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.

You're not serious are you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not serious are you?

No, this is a discussion forum. I'm just stirring the pot with discussion.

I played armoured company since 3rd, and lost every game of 5th (actually, no, that's a lie. I'm sure I had some wins and draws, but since I was unable to score on objectives ever, I lost probably in excess of 70% of my games!) and a ton of games in 6th and 7th, and I was fine with my army and never once talked about balance unless I was asked my opinion.

So I am trying to get at why that sweet spot doesn't seem to exist for others.

People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

The most competitive players are surely hopping from faction to faction for advantage, yeah. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to talk about this as "skill", though, at least in most cases. The obstacle here are mainly money and time and willingness to play a faction you just don't enjoy very much -- it's not like faction-hoppers are the only ones who have figured out that you can do this to gain an advantage.

But sometimes there's quite a bit of skill involved. Any game with a meta, like 40k, is going to create opportunities for players to try to predict the meta and counter-pick. I don't know if this is still true, but at one point we were seeing some Imperium armies with significant numbers of GKs doing pretty well. Most people didn't really see that coming. What happened here is that a couple players realized that the relative strength of lists using many daemons would mean that the GK special rules would come in handy in a large number of the hardest matches. That was clever.

I think what many people who would consider themselves fairly competitive want is for there to be lots of viable factions, with each having lots of viable lists. They then want to feel like they're exercising skill in list construction, by finding non-obvious combinations of units which produce powerful overall lists, and skill in actually playing the game with that list and against other lists.

But of course this is somewhat arbitrary. It's a game. All games are arbitrary in terms of what sorts of things you're supposed to be able to do to gain an advantage and what sorts of things you shouldn't be willing/allowed to do. In many sports you're supposed to go to great lengths preparing for games. You should study the opposing team, you should train hard, etc. But for some reason it's frowned on to bribe the referee. There is certainly an element of skill involved in doing this and not getting caught. Likewise using PEDs. But most people would not consider these skills to be part of being good at the sport. We make these distinctions on the basis of what we think will produce the best game.

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

Right, but surely, your choice of army and list are "your own actions", yes?

So if you lose because you brought 10 tanks to a 5th Edition game where only Infantry could score (me!), then you did lose by your own actions... right?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I tend to agree with you - but such flexibility requires a DM, surely? Wouldn't a rigid, DM-less wargame have trouble covering every conceivable scenario?

"Every" scenario may be a bit of a stretch, but making the game operate as a fairly unified set of rules rather than having numerous bespoke bolt-ons would definitely help in that regard. I know "emergent gameplay" is a buzzword but when you can put a few *core* moving parts into a greater battleplan, then that adds even more of a sense of accomplishment than "my list was better."

Breath of the Wild is arguably the best recent example. A wide open world, without the degree of bugginess that plagues Bethesda games, where you aren't locked into the old Zelda trap of "use the treasure in the Dungeon to solve all the puzzles and slay the boss of said Dungeon," where things like shield+bomb+glider=liftoff, etc.

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

You pretty much said what I was about to, except I was gonna use golf as my example due to it being more...expensive.

MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I tend to agree with you - but such flexibility requires a DM, surely? Wouldn't a rigid, DM-less wargame have trouble covering every conceivable scenario?

"Every" scenario may be a bit of a stretch, but making the game operate as a fairly unified set of rules rather than having numerous bespoke bolt-ons would definitely help in that regard. I know "emergent gameplay" is a buzzword but when you can put a few *core* moving parts into a greater battleplan, then that adds even more of a sense of accomplishment than "my list was better."

That's a good point, and probably would be a more engaging and better designed game than 40k is!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

You pretty much said what I was about to, except I was gonna use golf as my example due to it being more...expensive.

Presumably, both in golf and in 40k, what army you play / clubs and balls you pick is one of your "actions" that lost you the game?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

Right, but surely, your choice of army and list are "your own actions", yes?

So if you lose because you brought 10 tanks to a 5th Edition game where only Infantry could score (me!), then you did lose by your own actions... right?

You are here mixing two concepts: List building and Chosing a faction. As I said before, if you spam a option in List-Building, you can get screwed by chance, or you can win hard. Thats fine as long as you can have balanced lists with every army.

