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.

 Melissia wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
It certainly seems like GW are perfectly capable of destroying the balance of their game by themselves.

*eyes the entirety of 7th edition*

I mean, you're not wrong...

Regardless of GWs total incompetence when balancing the game, looking to sources that are not actually playing their game for information to balance their game is doubly stupid. First, ITC has no basis for balancing 40k. Second, if you think GW is incapable of balancing 40k to begin with then hoping ITC will suddenly give them the ability to do it is insane.

Was making a joke, I did nothing but agree that we shouldn't use houseruled tournaments as the judge on how gw should balance the base game.

 Melissia wrote:
Was making a joke, I did nothing but agree that we shouldn't use houseruled tournaments as the judge on how gw should balance the base game.

I know, I was agreeing with you and carrying your point forward. You had good points.

If Mel and I are agreeing on something, then we must be right.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.

Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?

Honest question-is there a better source of info?

Yes?

GW have events, other tournaments happen. They don't have the coverage of ITC in the USA but they do give GW feedback.

And while IH have made the top 10 lists in these events, it's one or 2 players as opposed to 6-8 players.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’m outside the argument. I enjoy the CA missions but lack experience with ITC.

Don’t rebutt because of him-rebutt because of other people reading this thread. Otherwise, it seems like he’s correct and you’ve got nothing to make it otherwise.

Yeeeeeeah...but ERJACK jumps to personal attacks really quickly so I'm not getting into that. We have to share a Sororitas tactics thread.

Lammia wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If they aren't playing the game GW designed, they can't demand adjustments to it.

I think this pretty much sums it up. They're playing a variant of 40K, and the idea that this variant can have actual tangible effects on all other games of 40k is just nonsense. It shouldn't be that way.

Where else are you going to get information on how to change balance for the better?

Honest question-is there a better source of info?

Yes?

GW have events, other tournaments happen. They don't have the coverage of ITC in the USA but they do give GW feedback.

And while IH have made the top 10 lists in these events, it's one or 2 players as opposed to 6-8 players.

They also did that event with everyone fighting over those planets and reporting their game results. Not that those missions where particularly good or fair but just saying GW has ways to gather data from the over all community.

Also, they could just hire actual testers like an actual god damn company.

Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.

I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.

I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.

It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.

I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.

It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.

Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.

Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.

I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.

It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.

Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.

Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.

Chess isn't totally balanced. White has a slightly higher win rate. I'm not making that up.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ishagu's point is pretty clear. Starkly so, really. It's a simple premise/conclusion:

Premise 1: "Real" 40K would be 40K that does not modify the rules.
Premise 2: ITC modifies the rules of 40K.
Conclusion: ITC is not "real" 40K as it is a subset modified by the people to created it (NB: That's not a judgement call on ITC or the people who play/enjoy it, just on the notion that it could be considered the "real" 40K).
Supplemental: As it is its own subset of 40K and used by a (significantly small) minority of players, it should not be used to make tangible changes to the overall 40K rules that everyone uses across the entire damned world.

Simple stuff.

Ishagu's point is clear and simple, but it runs in to the equally clear issue of what is "real", which is under contestation. Organizations and groups decide what is real to them. They decide what matters in this regard. There is no global authority on this because Games Workshop has no authority and abrogated the authority as well aside from what they explicitly run. Even if there were a global authority, no one is under obligation to play in to it with their own events any more than those kids playing soccer in the park have to play in to FIFA's rules.

Lance845 wrote:First, ITC has no basis for balancing 40k.

Oh, they have a basis. It may not be a good one, or one you agree with, but they have a basis. That basis? To get tournament goers to show up and play in a game they believe will be more balanced than what GW provides. It is up to you, the player, to decide if that is what you want to play.

 Charistoph wrote:
Ishagu's point is clear and simple, but it runs in to the equally clear issue of what is "real", which is under contestation. Organizations and groups decide what is real to them. They decide what matters in this regard. There is no global authority on this because Games Workshop has no authority and abrogated the authority as well aside from what they explicitly run. Even if there were a global authority, no one is under obligation to play in to it with their own events any more than those kids playing soccer in the park have to play in to FIFA's rules.

I'd actually argue that what's "real" and "not real" 40k is largely irrelevant.

1. ITC is not the "real" 40k and should not be considered in such a manner. What actually constitutes the "real" 40k is immaterial to that statement.

2. You're right that no one is under any obligation to play it, or what version of 40K should be played. The actual issues lies in the fact that ITC can, does and has influenced 40k for everyone.

To draw the simplest non-chess/sport comparison that I can think of, it'd be like it one group of players had their own "Free Parking" house rules for Monopoly suddenly added to every edition of Monopoly world wide. Why do they get to decide that when they represent such a small group in comparison to the whole? Again, it's not a judgement of ITC itself or the people who enjoy it, just that those people should not be able to influence/dictate how 40k is played through balance/points revisions any more than you or I.

