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.

The same reason Orks and Daemons are doing well in tournaments is the same reason Harlequins are doing so well. People are hyper-skewing to kill Marines to the exclusion of everything else that armies like these face a giant advantage.

Now obviously harlequins are still good and Orks and Daemons have powerful stuff in them too, and nothing should take away from the achievement that those players managed. But it doesn't change the facts, or that Marine players have looked at several of the changes in the Codex and completely overreacted to them. Aggressors are still, point for point, the single most cost efficient and effective anti-horde unit that exists in the game currently. All the change to them did was stop them from doing absurd gak like one-shotting a Knight or being your best source of anti-tank. I've had numerous Ork and Harlequin players tell me that in practice TTS games when someone does actually decide to bring some of the excellent anti-horde units that Marines have, their games become incredibly difficult.

 Bosskelot wrote:
The same reason Orks and Daemons are doing well in tournaments is the same reason Harlequins are doing so well. People are hyper-skewing to kill Marines to the exclusion of everything else that armies like these face a giant advantage.

Now obviously harlequins are still good and Orks and Daemons have powerful stuff in them too, and nothing should take away from the achievement that those players managed. But it doesn't change the facts, or that Marine players have looked at several of the changes in the Codex and completely overreacted to them. Aggressors are still, point for point, the single most cost efficient and effective anti-horde unit that exists in the game currently. All the change to them did was stop them from doing absurd gak like one-shotting a Knight or being your best source of anti-tank. I've had numerous Ork and Harlequin players tell me that in practice TTS games when someone does actually decide to bring some of the excellent anti-horde units that Marines have, their games become incredibly difficult.

It's exactly this. In a meta that isn't dominated by competitive marines, like mine, armies like orks and daemons work very differently from their tournament top builds because what they're going to face is extremely different. The Harlequins I face here don't bring 18 bikes.

For me mechanized ork list performs much better than greentides, both to meta (killing infantries offs objectives seems to be top priority here) and player's skills (I never enjoyed footslogging hordes, so I've not much experience to play them competitively).

Sure I can face strong primaris lists, but I can also face old marines armies, tyranids, necrons, mech, other orks, eldar, AM, etc... people who can play competitive primaris lists tend to bring their second army if they have one or tone down their list if they only have marines. The tournament scene is almost a whole different game.

This is part of the inherent problem with balancing 40k - armies are so assymetrical.
If you use a 'takes-all-comers' list you will be overwhelmed by any army that goes heavily in one direction.
If you skew your list towards a particular threat, any other threat will roll you.
That's where the 'rock, paper, scissors' comes from, and there's just no realistic solution to have to reconcile that with the sheer variety of what 40k brings.

Well that wouldn't be a problem if all armies could skew. If all armies had some sort of OP build, then yeah we would lose against some opponents really bad, while win against others easily. The problem is that there is not much one can do if your army is just straight up bad.

If a tau player goes second in 9th, then his opponent doesn't have to be some master WAAC cheater with a GT winning list for him to have a really bad time. He can be playing against his buds casual list, and it will be not much fun either.

asymetry is design or even in who win vs whom isn't bad. Bad is having armies with under 40% win rates under best circumstances. And I say this as someone with an army that has a 27% difference between win % going first and second.

Karol wrote:
Well that wouldn't be a problem if all armies could skew. If all armies had some sort of OP build, then yeah we would lose against some opponents really bad, while win against others easily.

I think that's a problem in and of itself - that's a textbook example of "rock, paper, scissors".
Ideally, as long as you take a 'sensible' list (for which there should be several options to taste, and allowing every unit a reasonable place) you could have a reasonable game against anyone else doing the same.
Imagine a situation in which army A is just an inherent counter to army B. I want to play A, and my friend wants to play B. We're never going to have a fun game in that sort of game.
It might work for a video game, in which you can change choices at the click of a button. It doesn't work for a miniatures game.
If I wanted to play Rock, Paper, Scissors, I'd like to do so without having to throw multiple hundreds of £££ and as many hours into making my choice.


I agree that asymetry isn't bad, it's the extent to the variance and the possible permutations that causes the problem. There's full Imperial Knights on one side of the scale, and Imperial Guard infantry spam on the other, and *everything* else in between that you could reasonably face with no ability to adjust your list to suit (unless you're specifically fore-warned).

All armies can skew, although they won't always be effective. Tau can bring lots of high T models, marines (or your GK) can go full elites with only T4/5 high save models, etc...

It's kinda the opposite the real problem: some armies can only skew. Imperial knights are the obvious example but also Harlequins or Custodes are basically skew armies with no alternatives. These are all armies that are really hard to balance at competitive levels and typically they are either overpowered or trash due to having just one build.