Your choice of army is your own actions, yes. But we come from the premise that the game market himsellf as balanced. Every faction is viable to play. So then when in reality that isn't the case, is not a problem about player skill or willing to be competitive. Is a problem of marketing fraud.
And it has many other variables. If picking your faction was as easy as a videogame, then sure. Theres a point to have about picking a less powerfull faction being a "lack" of skill, at least if you pick it without knowing it is less powerfull. But it isn't the case for Golf or Warhammer. Picking a faction cost a ton of money and time.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

Right, but surely, your choice of army and list are "your own actions", yes?

So if you lose because you brought 10 tanks to a 5th Edition game where only Infantry could score (me!), then you did lose by your own actions... right?

You are here mixing two concepts: List building and Chosing a faction. As I said before, if you spam a option in List-Building, you can get screwed by chance, or you can win hard. Thats fine as long as you can have balanced lists with every army.

Your choice of army is your own actions, yes. But we come from the premise that the game market himsellf as balanced. Every faction is viable to play. So then when in reality that isn't the case, is not a problem about player skill or willing to be competitive. Is a problem of marketing fraud.
And it has many other variables. If picking your faction was as easy as a videogame, then sure. Theres a point to have about picking a less powerfull faction being a "lack" of skill, at least if you pick it without knowing it is less powerfull. But it isn't the case for Golf or Warhammer. Picking a faction cost a ton of money and time.

Yes, which is why I always say you should pick a faction based on something other than competitiveness, because competitiveness changes. But if you are picking a faction based on factors other than "I want to win!" then why does winning matter so much? Or, I should say, why does "having fun" with your chosen faction depend on how badly it gets beaten on the tabletop?

So basically you're saying "Too bad, wait your turn and maybe you can compete. Maybe".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People get upset not because they want to win. People get upset because they want to have fun, and to have fun most people want a balanced game where they feel they have done something. They want to lose by their own actions, not because mathematically it was just impossible to win agaisn't that specific enemy.

Is not being upset about losing. Is being upset about spending 2 hours of your time to have a frustrating and unfun experience.

Is like saying that a guy that is starting to do Boxing isn't competitive because he doesn't like to play agaisn't a proper Champion and get smacked down with one single punch. People like fair challenges.

Right, but surely, your choice of army and list are "your own actions", yes?

So if you lose because you brought 10 tanks to a 5th Edition game where only Infantry could score (me!), then you did lose by your own actions... right?

You are here mixing two concepts: List building and Chosing a faction. As I said before, if you spam a option in List-Building, you can get screwed by chance, or you can win hard. Thats fine as long as you can have balanced lists with every army.

Your choice of army is your own actions, yes. But we come from the premise that the game market himsellf as balanced. Every faction is viable to play. So then when in reality that isn't the case, is not a problem about player skill or willing to be competitive. Is a problem of marketing fraud.
And it has many other variables. If picking your faction was as easy as a videogame, then sure. Theres a point to have about picking a less powerfull faction being a "lack" of skill, at least if you pick it without knowing it is less powerfull. But it isn't the case for Golf or Warhammer. Picking a faction cost a ton of money and time.

Yes, which is why I always say you should pick a faction based on something other than competitiveness, because competitiveness changes. But if you are picking a faction based on factors other than "I want to win!" then why does winning matter so much? Or, I should say, why does "having fun" with your chosen faction depend on how badly it gets beaten on the tabletop?

I have already explained why sucks being beaten on the tabletop without a fair chance to compete. We all are competitive at our core. We are humans, animals, and if we were 0 compettiive we wouldn't be playing a competitive game. We would be just modeling, or building, or painting. Or playing cooperative tabletop games.
As I said before, one can argue about a player that switch factions every six months to the new hotness is more competitive. But at the end, the day has only 24 hours. If you want to be competitive at that level of extreme, do it in the real life, make yourself rich, not in a hobby and game like this.

As with most anything, it depends on what you're talking about.

"The game" could even be scouting different FLGSes to find one you're most likely to win at. That's fairly deep, and I don't want to play those people, but if that's the game they are playing, then yes. Or engineer who they play at their FLGS.

