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.

40k is not bad for a casual play. It is bad when a casual player plays with a competitive player.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Hmm, nah. Next to that, if you think everything I said is invalid you must live in a completely different dimension to the rest of us. But I won't continue with you further as I've seen it a hundred times what it means to actually try and converse with you. You're entitled to your opinion, no less valid than mine.

You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.

I <3 Peregrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Why not try playing with alternate formats like Kill Team and Combat Patrol? Alternate terrain setups? Alternate mission rules?

Even chess isn't balanced... IIRC, white holds a small advantage by moving first. Good luck balancing a glorious mess like 40k!

In chess you are supposed to trade off using white and black to make up for the advantage.

Peregrine, although often brusque, is 100% right. The idea that only "WAAC" competitive people play good lists and everyone else plays whatever they want is so laughably ridiculous I can't imagine anyone saying it and being serious. As I already illustrated in my previous post, a gakky set of rules with gakky balance punishes casual players much more than competitive ones, because the casual player is more likely to pick a unit based on looks/how it fits into their theme without caring about the rules, and as a result get screwed harder when the unit is gak on the table.

This is no longer something that can be debated, it's a fact. And yet some people still can't see it and argue until they're blue in the face about how it's okay to take gakky units if you're casual because you're casual. That's not how it works. Casual doesn't mean being a total scrub.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Draco wrote:
40k is not bad for a casual play. It is bad when a casual player plays with a competitive player.

This is outright false and has been shown to be false many times now. It's bad when Casual Player A takes a bad unit that fits their army and Casual Player B takes a good unit that fits their army, because a good game wouldn't have one unit be vastly superior to the other.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Naw wrote:
So let's not even try, huh! That's great.

Ha! You certainly CAN try!

However, rather than take some responsibility on ourselves to play with more cover, bigger tables, houserules, different FOCs or missions, or anything else, some people would rather just complain on the internet. No surprises there really lol!

It's a completely ridiculous standpoint to blame the players. Why should we take responsibility for GWs complete ineptitude when it comes to rules writin? We shouldn't have to do loads of stuff ourselves to fix the game to a point where it's playable, I should be able to turn up at a club, play a game with someone I've never met, and have a decent time. Any other miniatures game accomplishes it perfectly well. And for a lower price too, as WayneTheGame points out below.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Naw wrote:
So let's not even try, huh! That's great.

Ha! You certainly CAN try!

However, rather than take some responsibility on ourselves to play with more cover, bigger tables, houserules, different FOCs or missions, or anything else, some people would rather just complain on the internet. No surprises there really lol!

It's a completely ridiculous standpoint to blame the players. Why should we take responsibility for GWs complete ineptitude when it comes to rules writin? We shouldn't have to do loads of stuff ourselves to fix the game to a point where it's playable, I should be able to turn up at a club, play a game with someone I've never met, and have a decent time. Any other miniatures game accomplishes it perfectly well.

This exactly. You don't find any problem at all with paying a ton of money on rules and then having to sit down and house rule swathes of it to fix glaring issues? Really? You don't see a problem with that? Rules and one Codex, not even factoring in supplements or dataslates, is $135USD. For that price, where I can buy entire armies WITH rules from GW's competitors, you're damn right I would expect the rules to be the highest quality, properly playtested, properly balanced and usable right out of the box with zero problems.

Casual players want a competitive list out of their casual list. Well, tough luck. Not happening in this game. Not currently, probably not ever. One can always hope and talk about how things should be ofcourse, I find that it will do very little however.

Still, my main point was people who complain a unit does nothing while simultaneously the better players make them work and even competitive. Not like I can force you to talk about that instead of switching to the game having bad balance, which is given and not the original topic whatsoever.

As a sidenote, if someone can't win X by using Z, and someone else can, you indeed blame the player, and nothing else, because in a case where everything else is identical, he is the variable. And there is no way squirming around this one, eventhough someone will ofcourse try ( I bet saying the word car begins with a "c" would cause a counterargument here occasionally. )

All in all, units and codices are not always as bad as the most likely incompetent players make them seem, and that is a fact.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Casual players want a competitive list out of their casual list.

No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?

There is not a black and white divide between the two.

WayneTheGame wrote:


No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?

Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.

 RunicFIN wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?

Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.

Playing a bad list makes you a bad player, not a casual one. You can be casual and not be a total scrub.

 RunicFIN wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?

Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.

No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.

How is this such a difficult concept to grasp for people?

Cool, those terms are also partially subjective. You may replace "casual" with "bad" in this instance. Most often I find the casual players are also bad, due to vaurious factors that come with playing the game "casually" - it doesn't necessarily mean they are just plain terrible, but it can also be lack of experience in the game, lack of knowledge of vaurious rarer units among other things.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?

Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.

No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.