I have said it before and I say it again: If GW charges me real money for their points and they charge me real money for their missions, I bloody well expect those points to be balanced based on those missions, and not based on some third party houserules from other side of the globe!

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.

I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.

It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.

Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.

Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.

And honestly? Some options just need to be eliminated (no, we don't need separate Warlord traits and Psyker powers for fething Vanguard Primaris). Some units need to be eliminated (is there a need for Incursors or Storm Guardians or a bunch of separate Carnifexes and Dreads? Absolutely not). Hell, I'm for entire codices to be eliminated (the Angels, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Chaos Knights) for better streamlining and easier updates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Ishagu's point is clear and simple, but it runs in to the equally clear issue of what is "real", which is under contestation. Organizations and groups decide what is real to them. They decide what matters in this regard. There is no global authority on this because Games Workshop has no authority and abrogated the authority as well aside from what they explicitly run. Even if there were a global authority, no one is under obligation to play in to it with their own events any more than those kids playing soccer in the park have to play in to FIFA's rules.

I'd actually argue that what's "real" and "not real" 40k is largely irrelevant.

1. ITC is not the "real" 40k and should not be considered in such a manner. What actually constitutes the "real" 40k is immaterial to that statement.

2. You're right that no one is under any obligation to play it, or what version of 40K should be played. The actual issues lies in the fact that ITC can, does and has influenced 40k for everyone.

To draw the simplest non-chess/sport comparison that I can think of, it'd be like it one group of players had their own "Free Parking" house rules for Monopoly suddenly added to every edition of Monopoly world wide. Why do they get to decide that when they represent such a small group in comparison to the whole? Again, it's not a judgement of ITC itself or the people who enjoy it, just that those people should not be able to influence/dictate how 40k is played through balance/points revisions any more than you or I.

The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.

I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.

It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.

Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.

Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.

Chess isn't totally balanced. White has a slightly higher win rate. I'm not making that up.

It is pretty dam close though and someone does have to go first.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.

I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.

It can be done. It just can't be done with every unit in tact. There are vast differences in the number of units in each army. Some armys are basically devoid of weaknesses because they have an answer to everything. Each army has to start with a clear direction and the units need to fit that over all vision. Some weapon options need to be cut. Some variant of vehicles have to go. Some new units need to be produced. Then the game can be balanced the way people want.

Even if you eliminate many of the options from the game and have clear direction you will still have balance issues. Chess is balanced for instance because the board and pieces are the same for each player. The moment a game deviates from that model in any significant way balance issues are inevitable. The moment options are different in any significant way then some options will be better in certain instances. So if you want balance you have to sacrifice each factions unique flavor or theme because they have to be made more similar to each other.

Take relics for instance. You could easily make the relics balanced across the factions, just make each factions relics the same. The moment you try to then give each faction just one unique relic balance issues will arise.

And honestly? Some options just need to be eliminated (no, we don't need separate Warlord traits and Psyker powers for fething Vanguard Primaris). Some units need to be eliminated (is there a need for Incursors or Storm Guardians or a bunch of separate Carnifexes and Dreads? Absolutely not). Hell, I'm for entire codices to be eliminated (the Angels, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Chaos Knights) for better streamlining and easier updates.

I doubt GW would ever go for that though. I wouldn't mind if a lot of the redundant entries went away. We don't need three types of terminators in Codex Space Marines for instance.

 Melissia wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
It certainly seems like GW are perfectly capable of destroying the balance of their game by themselves.

*eyes the entirety of 7th edition*

I mean, you're not wrong...

6/7th edition is arguably a lot of the reason ITC is the way it is. GW absolutely crapped the bed when it came to 7th's rules and how it handled tournaments. There's plenty of people talking about "if you know what's coming, the outcome is obvious" (which is a pretty dim view on the depth of the game already, but whatever) in the other threads about ITC, and it makes me think of the random psychic power/warlord traits and mystery terrain (mysterrain). And a lot of people hated that, I'd argue for good reason. So you get these people who'd want to reduce those kinds of randomness. Is randomness a way to balance things? Yes, actually, but it's sloppy and lazy and poor way to do it.

Is ITC's packet house rules? sure, but I don't see why that's a problem with the community when house rules are so encouraged otherwise (certain folk notwithstanding). Even ignoring tournaments. I doubt most people who've played the game for a while haven't at least thought about alterations to the base game to make it work better.

It feels like the dislike towards ITC is in the same vain as the one towards Forge World: The idea that they're 'diluting" the core of 40k and breaking the chance for GW to improve, despite the fact that GW considers them a part of the hobby.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.

Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I doubt most people who've played the game for a while haven't at least thought about alterations to the base game to make it work better.

But those people weren't expecting their house rules to become enshrined in the 40k rules and influence points values the world over. ITC does that, and this problem some us see as being quite significant.

