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.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.

Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.

If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.

They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.

I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.

This is where I am at with Eradicators. I really like the idea of them and want to include them in my army. That said, 1 unit is a waste of my time most games as they are going to have a bullseye on them so bright I'll be lucky to shoot them even once. So I am going to want to field 2-3 just to have the redundancy to get some utility out them. At which point they have a very good chance to eating up way too much of my opponent's army/attention if they have anything close to single, expensive unit in their force. Which I don't see leading to a particularly interesting game.

I would much rather them lose the double shot, or at very least make it a Stratagem. I actually wouldn't even mind the range going down to 18" to allow some breathing room for opponent's to deal with them and challenges for me to get them into position. That might be enough to allow squads of six too. Which is something I kinda want for them to allow for more Gravis armor symmetry or whatever.

Gravis armour double shoot just needs to go away, period.

 bullyboy wrote:

Spoiler:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.

Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.

If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.

They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.

I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.

This is where I am at with Eradicators. I really like the idea of them and want to include them in my army. That said, 1 unit is a waste of my time most games as they are going to have a bullseye on them so bright I'll be lucky to shoot them even once. So I am going to want to field 2-3 just to have the redundancy to get some utility out them. At which point they have a very good chance to eating up way too much of my opponent's army/attention if they have anything close to single, expensive unit in their force. Which I don't see leading to a particularly interesting game.

I would much rather them lose the double shot, or at very least make it a Stratagem. I actually wouldn't even mind the range going down to 18" to allow some breathing room for opponent's to deal with them and challenges for me to get them into position. That might be enough to allow squads of six too. Which is something I kinda want for them to allow for more Gravis armor symmetry or whatever.

Gravis armour double shoot just needs to go away, period.

No, double shoot needs to go away, period. And yes, that includes Endless Cacophony, I'm sick of csm units relying on strategems and psychic powers to function. I'm hoping that when we get our new codex gw continues this push for new stats on older units so csm can stop being "Team Wombo Combo" and actually have units that can work on their own merits.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Spoiler:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.

Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.

If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.

They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.

I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.

This is where I am at with Eradicators. I really like the idea of them and want to include them in my army. That said, 1 unit is a waste of my time most games as they are going to have a bullseye on them so bright I'll be lucky to shoot them even once. So I am going to want to field 2-3 just to have the redundancy to get some utility out them. At which point they have a very good chance to eating up way too much of my opponent's army/attention if they have anything close to single, expensive unit in their force. Which I don't see leading to a particularly interesting game.

I would much rather them lose the double shot, or at very least make it a Stratagem. I actually wouldn't even mind the range going down to 18" to allow some breathing room for opponent's to deal with them and challenges for me to get them into position. That might be enough to allow squads of six too. Which is something I kinda want for them to allow for more Gravis armor symmetry or whatever.

Gravis armour double shoot just needs to go away, period.

No, double shoot needs to go away, period. And yes, that includes Endless Cacophony, I'm sick of csm units relying on strategems and psychic powers to function. I'm hoping that when we get our new codex gw continues this push for new stats on older units so csm can stop being "Team Wombo Combo" and actually have units that can work on their own merits.

this, so very, very much so!
units shouldnt rely on other stuff to work especially strats(worst mechanic ever, keep CCG crap out). But gravis double shots is something you pay for in the unit cost so I'm all for them going up in pts rather than being removed.

A few armies did lose that ability with the changes to specialist detachments. Orks and Imperial Guard specifically did.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Spoiler:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.

Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.

If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.

They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.

I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.

This is where I am at with Eradicators. I really like the idea of them and want to include them in my army. That said, 1 unit is a waste of my time most games as they are going to have a bullseye on them so bright I'll be lucky to shoot them even once. So I am going to want to field 2-3 just to have the redundancy to get some utility out them. At which point they have a very good chance to eating up way too much of my opponent's army/attention if they have anything close to single, expensive unit in their force. Which I don't see leading to a particularly interesting game.