How is this such a difficult concept to grasp for people?

To be fair to Runic I've seen a LOT of people in a LOT of games confuse "casual" with "bad play". How/why they make that connection I don't know, but I've seen it often enough in D&D, tabletop games, WoW, etc. that I'm not at all surprised that Runic seems to be equating a "casual player" with a scrub who wants to throw any random garbage together and expect to do well and then cry about it when it doesn't work.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Cool, those terms are also partially subjective. You may replace "casual" with "bad" in this instance. Most often I find the casual players are also bad, due to vaurious factors that come with playing the game "casually" - it doesn't necessarily mean they are just plain terrible, but it can also be lack of experience in the game, lack of knowledge of vaurious rarer units among other things.

Ridiculous. Playing themed lists or preferring some units to others doesn't make someone a bad player. You're talking out your arse now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?

Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.

No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.

How is this such a difficult concept to grasp for people?

To be fair to Runic I've seen a LOT of people in a LOT of games confuse "casual" with "bad play". How/why they make that connection I don't know, but I've seen it often enough in D&D, tabletop games, WoW, etc. that I'm not at all surprised that Runic seems to be equating a "casual player" with a scrub who wants to throw any random garbage together and expect to do well and then cry about it when it doesn't work.

But it's been explained so many times in this thread alone.

 ImAGeek wrote:
No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.

And currently in this game, that translates exactly to wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one. But you talk in the idealistic context and I talk in the one that currently exist, and that's why there's a difference. Also, you don't get to say "no" to my anecdotal experiences.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.

And currently in this game, that translates exactly to wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one. But you talk in the idealistic context and I talk in the one that currently exist, and that's why there's a difference. Also, you don't get to say "no" to my anecdotal experiences.

I didn't say no to your anecdotal experience. I'm saying your anecdotal experiences are not representative of the whole. And it's still not about wanting to beat them. It's about wanting to have a fair chance at the game.

But, if the rules were actually worth a damn, surely you wouldn't have this distinction of 'good' and 'bad' lists? Or, at the very least, the gulf would be a lot narrower.

I guess I just find it ironic that GW has practically made "forge the narrative" into its motto, yet anyone trying to run a theme list is accused of "wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one".

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Cool, those terms are also partially subjective. You may replace "casual" with "bad" in this instance. Most often I find the casual players are also bad, due to vaurious factors that come with playing the game "casually" - it doesn't necessarily mean they are just plain terrible, but it can also be lack of experience in the game, lack of knowledge of vaurious rarer units among other things.

Ridiculous. Playing themed lists or preferring some units to others doesn't make someone a bad player. You're talking out your arse now.

It would appear you're cluelesss to the fact that playing something casually, in the actual meaning of the word, means using less time and effort than a more serious individual, be the subject whatever. And with less spent effort, time, examination and experience you inevitably become less skilled than the polar opposite. If you claim a casual player who plays 4 times a month is going to have the bigger winrate over a tournament dominator over the course of say, a hundred Warhammer 40,000 matches you are talking out of your arse instead.

Believe what you like, skill and knowledge come with experience, spending the time, effort, and ofcourse in the case of some, naturally. I agree to disagree with you and that's pretty much it.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Cool, those terms are also partially subjective. You may replace "casual" with "bad" in this instance. Most often I find the casual players are also bad, due to vaurious factors that come with playing the game "casually" - it doesn't necessarily mean they are just plain terrible, but it can also be lack of experience in the game, lack of knowledge of vaurious rarer units among other things.

Ridiculous. Playing themed lists or preferring some units to others doesn't make someone a bad player. You're talking out your arse now.

It would appear you're cluelesss to the fact that playing something casually, in the actual meaning of the word, means using less time and effort than a more serious individual, be the subject whatever. And with less spent effort, time, examination and experience you inevitably become less skilled than the polar opposite. If you claim a casual player who plays 4 times a month is going to have the bigger winrate over a tournament dominator over the course of say, a hundred Warhammer 40,000 you are talking out of your arse instead.

Believe what you like, skill and knowledge come with experience, spending the time, effort, and ofcourse in the case of some, naturally. I agree to disagree with you and that's pretty much it.

Casual is just a term you've been throwing around. It has no bearing on someone's skill at the game in the context you've been using it (as in people who play fluffy lists/don't play at tournaments etc). I'm sure there's people out there who are better than a lot of tournament players but still play casually. Casual doesn't equal worse player.

 vipoid wrote:
But, if the rules were actually worth a damn, surely you wouldn't have this distinction of 'good' and 'bad' lists? Or, at the very least, the gulf would be a lot narrower.

I guess I just find it ironic that GW has practically made "forge the narrative" into its motto, yet anyone trying to run a theme list is accused of "wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one".