For some people, army choice is part of it. I think at the tourny level, it currently is, but that feels dirty.

For I think most, list building itself is part of the game.

For some, the game starts at deployment.

What matters is that (1) you're having fun, and (2) your fun isn't at the expense of someone elses. That second one is a really, really hard line to draw, but the first is obvious.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So basically you're saying "Too bad, wait your turn and maybe you can compete. Maybe".

No! Not at all! I'm instead saying "why do you care so much about competition at all, if you chose your faction (or list or whatever) for other reasons?"

Galas wrote:I have already explained why sucks being beaten on the tabletop without a fair chance to compete. We all are competitive at our core. We are humans, animals, and if we were 0 compettiive we wouldn't be playing a competitive game. We would be just modeling, or building, or painting. Or playing cooperative tabletop games.

But I am trying to get to the crux of this issue, because I am usually on the receiving end of the "chose a faction and list for reasons other than competitiveness" and lose a good bit of games, the worst example being my Armoured Company in 5th, but I was alright with it.

I'm struggling to see why someone who cares about aesthetics or playstyle so much would concern themselves with winning or losing - surely there's fun to be had regardless of W/L ratio or how badly beaten you were / how badly you won?

 Galas wrote:
As I said before, one can argue about a player that switch factions every six months to the new hotness is more competitive. But at the end, the day has only 24 hours. If you want to be competitive at that level of extreme, do it in the real life, make yourself rich, not in a hobby and game like this.

Why shouldn't people be that competitive in a hobby? That's just judgemental. I don't begrudge people who are like that at all, even though they routinely give my army wedgies!

Bharring wrote:
What matters is that (1) you're having fun, and (2) your fun isn't at the expense of someone elses. That second one is a really, really hard line to draw, but the first is obvious.

I agree, which is why I am so shocked that people consistently stay with bad armies who obviously aren't having fun with them.

I don't begrudge them either. But personally I think is futtile to put so much effort in something so volatile. But if that gives them fun and depth personal satisfaction, so be it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Galas wrote:I have already explained why sucks being beaten on the tabletop without a fair chance to compete. We all are competitive at our core. We are humans, animals, and if we were 0 compettiive we wouldn't be playing a competitive game. We would be just modeling, or building, or painting. Or playing cooperative tabletop games.

But I am trying to get to the crux of this issue, because I am usually on the receiving end of the "chose a faction and list for reasons other than competitiveness" and lose a good bit of games, the worst example being my Armoured Company in 5th, but I was alright with it.

I'm struggling to see why someone who cares about aesthetics or playstyle so much would concern themselves with winning or losing - surely there's fun to be had regardless of W/L ratio or how badly beaten you were / how badly you won?

Is that hard to believe that some people likes aesthetics and playstile, but don't like to be beaten without a chance in a game that normally consumes 2-3 hours of a day after a week or two of planification for people with families and jobs, and precious little free time?

Fundamentally, game design is simple if you're looking for a competitive (in that two or more players are competing against one another for mutually exclusive victory) pick up game.

In terms of what affects the outcome, the order of impact should be (in order, but with no specific percentage or impact)

1. Player decision making on the table
2. Player decision making before the game
3. Luck
4. The inherent faction/unit imbalances

Player decisions before the game range from list construction (throwing darts a wall for a poorly optimized/cohesive list vs. spending time on a cohesive list with a clear plan) to what shoes or booze you brought, and deployment/mission selection/terrain set up.

As for balance, faction balance should be a strong priority as no player should be punished for liking the aesthetics of their chosen faction. This encourages diversity in factions in groups. Then, internal balance should be achieved to encourage list diversity within the factions. This forces players to make interesting decisions; making lists that strive to be TAC, or making 'spoiler' armies that focus on one or two things at a loss of many other aspects, and the whole spectrum in between.

Of course actually doing all the above is difficult, but mostly achievable. Plenty of acceptably balanced games exist and have achieved a decent 'critical mass' of popularity.

Infinity sums it up best; "Its how you play, not what you play."