I would much rather them lose the double shot, or at very least make it a Stratagem. I actually wouldn't even mind the range going down to 18" to allow some breathing room for opponent's to deal with them and challenges for me to get them into position. That might be enough to allow squads of six too. Which is something I kinda want for them to allow for more Gravis armor symmetry or whatever.

Gravis armour double shoot just needs to go away, period.

No, double shoot needs to go away, period. And yes, that includes Endless Cacophony, I'm sick of csm units relying on strategems and psychic powers to function. I'm hoping that when we get our new codex gw continues this push for new stats on older units so csm can stop being "Team Wombo Combo" and actually have units that can work on their own merits.

^This but for all armies that are currently costed according to "potential." Tau are costed like FtGG and SP are always available. Riptides are trash without excessive drones. Or does GW really think a 14W, T7 model that has to tank a mortal wound every turn to use its abilities, has 0 melee capability, BS 4, and requires CP injections via Prototype systems or Branched Nova Charge is worth 300 points. Not to mention all the various strategems that were costed with 8th edition amounts of CP in mind. The armies with more expensive/weak strategems are starting with less CP due to needing more detachments....why?

Riptides I suspect suffer from "they where really goo last edition" pointing

BrianDavion wrote:
Riptides I suspect suffer from "they where really goo last edition" pointing

Riptides, and the other big Tau suits, suffer from "Not having been removed from the game with a blow torch, and therefore not yet replaced with a mix of decent airpower and alien auxiliaries..."

I think it’s time to propose again divisions for 40k events.

Similar to weight classes in other sports.

Imperium only = heavyweight division
All others = Cruiserweight Divison

This to me would level the field and make a much more fun environment for player sick of auto losing to imperials. And GW can just keep pumping all the steroids they want up top. Win win for all.

Mr.Church13 wrote:
I think it’s time to propose again divisions for 40k events.

Similar to weight classes in other sports.

Imperium only = heavyweight division
All others = Cruiserweight Divison

This to me would level the field and make a much more fun environment for player sick of auto losing to imperials. And GW can just keep pumping all the steroids they want up top. Win win for all.

Imperium's a looot more then just marines, if you can't beat guard sisters or admech I think you might need to sit down and learn your army. that or find your local grey knight player and play with them a few rounds. if they win well.. you proably owe em a win or two given the state of their army for the last 2 editions

Mr.Church13 wrote:
I think it’s time to propose again divisions for 40k events.

Similar to weight classes in other sports.

Imperium only = heavyweight division
All others = Cruiserweight Divison

This to me would level the field and make a much more fun environment for player sick of auto losing to imperials. And GW can just keep pumping all the steroids they want up top. Win win for all.

This is actually a nice idea.
It demonstrates GW's lack of providing a balanced game and GW's preference of loyal Marines as sales matter (which is comprehensible).

Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. They are top tier, but still in a tier. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.

The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.

Spoletta wrote:
Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.

The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.

What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?

Spoletta wrote:
Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. They are top tier, but still in a tier. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.

The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.

So 60% win ratio against all other factions (were they have played 3 or more games) is not over performing.
They loose to Harliquines and Eldar hard without those that ratio goes even higher

Necrons 80% Marine Wins
Guard 71% Marine wins
Tau 69% Marine Wins
AdMech, DeathGuard and Orks 67% Marine Wins

Renegade Knights 40% Marine Win
Eldar 33% Marine wins
Harlequins 29% Marine wins

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.

The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.

What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?

I was more referring to the average tournaments more than the last GT, which was indeed dominated by white scars and salamanders. Going by the streams though, it looked like they were playing with really too few terrain elements, which in 9th is simply unacceptable.

If you go by 40kstats, then marines are in a nice position, but nothing oppressive on the levels of 8th edition SM, Castellan or Ynnari.

Am I missing something? As far as I can tell 40kstats has almost no data recorded for 9th

 Jidmah wrote:
Am I missing something? As far as I can tell 40kstats has almost no data recorded for 9th

Yeah it's limited hence why I cut out the matchups with 1 or 2 games as the swing is so big it's not a great indicator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.