Yep, that is a big paradox but that's more about players I think. To me it's not an issue to want to play a theme list, it's fine. But if you complain that you can't beat Adamantine Lance with 3 Flyrants while playing footslogging Deathguard, it's just pointless to complain, in reality. If you're an idealist then yes, I guess the complaining can achieve... something. However, for the fifth time, that was not my point anyway.


My point is people complaining that a unit is bad when infact it is not, and they can't make it work while someone else can. They are the variable. Nothing else. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Casual is just a term you've been throwing around. It has no bearing on someone's skill at the game in the context you've been using it (as in people who play fluffy lists/don't play at tournaments etc). I'm sure there's people out there who are better than a lot of tournament players but still play casually. Casual doesn't equal worse player.

Not always, no. There might even be a tournament player who has retired and now plays casually. Casual as a term actually has most to do with time spent, look it up. And spending less time on something is just that, less time spent on something. Less time spent playing. Less time spent practicing and learning. More often than not, this directly translates to how good a player someone is or isn't. But not always, no.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
But, if the rules were actually worth a damn, surely you wouldn't have this distinction of 'good' and 'bad' lists? Or, at the very least, the gulf would be a lot narrower.

I guess I just find it ironic that GW has practically made "forge the narrative" into its motto, yet anyone trying to run a theme list is accused of "wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one".

Yep, that is a big paradox but that's more about players I think. To me it's not an issue to want to play a theme list, it's fine. But if you complain that you can't beat Adamantine Lance with 3 Flyrants while playing footslogging Deathguard, it's just pointless to complain, in reality. However, for the fifth time, that was not my point anyway.


My point is people complaining that a unit is bad when infact it is not, and they can't make it work while someone else can. They are the variable. Nothing else. Period.

The problem with your argument is that "footslogging Deathguard" is a fluffy, narative, themed list. I have no idea what Adamantine Lance is (I know what a Flyrant is) or if it's fluffy or not, but the point you're missing is that a fluffy list, footslogging Deathguard in this case, should not auto-lose against any other list in the game. The fact it does is a flaw of the GAME, not the person who wants to play a fluffy list. Especially because you can still build a fluffy list and have it be insanely good. Again, no idea what Adamantine Lance is but let's say that an "Adamantine Lance with 3 Flyrants" is fluffy in some way, whether in the actual fluff for the game or in someone's mind that they created a narrative around that force. Why should that list walk all over another fluffy list, just because the Adamatine Lance/Flyrant player happened to like better units in their narrative than the Deathguard player?

I agree that should not be the case. And not the point nor the original topic either. That's the last time I'll repeat that, and won't continue on this specific subtopic further.

The game has bad balance, yes. It sucks your themed list cant beat the ridicilously unfluffy tournament cheese, yes. Is the Vendetta/AM Codex bad because someone wielding it can't make it perform in "casual" games at all while someone dominates tournaments using them effecitvely? Not even remotely.

I also haven't stated that should be the case or that I find it ideal. All I said is I think in the context of reality, in the case of Warhammer 40,000 there is no point in wanting to win with a themed ( aside from a few exceptions ) list against a tournament/"competitive" one. It's just bashing your head against the wall and I don't see the point on a practical level. You gain nothing from it but perhaps some gaming experience, a little bit of fun until you're crushed, and depending on how competitive you are as a person, a foul mood.

You can replace "themed" with whatever term you find satisfactory that means a list that is built for purposes other than being competitive as the primary incentive, be it rule of cool, background, or just liking Heavy Bolters too much. You can replace "casual games" with whatever term you find satisfactory to describe a match that isn't a tooth and nail battle in a tournament wielding the most powerful builds around, but perhaps, a friendly match played mostly for the fun of playing or something similiar.

The only problem I have with people who ask for balance in all things is that they seem to not accept that some matchups just won't function.

"I love the concept of bolters, so here's 3 devastator squads with heavy bolters, six tac squads, the Primarch's Wrath captain, and a bunch of Sternguard"

"I love the concept of massive tanks. So here's six Baneblades."

Those two lists will never be on the same level, ever. Why should they be? Tanks aren't vulnerable to HMGs. Combi-meltas on the sternguard are about it, really.

Not covering your bases with appropriate wargear (in your example, some lascannons and/or melta to deal with tanks, or even fists with some way of getting around quickly) is a failing of the player and not the game.

What people are asking in this example is that a player's army has an appropriate selection of tools to deal with a variety of threats. No one in their right mind espousing better balance wants or expects an all grot army to defeat a Knight list.

In your example, if the marine player opted not to bring even a single dedicated anti-tank gun, they're going to fail against more than just a baneblade company.

Plus, your specific example also begs the question of whether or not superheavy tanks have any place in standard games of 40k, simply due to their all-or-nothing balance issues.