 Blackie wrote:
All armies can skew, although they won't always be effective. Tau can bring lots of high T models, marines (or your GK) can go full elites with only T4/5 high save models, etc...

It's kinda the opposite the real problem: some armies can only skew. Imperial knights are the obvious example but also Harlequins or Custodes are basically skew armies with no alternatives. These are all armies that are really hard to balance at competitive levels and typically they are either overpowered or trash due to having just one build.

exactly, harlequins skew not by choice but by design. A Tac list of Quins is basically the same as a skew list.

Theyre in desperate need of additionnal units


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Well that wouldn't be a problem if all armies could skew. If all armies had some sort of OP build, then yeah we would lose against some opponents really bad, while win against others easily. The problem is that there is not much one can do if your army is just straight up bad.

If a tau player goes second in 9th, then his opponent doesn't have to be some master WAAC cheater with a GT winning list for him to have a really bad time. He can be playing against his buds casual list, and it will be not much fun either.

asymetry is design or even in who win vs whom isn't bad. Bad is having armies with under 40% win rates under best circumstances. And I say this as someone with an army that has a 27% difference between win % going first and second.

no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.

Totally agree, you put it better than I could.

To also add on to what I said, Harlequins are by their very nature a very good anti-Marine army, so with the vast majority of people still playing Marines they'll seem a lot stronger than they actually are.

Those Orks and Daemons lists that are also placing really high? They're actually very strong versus Harlies.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.

Problem is skew and TAC are different concepts, not mutually exclusive. A skew list can definitely be TAC, it just need to be able to deal against every possible opponent. Most of the skew lists are actually TAC in that sense. A Goff greentide or a full footslogging/biker primaris army can both deal with hordes, vehicles/monsters spam lists or elite oriented armies.

IMHO the only way to avoid skew armies is to cap 0-1 all units that aren't troops or transports, and/or to force using something from each section (Fast Attacks, Heavy Support, Flyer, etc...) but some armies don't have enough datasheets to do so, or even if they could they'd still need more options to work properly.

And sometimes it wouldn't be enough, some skew lists have 0-1 for each specialist unit anyway.

 Blackie wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.

Problem is skew and TAC are different concepts, not mutually exclusive. A skew list can definitely be TAC, it just need to be able to deal against every possible opponent. Most of the skew lists are actually TAC in that sense. A Goff greentide or a full footslogging/biker primaris army can both deal with hordes, vehicles/monsters spam lists or elite oriented armies.

IMHO the only way to avoid skew armies is to cap 0-1 all units that aren't troops or transports, and/or to force using something from each section (Fast Attacks, Heavy Support, Flyer, etc...) but some armies don't have enough datasheets to do so, or even if they could they'd still need more options to work properly.

And sometimes it wouldn't be enough, some skew lists have 0-1 for each specialist unit anyway.

The problem with that approach is that entire armies are skewed. An Imperial Knights army will only ever be incredibly skewed as a heavy-armour force, that's just what they are.
I don't think this skewing can every be resolved in 40k, as armies are too varied - both internally (see Guard horde vs tanksmash) and externally.
In fact, I'd say that the game encourages you to skew your defensive capabilities, more so in 9th. In 9th taking a varied list of infantry and tanks just gives away two different secondaries instead of one, and taking just infantry would mean any enemy anti-tank was wasted points (and vice-versa for tanks).

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I don't think this skewing can ever be resolved in 40k, as armies are too varied - both internally (see Guard horde vs tanksmash) and externally.
In fact, I'd say that the game encourages you to skew your defensive capabilities, more so in 9th. In 9th taking a varied list of infantry and tanks just gives away two different secondaries instead of one, and taking just infantry would mean any enemy anti-tank was wasted points (and vice-versa for tanks).

I don't think it needs to be or even should be resolved rules-wise. I don't even think the Rule of Three should exist.
If you want to play heavily into some style? Go for it.
Playwise it'll either work often enough for you or not. Or, if you've skewed too far & what your doing makes playing you no fun, the people you play with will provide the course correction & you just won't get very many games....

ccs wrote:
the people you play with will provide the course correction & you just won't get very many games....

This is a theory that only works in a relatively small group.
If you're talking about a couple of individuals, they're left with the choice of playing vs skew or not playing at all. That's really lame.
If it's a large or disjointed group, they just play other people. Whoever plays them has a wasted game but moves on. That's also lame.
Plus, either way it ends in the person not being able to play the skewed list they like, when that skewed list might be a general army like Knights. That's really lame.

no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.