The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.

What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?

I was more referring to the average tournaments more than the last GT, which was indeed dominated by white scars and salamanders. Going by the streams though, it looked like they were playing with really too few terrain elements, which in 9th is simply unacceptable.

If you go by 40kstats, then marines are in a nice position, but nothing oppressive on the levels of 8th edition SM, Castellan or Ynnari.

Seriously how much terrain do you think should be on the table?
You realise people don't all have flying vehicals and can ignore terrain, they need spaces to be able to move around too.

 bullyboy wrote:


Gravis armour double shoot just needs to go away, period.

Or, just make it a generic Gravis 0cp Strategem?

It doesn't need to cost CP as the main nerf will be it going to 1 unit per turn.

Which makes it a more interesting ability as you have to make a tactical decision on when to use it.

I know, I'm only partially a Xenos player with my main focus being on my Imperial Guard, but today, I made the great mistake of taking a look at an article about what the Space Marines have. And seriously, they have so ridiculously much stuff and special versions of everything, and then endless relics and stratagems. That alone is a strength because more units means a greater chance of there being OP ones amongst them. Especially now there is greater diversity between them because of the Primaris units and all the different chapters that give lots more options.

That however also made me wonder. Would there actually be enough room in a Codex Chapter to include all the different datasheets in its organisation? I mean, why even have standard Dreadnoughts when they have a dozen different makes (while the whole Ultramarines Chapter had 23 in total before Behemoth. And nothing anyone says would convince me that they got out of that with more of those ancient relics than they had before).

sanguine40k wrote:
Or, just make it a generic Gravis 0cp Strategem?

It doesn't need to cost CP as the main nerf will be it going to 1 unit per turn.

Which makes it a more interesting ability as you have to make a tactical decision on when to use it.

Its a nerf, but I think there is a growing hostility to these "auto-use like its a hotkey in a computer game" stratagems that GW has seemingly decided just about every unit should have.

 Dolnikan wrote:
That however also made me wonder. Would there actually be enough room in a Codex Chapter to include all the different datasheets in its organisation? I mean, why even have standard Dreadnoughts when they have a dozen different makes (while the whole Ultramarines Chapter had 23 in total before Behemoth. And nothing anyone says would convince me that they got out of that with more of those ancient relics than they had before).

Maybe GW are planning on changing the Relic rule to 1 per detachment - the 'must take non-relic units from the same slot' version never seemed to be much of a tax for marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

sanguine40k wrote:
Or, just make it a generic Gravis 0cp Strategem?

It doesn't need to cost CP as the main nerf will be it going to 1 unit per turn.

Which makes it a more interesting ability as you have to make a tactical decision on when to use it.

Its a nerf, but I think there is a growing hostility to these "auto-use like its a hotkey in a computer game" stratagems that GW has seemingly decided just about every unit should have.

It's still better than a auto-use datasheet ability that isn't restricted in any meaningful way.

Making it a Gravis strat means you have to choose between doubleshooting your eradicators or your aggressors, etc.

 Dolnikan wrote:
I know, I'm only partially a Xenos player with my main focus being on my Imperial Guard, but today, I made the great mistake of taking a look at an article about what the Space Marines have. And seriously, they have so ridiculously much stuff and special versions of everything, and then endless relics and stratagems. That alone is a strength because more units means a greater chance of there being OP ones amongst them. Especially now there is greater diversity between them because of the Primaris units and all the different chapters that give lots more options.

That however also made me wonder. Would there actually be enough room in a Codex Chapter to include all the different datasheets in its organisation? I mean, why even have standard Dreadnoughts when they have a dozen different makes (while the whole Ultramarines Chapter had 23 in total before Behemoth. And nothing anyone says would convince me that they got out of that with more of those ancient relics than they had before).

Keep in mind Primaris can change things up. A squad that deployed as hellblasters might the next battle deploy as 3 squads of agressors the next. or even a mix of agressors, eradicators and eliminators etc.

the Important thing is the 6/2/2 ratio and even that can be adjusted through the use of reserve companies.