I doubt many people have problems with house rules. House rules from a small select and exceptionally non-representative group that go on to change the game for everyone is a huge issue.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
It feels like the dislike towards ITC is in the same vain as the one towards Forge World: The idea that they're 'diluting" the core of 40k and breaking the chance for GW to improve, despite the fact that GW considers them a part of the hobby.

I don't buy the comparison sorry, as Forge World is GW. ITC isn't. That's a massive difference.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.

Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.

damnit,

DONT GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!! That's the last thing this grimdark world needs to complete the ritual to damn us all.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.

Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.

The ITC equivalent of Monopoly would be a rearrangement of the property locations and rent doesn't have to payable at all once but instead progressive over several dice rolls - because balance.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
The ITC equivalent of Monopoly would be a rearrangement of the property locations and rent doesn't have to payable at all once but instead progressive over several dice rolls - because balance.

And despite that, Marines would still win.

 Ishagu wrote:

The Salt Mine wrote:
How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How is ITC not "real" 40k? It uses the 40k base rule set. GW also makes balancing changes based off of its results. So I don't get the point of this poll? If GW accepts and supports the format its real 40k. End of discussion.

Anything not using the official rules can be interpreted as not being the real 40k.

A homebrew ruleset is not the real ruleset.

End of discussion

Every time a TO makes a judgment call on rules interactions which has happened at every event Ive ever been to you are playing by house rules. So is there no true 40k then!?!?

The Monopoly equivalent of ITC is the Free Parking Pool. It's widely accepted as a rule despite being unofficial, and it only serves to create further balance issues.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Privateer Press hired Will Pagini (basically the best WMH tournament player around) to help guide the game balance after the disaster of the Mk3 launch AND started public playtesting. It still wasn't great, better, but there was still dud units and OP units etc.

I honestly don't think anyone could really balance 40k in the way people want. Loads of games have way fewer models and factions and they still can't balance their games.

Perfect balance across all units will be impossible. Making the game balanced so thst every faction has close to an even chance of winning is doable. At this point though it would take a major overhaul of the game. And lest face it some factions like SM have so many options that some of there options just need to be removed from the game. I think gw knows this and thats why they introduced legends. People will be able to still play casual games with their old stuff. But it will make competative formats ewsier to balance with less models creating rules interactions.

Imperfect balance is the goal.

I read this title and legit laughed. It just made my day. What. A. Troll.

Nope, if I want to play 40K with house rules I can do a better job using good rules that existed in previous editions.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.

Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.

The ITC equivalent of Monopoly would be a rearrangement of the property locations and rent doesn't have to payable at all once but instead progressive over several dice rolls - because balance.

Monopoly HAS/HAD an ITC equivalent.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Monopoly example is interesting because my family played standard for the longest time, and as we played with other families or friends, a bunch of them had this rule where money paid for tax stuff or chance/community chest cards, it went to the center of the board. If someone landed on Free Parking, they got all that money. Not only was this more "standard" than free parking doing nothing, but when I played with my grandparents for the first time at 17, THEY automatically did this. I still have no idea where it came from to this day, and I'm annoyed mostly because you can run out of money in the bank in a VERY long game. Ya know, the one where nobody quits because Monopoly does that.

Well Monopoly is a poorly balanced game. Perhaps there should be an ITC version that dictates the rules worldwide.

The ITC equivalent of Monopoly would be a rearrangement of the property locations and rent doesn't have to payable at all once but instead progressive over several dice rolls - because balance.

Monopoly HAS/HAD an ITC equivalent.

Are you serious?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ishagu's point is pretty clear. Starkly so, really. It's a simple premise/conclusion:

Premise 1: "Real" 40K would be 40K that does not modify the rules.
Premise 2: ITC modifies the rules of 40K.
Conclusion: ITC is not "real" 40K as it is a subset modified by the people to created it (NB: That's not a judgement call on ITC or the people who play/enjoy it, just on the notion that it could be considered the "real" 40K).
Supplemental: As it is its own subset of 40K and used by a (significantly small) minority of players, it should not be used to make tangible changes to the overall 40K rules that everyone uses across the entire damned world.

Simple stuff.

Ishagu's point is clear and simple, but it runs in to the equally clear issue of what is "real", which is under contestation. Organizations and groups decide what is real to them. They decide what matters in this regard. There is no global authority on this because Games Workshop has no authority and abrogated the authority as well aside from what they explicitly run. Even if there were a global authority, no one is under obligation to play in to it with their own events any more than those kids playing soccer in the park have to play in to FIFA's rules.

Lance845 wrote:First, ITC has no basis for balancing 40k.

Oh, they have a basis. It may not be a good one, or one you agree with, but they have a basis. That basis? To get tournament goers to show up and play in a game they believe will be more balanced than what GW provides. It is up to you, the player, to decide if that is what you want to play.

Last i checked, if someone disagrees massively with my parameters for f.e scientific work, and i still demand changes upon my parameters even though they are foreign parameters at this point, i'd get hsot down and laughed at.