I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Only no one is going to fit 6 baneblades in to a 1500 army.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Casual players want a competitive list out of their casual list. Well, tough luck. Not happening in this game. Not currently, probably not ever. One can always hope and talk about how things should be ofcourse, I find that it will do very little however.
.

Only it is not like that. A WS player will cram his casual fluff list of grav bikers and it will be competitive. An eldar player will have to try hard and write some seriouse unbound list to get a non competitive list and even then ti will be a better then a bad list of other armies.

the Vendetta/AM Codex bad because someone wielding it can't make it perform in "casual" games at all while someone dominates tournaments using them effecitvely

Could you tell me where in the world did AM dominate tournaments in 7th ed and what were the different scenario rules to make that happen?

 Blacksails wrote:
Not covering your bases with appropriate wargear (in your example, some lascannons and/or melta to deal with tanks, or even fists with some way of getting around quickly) is a failing of the player and not the game.

What people are asking in this example is that a player's army has an appropriate selection of tools to deal with a variety of threats. No one in their right mind espousing better balance wants or expects an all grot army to defeat a Knight list.

In your example, if the marine player opted not to bring even a single dedicated anti-tank gun, they're going to fail against more than just a baneblade company.

Plus, your specific example also begs the question of whether or not superheavy tanks have any place in standard games of 40k, simply due to their all-or-nothing balance issues.

The problem I was trying to illustrate is that "balance" can hurt theme lists as badly as "imbalance," albeit through the vehicle of banning them rather than making them unable to compete.

Six Baneblades is just as much of a "theme" as footslogging Death Guard or all-bolter Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:
Only no one is going to fit 6 baneblades in to a 1500 army.

Sorry, 3 Stormswords then.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.

I'll come and watch the Black Ogrun boarding parties lead by Mortenebra with a single Bonejack dominate your average Haley2 tournament build any day. The gap is just as bad.

The game in question is played with multiple lists for one very specific reason - certain matchups have no chance whatsoever against some. Ask any TO, that's what the double lists are for in this case. And occasionally the whole team doesn't have the tools to beat a certain opponent in a team tournament - that's when a player is, to quote the common term, thrown under the bus.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.

So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


The problem I was trying to illustrate is that "balance" can hurt theme lists as badly as "imbalance," albeit through the vehicle of banning them rather than making them unable to compete.

You didn't illustrate it well then.

Six Baneblades is just as much of a "theme" as footslogging Death Guard or all-bolter Marines.

Sure, and in a better ruleset with writers that playtested and cared two iotas for balanced gameplay, the general themes would be balanced given the players selected a mix of weaponry. All bolter marines should never be balanced against a variety of matchups, but foot marines with a variety of weapons designed to cover an array of enemies should be as competitive as a mech marine list, a drop pod marine list, a terminator marine list, and a bike marine list.

No one is saying a player should be able to blindly pull units out of a hat and never think about what weapons and upgrades should be given to them. However, those weapons and options should be appropriately costed, as should the units carrying them.

And once more, no one is expecting perfect balance. There will always be unfavourable matchups for different armies, but in a better designed game, the overall outcome would be dependent on player actions and decisions. In 40k's case, there's been a steady decrease in player influence through way too many random tables and unnecessary dice rolling.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


The problem I was trying to illustrate is that "balance" can hurt theme lists as badly as "imbalance," albeit through the vehicle of banning them rather than making them unable to compete.

You didn't illustrate it well then.

Six Baneblades is just as much of a "theme" as footslogging Death Guard or all-bolter Marines.

Sure, and in a better ruleset with writers that playtested and cared two iotas for balanced gameplay, the general themes would be balanced given the players selected a mix of weaponry. All bolter marines should never be balanced against a variety of matchups, but foot marines with a variety of weapons designed to cover an array of enemies should be as competitive as a mech marine list, a drop pod marine list, a terminator marine list, and a bike marine list.

No one is saying a player should be able to blindly pull units out of a hat and never think about what weapons and upgrades should be given to them. However, those weapons and options should be appropriately costed, as should the units carrying them.

And once more, no one is expecting perfect balance. There will always be unfavourable matchups for different armies, but in a better designed game, the overall outcome would be dependent on player actions and decisions. In 40k's case, there's been a steady decrease in player influence through way too many random tables and unnecessary dice rolling.

But the problem is, then, that it is subjective. "Balance" becomes a line in the sand where the game is now "balanced enough." For some people, the game is Balanced Enough(tm) now, for others, when Knights are removed. For others, when Wave Serpents are toned down. For others, when Necrons no longer get Decurion. For others, when Flyrants have to walk. For some, all of these things and more.

The game may or may not need more balance, but to simply assert that it "does" while claiming such a subjective measure of balance is a bit silly. It's like saying "America should be more moral."