 Galas wrote:
I don't begrudge them either. But personally I think is futtile to put so much effort in something so volatile. But if that gives them fun and depth personal satisfaction, so be it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - but then why whine and complain when such a person creams your list? Unless you, too, are willing to put in the money, time and effort to play the "best list" from the "best army" then surely you can't expect to do as well at a game where faction choice matters so much?

In an ideal world, it'd be like WOW was back in the day. Wait a month. Then your weak class/army will be on top again.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't begrudge them either. But personally I think is futtile to put so much effort in something so volatile. But if that gives them fun and depth personal satisfaction, so be it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - but then why whine and complain when such a person creams your list? Unless you, too, are willing to put in the money, time and effort to play the "best list" from the "best army" then surely you can't expect to do as well at a game where faction choice matters so much?

I don't whine and complain agaisn't the person. I complain agaisn't the Company that has sell me(For a good amount of money) a flawed game.

 Blacksails wrote:
Fundamentally, game design is simple if you're looking for a competitive (in that two or more players are competing against one another for mutually exclusive victory) pick up game.

In terms of what affects the outcome, the order of impact should be (in order, but with no specific percentage or impact)

1. Player decision making on the table
2. Player decision making before the game
3. Luck
4. The inherent faction/unit imbalances

Player decisions before the game range from list construction (throwing darts a wall for a poorly optimized/cohesive list vs. spending time on a cohesive list with a clear plan) to what shoes or booze you brought, and deployment/mission selection/terrain set up.

As for balance, faction balance should be a strong priority as no player should be punished for liking the aesthetics of their chosen faction. This encourages diversity in factions in groups. Then, internal balance should be achieved to encourage list diversity within the factions. This forces players to make interesting decisions; making lists that strive to be TAC, or making 'spoiler' armies that focus on one or two things at a loss of many other aspects, and the whole spectrum in between.

Of course actually doing all the above is difficult, but mostly achievable. Plenty of acceptably balanced games exist and have achieved a decent 'critical mass' of popularity.

Infinity sums it up best; "Its how you play, not what you play."

I think you have a lot of assumptions here which the 40k designers might not hold, including:

1) Diversity in lists and armies in a competitive environment is good
2) By extension, perhaps, that competition is good or important at all.

Presumably, if you disregard competitive play, then you'll see plenty of different things - in fact, there's an entire world of narratives and aesthetics out there for people to build around. But the key is that those people then can't go into the competitive scene and be upset when they lose (or perhaps the 40k designers think).

I do agree that a well-designed game should balance the factions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't begrudge them either. But personally I think is futtile to put so much effort in something so volatile. But if that gives them fun and depth personal satisfaction, so be it.

Agreed wholeheartedly - but then why whine and complain when such a person creams your list? Unless you, too, are willing to put in the money, time and effort to play the "best list" from the "best army" then surely you can't expect to do as well at a game where faction choice matters so much?

I don't whine and complain agaisn't the person. I complain agaisn't the Company that has sell me(For a good amount of money) a flawed game.

If 40k is marketed to the competitive player, then yes, it's an awful awful advertising gimmick.

40k has always struck me as being marketed less for competition and more for narrative/fun play.

Yeah, thats why I have said that this is the first edition they are actually trying to be a balanced and competitive game. "The Most Balanced and Play-Tested Edition yet", do you remember? And I have defended GW many times in this forum, and I believe in 8th they are doing much better. But theres a huge room for improvement.

But lets be honest here. They didn't marketed themselves as a competitive game as an excuse for their sloopy rules-writting. The term "hard-ass" was created by them to put the blame on the players and not on their own ineptitude. The game hasn't never be actually good as a narrative game either. The amount of options and actions you can do on the table is normally very, very small. Necromunda and Mordheim where proper narrative games.

Rules-writing has a lot of theory and knowledge. You need to study a LOT to do it properly. GW, on the beginning, where just a bunch of nerds doing their best.

I agree the game is not well designed.

But, I think people who are not new should understand that, and not be upset when the ill-designed-for-competition game proves that it is, in fact, ill-designed for competition. (People who are new to 40k have every right to feel cheated and deceived, if they came in believing that mono-Inquisition could win tournaments. But I think a purely new player interested in the competitive scene would gravitate towards e.g. a "soup" list, even if they wanted to play the Inquisitor Greyfax model for aesthetic or narrative purposes).

