less variety and more of the same in different army colours. Balanced 40k is a pipe dream. GW knows that and so they smartly try do drive the game in a different direction, namely a shared and positive gaming experience where the focus is strictly not on winning. The win and the loss is just a storytelling device amongst many.

Of course every competitive players loves competitive play, right? The thing is, I don't complain 24/7 about the things that I love, I take them for what they are. And if they turn out to be something that I can't love anymore I turn around and go, but severe cognitive dissonance is holding all those players hostage.

Just let it go man. Let it go. Don't post in the thread that's about why you left the game on the forum that is about the game cause then you haven't left the game yet. Your quest for self affirmation only leads to further pain. Let it go. Play war machine. Let it go.

To be fair, balanced does not mean boring, homogenous or yielding less variety.

bearseamen wrote:
I completely agree with the OP. Even though I would slightly change the core message to "competitive players are ruining the game for themselves". My enjoyment of the game is not impacted by their mad ravings at all.

They say they like the competitive play, yet they complain about every under average dice roll, every new codex release and every stupid meta that emerged solely from the drive to win as much and has hard as possible. Because someones gotta be at fault (it couldn't possibly be them) all the hate goes towards GW and even individuals in management.

Of course the competitive player would do everything different given the chance. What they just don't realize is the simple fact that you cannot balance a game of such a scale and scope. More balance would only yield less variety and more of the same in different army colours. Balanced 40k is a pipe dream. GW knows that and so they smartly try do drive the game in a different direction, namely a shared and positive gaming experience where the focus is strictly not on winning. The win and the loss is just a storytelling device amongst many.

Of course every competitive players loves competitive play, right? The thing is, I don't complain 24/7 about the things that I love, I take them for what they are. And if they turn out to be something that I can't love anymore I turn around and go, but severe cognitive dissonance is holding all those players hostage.

Just let it go man. Let it go. Don't post in the thread that's about why you left the game on the forum that is about the game cause then you haven't left the game yet. Your quest for self affirmation only leads to further pain. Let it go. Play war machine. Let it go.

You definitely could balance a game 'of such scale and scope'. Balanced 40k is only a pipe dream because we all know GW won't pull their finger out and balance the damn thing, not because it's impossible to balance. I'm sure it wouldn't even be that hard, and Games Designers are literally paid to write games, they should be able to write balanced rules. It's literally their job. And a game can be balanced and still have variety. Balance doesn't mean everything is literally the same, we're not asking for chess like perfect balance here.

And seriously people need to stop bringing up this whole 'just move on' thing. I'm pretty sure most of these people who post negative things about 40k either still play 40k and just aren't happy with aspects of it, or used to play and are monitoring the state of the game I case they maybe would like to play again if it sorts itself out. People are allowed to discuss games on a game discussion forum, even if they don't play them anymore. It's so annoying to constantly read 'just move on.' People who have stopped playing the game might still love the setting, the models, aspects of the game. They can still talk about a game they used to play. I mean what would even be the point of a forum if everyone just agreed with everyone all the time. There'd be no discussion at all.

Please, explain to me how you want to balance 40k.

What it boils down is that "balance" becomes a subjective term. The game has been setup by GW in a way that it allows for changes where ever deemed necessary. If a tournament organizer feels like rule X is broken it is perfectly fine to change that rule. Players can then decide whether they agree to that standard of balance or not. The goal is ensure that the game is fun to play. We cannot talk about seeking out objective balance though. We have no idea what objective balance even is. Any definition of balance excludes many, many factors that might also play a roll. What do I mean by that? You could state that army A is balanced if it beats army B 50% of the time.Thats an arbitrary definition of balance. It doesnt factor in unit composition, player skill, table setup, scenario etc.

It gets even more difficult when you talk about unit balance. When is unit A balanced? Every definition you come up with either includes too little OR so much that its not measurable anymore.You can judge balance by tournament result and / or army appearance. Thus an army could be unbalanced if its over-represented in the top 5. But what if that army is just particular cool and players like to play it? The over-representation of that army in the top 5 is a statistical necessity if more people are playing it. You are also ignoring the impact of the metagame when you look at balance like that.

It gets worse when you start looking into balance testing. If you have the assumption that unit X is too strong you have to change its power in small increments, one change at a time, and observe the impacts of those changes over a significant sample size - something that is possible with the big data that a game like LoL or SC2 offers, but a sheer insurmountable task for 40k. What you cannot do is carpet bomb the game with changes, as you won't be able to tell which change caused a difference in result. With 40k it is also hard to make any statistical observations. Matches take long, player skill is not controlled for (unlike games that use an ELO system) and there are tons of other random variables that interact with the game result. If you want to talk about objective game balance it has to get mathy at some point.

It's easy to get mad about re-rollable 2+ saves. It's just as easy for a tournament organizer to disallow them. That is a subjective decision that makes no assumption over the statistical balance of the game. I am convinced that the aspect of balance does not fit with 40k. Look, I heard that sisters of battle do not perform well. Some say the are UP. So in the mission of balance, what do you do about that? You give them all the stuff that makes other armies strong, right? A fat deathstar with a 2+, psipowers that give extra protection, a unit with efficient long range anti-armor fire etc.If you've done all that you will soon realize that every army is essentially the same thing with a different skin.

If you step back from 40k and look into other nontraditional competitive sports it becomes very obvious that balance / "tight rules" is most likely a pipe dream. StarCraft:Broodwar has been a competitive "sport" for almost two decades, with leagues, tournamemts and large price pools. The game has never been truly balanced, with lots of lopsided matchups, maps or tournament formats. Modern games such as SC2 or League of Legends do not have the slightest chance of achieving global balance by virtue of their relative youth and grand scope.

The industry of competitive online gaming has never been that big, with global leagues and price pools spiking millions of dollars for single events. Large industries are gathered around these systems, which declare competitive game balance as one of their focal points. Game balance is a subject of constant development that is heavily driven by scientific methods. And despite all that time, money and development effort, none of these games will ever reach a state of true balance, no matter how you loosely you choose to define that term. It's the very nature of a gaming system that is large enough to allow for almost infinite variables interacting with each other.

Looking back at 40k which is not only much larger than other games (for comparison, SC:broodwar had 3 races, with about as much unit choices as any codex) but also not hard-coded (we play it on a table using tape measure), it becomes glaringly obvious that the game cannot be truly balanced, ever. Probably not even remotely. On top of the large scale and scope of 40k, GW is not even trying, explicitly so! In their mind its not meant as a competitive sport, and they treat it as such.

In the end you are just playing the wrong game.

I'd not say that competitive play is ruining a game on the whole. It's ruining a game for fluffy armies that are in for other aspects of the game. That's why different player types exist. To make life easier for everyone. Not to generate hate or something.