Ice_can wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Am I missing something? As far as I can tell 40kstats has almost no data recorded for 9th

Yeah it's limited hence why I cut out the matchups with 1 or 2 games as the swing is so big it's not a great indicator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.

The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.

What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?

I was more referring to the average tournaments more than the last GT, which was indeed dominated by white scars and salamanders. Going by the streams though, it looked like they were playing with really too few terrain elements, which in 9th is simply unacceptable.

If you go by 40kstats, then marines are in a nice position, but nothing oppressive on the levels of 8th edition SM, Castellan or Ynnari.

Seriously how much terrain do you think should be on the table?
You realise people don't all have flying vehicals and can ignore terrain, they need spaces to be able to move around too.

It's not what I think. That was 8th where the amount of terrain was left to player's taste.
In 9th we have guidelines for that. You can choose not to follow them, but then you can expect to be called out for it.
The guidelines say 15-18 terrain elements per strike force board. According to the guidelines if you go below that, you should expect shooting lists to get the advantage, so I'm not exactly surprised that the marine issue gets nastier when you have a terrain selection like that.

Ice_can wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Am I missing something? As far as I can tell 40kstats has almost no data recorded for 9th

Yeah it's limited hence why I cut out the matchups with 1 or 2 games as the swing is so big it's not a great indicator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.

The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.

What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?

I was more referring to the average tournaments more than the last GT, which was indeed dominated by white scars and salamanders. Going by the streams though, it looked like they were playing with really too few terrain elements, which in 9th is simply unacceptable.

If you go by 40kstats, then marines are in a nice position, but nothing oppressive on the levels of 8th edition SM, Castellan or Ynnari.

Seriously how much terrain do you think should be on the table?
You realise people don't all have flying vehicals and can ignore terrain, they need spaces to be able to move around too.

We know how much terrain a table should have because the rulebook recommends 1 piece per 12".
I was watching Flying Monkey last weekend and they clearly did not have that much terrain.

As for 9th tournament results. Most of the world is still dealing with a pandemic and tournaments are not even allowed to happen. We have limited results right now and you can look at that for some idea of how 9th is shaping up I would be hesitant to rely on it to much.

What bothers me is that they forget that they have created a game that they, themselves, benefit and encourages being played in tournements.

But even though its being played in tournements they still slack off with the balancing for the sake of marketing and economics.

Thats not okay. As long as they encourage this being played as a tournement game they should dedicate themselves to actually balancing the game, and not hold back codexes and gak just to get more hype and thus more money.

GW isnt the little backwater shop it used to be. it has responsibilities; some which they completely fail on.

Balancing being one aspect.

Mr.Church13 wrote:
I think it’s time to propose again divisions for 40k events.

Similar to weight classes in other sports.

Imperium only = heavyweight division
All others = Cruiserweight Divison

This to me would level the field and make a much more fun environment for player sick of auto losing to imperials. And GW can just keep pumping all the steroids they want up top. Win win for all.

Well I wouldn't put all imperium armies in the same pot actually. Adepta Sororitas, AM, Ad Mech and old style classic marines armies aren't overpowered. But relegating competitive primaris armies to just face each other is already reality here

In fact I think that 40k without primaris is reasonably well balanced at the moment.

True. Can't sell a car with a not working or broken engine, and just expect the buyers are suppose to make it right on their own.

But then again gaming companies have been doing this for all my concious life. Maybe GW wants to run table top gaming, rules, models and related updates the same way mobile games and the AAA industry runs theirs.

It is just that GW is more like EA, then Sucker Punch.

Spoletta wrote:

The SM problem is more at a casual level.

This is true, and that's why SM are a huge problem. Tournaments are just a tiny fraction of 40k and overly competitive lists are boring for many players. I couldn't care less if SM had an impossible to defeat list that spams 3-4 overpowered specialist units, that's not what I'll ever face in real life. 5+ stormravens never existed outside that lone dude that bullied other players at a tournament.