It's certainly possible to compete in 40k, if you're willing to shell out the cash, time, and effort for a new army every time the meta shifts.

I don't mind losing, but I do mind feeling that I had no chance to win in the first place. I.e. my decisions during the game don't really matter at all. And by the way. it is same even if my win is preordained; steam-rolling the opposition because the game is unbalanced gets old pretty fast, at least to me. I think the game is most fun when either side has reasonable chance of winning.

Furthermore, the game it self tells you that it is supposed to be somewhat balanced; there are point costs. So if one army of equal points is massively better than another, then the game makers have basically lied to us.

 Crimson wrote:
I don't mind losing, but I do mind feeling that I had no chance to win in the first place. I.e. my decisions during the game don't really matter at all. And by the way. it is same even if my win is preordained; steam-rolling the opposition because the game is unbalanced gets old pretty fast, at least to me. I think the game is most fun when either side has reasonable chance of winning.

Furthermore, the game it self tells you that it is supposed to be somewhat balanced; there are point costs. So if one army of equal points is massively better than another, then the game makers have basically lied to us.

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

Your point 2) I also agree with - it's part of the reason I was so happy to see power levels. I was like "yay, GW finally recognizes that points are stupid." But I play points now anyways because it is convention, even though they essentially just outright lie, as you point [heh] out.

And can't one consider List-Building a part of the proper game but not army choice?

In MTG or Hearthstone it shouldn't matter what "hero" or "summoner" you chose. The decks you build? Absolutely.

Yes. Duh?

How you build your list creates the gameplay style you will use to try to win. It's like in league of legends; selecting a proper team of champions and building their equipment properly is part of having a winning play.

 Galas wrote:
And can't one consider List-Building a part of the proper game but not army choice?

Yes, that is possible as well! Though imho it's a very very very very very blurry line; e.g. I am playing an Inquisition list, but it's not mono-inquisition because it includes other Factions, but then, isn't my list choice and my faction choice the same thing?

Fundamentally, your army list is based on your faction (or lack thereof for some soup lists!) so a person willing to soup in, say, an entire 2k points of Imperial Guard into a 2250 point game has more listbuilding options than a person who only wants to play, say, mono Inquisition.

The line between "army list" and "faction choice" is very blurry atm.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

List building should be part of the game in a way that you need to think what sort of units you should choose to deal with certain threats, and what kind of synergies can be achieved with your chosen units. But all units should be viable in some situations; there should be no units that are just simply worse (for their points) than other units; every unit should have a reason for existing.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

List building should be part of the game in a way that you need to think what sort of units you should choose to deal with certain threats, and what kind of synergies can be achieved with your chosen units. But all units should be viable in some situations; there should be no units that are just simply worse (for their points) than other units; every unit should have a reason for existing.

What if that "reason for existing" is entirely narrative?

Like, say, you have a unit that is just flat worse than another unit, but is really good from a narrative perspective (e.g. Inquisitorial Acolytes, which I have tons of in my upcoming Inquisition list)?

-Imperium
-Chaos
-Aeldari
-Tau
-Necrons
-Orks

Those are the factions of 8th by how the rules work. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe the sub-factions (Space Marines: Salamanders, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, White Scars, etc.., Imperial Guard: Cadian, Vostroyan, etc... and the rest) should be totally playable by their own.
But you are right, right now faction choice and army list is very blurry. But thats a problem by own GW making. They should be the ones to fix it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

List building should be part of the game in a way that you need to think what sort of units you should choose to deal with certain threats, and what kind of synergies can be achieved with your chosen units. But all units should be viable in some situations; there should be no units that are just simply worse (for their points) than other units; every unit should have a reason for existing.

What if that "reason for existing" is entirely narrative?

Like, say, you have a unit that is just flat worse than another unit, but is really good from a narrative perspective (e.g. Inquisitorial Acolytes, which I have tons of in my upcoming Inquisition list)?

Why exactly should, Inquisitorial Acolytes, be bad in a competitive sense? They could have proper rules and point cost and be both a competitive and narrative option.