Not to mention that competitive primaris armies are usually quite cheap, other armies need to spam a few particular units just to be top tier with the consequence that the first round of FAQ will screw the entire army and force the player to re-do the entire list from scratch.

An average primaris collection is tipycally overpowered, that's the issue. Not the tournament scene.

Space marines make up the majority of lists on all levels, including casual. They should be better then the avarge army. And if they are the best, then it only means tha thte majority of w40k players are having more fun, then they had before.

Marines players of all kinds are having a great time now. How fun was it for non tournament DA or BA running only scouts and smash hammers with ally in 8th ed? now they can play more or less what ever they want and it works. And the armies aren't carbon copies of each other. A BA list is going to be different from a RG or Salamander one. That is great.
And xeno player can wait for the next CA and their codex, just like marine players had to wait for their updates.

Not to mention that competitive primaris armies are usually quite cheap, other armies need to spam a few particular units just to be top tier with the consequence that the first round of FAQ will screw the entire army and force the player to re-do the entire list from scratch.

How dare those marines player have an option to get an army cheaper? As all we know armies should cost even more, so fewer people play the game and only the rich can dominate people with armies build out of two dark empires or 3-4 know no fear.
And even better when the dominant ones are those xeno factions that few new player pick up. Nothing beats getting owned by someone with an army that costs more now, but they bought it 10-15 years ago. That is how it should be.

 Blackie wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

The SM problem is more at a casual level.

This is true, and that's why SM are a huge problem. Tournaments are just a tiny fraction of 40k and overly competitive lists are boring for many players. I couldn't care less if SM had an impossible to defeat list that spams 3-4 overpowered specialist units, that's not what I'll ever face in real life. 5+ stormravens never existed outside that lone dude that bullied other players at a tournament.

In my experience most tournament-level issues blow through all the way down to casual level. A castellan fed CP by an AdMech army was as much a problem in a semi-competitive player pool as one super-charged by the loyal32, and gulliman providing his index bubble to one stormraven, a storm talon, two razorbacks and two predators was so much of a slaughter that the UM player stopped playing his army because it wasn't fun for him anymore. We had a 2vs2 where I was matched up with a tzeench daemons player and we just overwhelmed our opponents because we unintentionally had build a poxwalker farm.
Granted, some things like malefic lords never reached our group as they require looking and investing in broken models, and most of our players don't do that.

Not to mention that competitive primaris armies are usually quite cheap, other armies need to spam a few particular units just to be top tier with the consequence that the first round of FAQ will screw the entire army and force the player to re-do the entire list from scratch.

An average primaris collection is tipycally overpowered, that's the issue. Not the tournament scene.

While I have no problems crushing primaris armies with either my orks or my death guard, players in my group which are less experienced and/or have less models to chose from certainly feel the same way.
Not everyone has a pool of 10k+ points to chose from when constructing their armies.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

The SM problem is more at a casual level.

This is true, and that's why SM are a huge problem. Tournaments are just a tiny fraction of 40k and overly competitive lists are boring for many players. I couldn't care less if SM had an impossible to defeat list that spams 3-4 overpowered specialist units, that's not what I'll ever face in real life. 5+ stormravens never existed outside that lone dude that bullied other players at a tournament.

In my experience most tournament-level issues blow through all the way down to casual level. A castellan fed CP by an AdMech army was as much a problem in a semi-competitive player pool as one super-charged by the loyal32, and gulliman providing his index bubble to one stormraven, a storm talon, two razorbacks and two predators was so much of a slaughter that the UM player stopped playing his army because it wasn't fun for him anymore. We had a 2vs2 where I was matched up with a tzeench daemons player and we just overwhelmed our opponents because we unintentionally had build a poxwalker farm.
Granted, some things like malefic lords never reached our group as they require looking and investing in broken models, and most of our players don't do that.

Exactly, many a casual game because 2 casual players has been ruined because one of the two unknowingly put a completely broken unit on the table that proceeded to dominate the game.

Everyone has a better time when the game is more balanced (more balanced, not perfect that's not possible. Nor does this mean everything has to be the same)