The ideal world is a construct. We live in the real world. And in the real world I would rather have the option to play with a skew list, then have a balanced codex which is just another word for being having a bad set of rules. Tau are perfectly balanced right now. It doesn't matter who they play against, what list they take. They are also the only army that doesn't go up in win rates if it goes second. Perfect balance achive. It is also the worse army to play right now. I ain't going to put out claims on what ever it is fun or not, because I don't play tau. But if they are as fun as GK were in mid 8th, then my condolances to the player.

Or to make it simple. I would rather play in a world where every army has super OP stuff to do, then hope for an ideal to become reality and not have 3-4 balanced books followed by something mind blowlingly powerful.

This is a theory that only works in a relatively small group.

yep. all it takes for the store to have 20+ people. 3 bigger play groups and some random people looking for pick up games. 1 game per 1-2 weeks. And before someone gets to play half the store a year has passed and a few people droped out and new came. It maybe matter in small stores or if someone plays 3 games a day,

Karol wrote:

no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.

The ideal world is a construct. We live in the real world. And in the real world I would rather have the option to play with a skew list, then have a balanced codex which is just another word for being having a bad set of rules. Tau are perfectly balanced right now. It doesn't matter who they play against, what list they take. They are also the only army that doesn't go up in win rates if it goes second. Perfect balance achive. It is also the worse army to play right now. I ain't going to put out claims on what ever it is fun or not, because I don't play tau. But if they are as fun as GK were in mid 8th, then my condolances to the player.

Or to make it simple. I would rather play in a world where every army has super OP stuff to do, then hope for an ideal to become reality and not have 3-4 balanced books followed by something mind blowlingly powerful.

This is a theory that only works in a relatively small group.

yep. all it takes for the store to have 20+ people. 3 bigger play groups and some random people looking for pick up games. 1 game per 1-2 weeks. And before someone gets to play half the store a year has passed and a few people droped out and new came. It maybe matter in small stores or if someone plays 3 games a day,

Its posts like this that show you have zero imagination and you keep accepting your fate. The whole point of the discussion we're having is theoretical, how we would each like the game to play out. Perfect world IS something we can aspire to even if the possibility of GW making it reality is super low.

And no, in the real world i would much rather be able to play fluff accurate list with no spamming/deathstar units and still be able to perform properly. Do Tau have a 50% (+- 4%) winrate right now? then no, theyre not balanced. Having the same winrate when going first and second doesnt make an army balanced.

Having "OP" gak in our armies is purely a feels bad thing. First because it sucks for your opponent to get his army blasted off with stuff like eradicators and second because its boring as feth to have a point and click unit that requires no tought whatsoever to carry your game.

As for playgroups regulating the strength of your lists, its absolutely possible, you just have to be close to your playgroup and talk to them outside of the games. Have a facebook group to chat on, learn what powerlevel they want to play at. Adapt your armies accordingly.

40k is a 2 player game.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

ccs wrote:
the people you play with will provide the course correction & you just won't get very many games....

This is a theory that only works in a relatively small group.
If you're talking about a couple of individuals, they're left with the choice of playing vs skew or not playing at all. That's really lame.
If it's a large or disjointed group, they just play other people. Whoever plays them has a wasted game but moves on. That's also lame.
Plus, either way it ends in the person not being able to play the skewed list they like, when that skewed list might be a general army like Knights. That's really lame.

It works. If you insist on playing x, and most of your potential opponents don't enjoy playing against that, then you won't get many games in.
It's not lame for others to decline games they won't enjoy playing.
Also applies to certain styles/ways of playing. For example; Are you one of those people who shoot with your antenna? Guess who's not getting many games around here....
Eventually these players do one of the following:
1) adapt to the environment/group their aiming to play with. Yes, sometimes that means you play certain things/ways at one shop & something different with another group.
2) just go play with others who's playstyles they're compatable with.

Its posts like this that show you have zero imagination and you keep accepting your fate. The whole point of the discussion we're having is theoretical, how we would each like the game to play out. Perfect world IS something we can aspire to even if the possibility of GW making it reality is super low.

Yes problems with imaginations are part of the disorder I have. I mainly try to understand things that exist in real life, or which I can base on real life actions. Thinking about potentials that aren't real, just makes my head hurt. They also have very little impact on my hobby life.

Do Tau have a 50% (+- 4%) winrate right now?

I think they don't even breach 30% according to the data from events if they go second and don't pass 50%, by a no small margin if they go first. They aren't the army with the biggest difference between wins/loses depending on them going first or second. That place belongs to a different army.

Having the same winrate when going first and second doesnt make an army balanced.

GK have a 27% difference between wining going first and going second. And that is from expiriance players with optimised lists in a closed tournament enviroment. The gap gets even bigger outside of those players. It is not very fun to have games being decided by a large margine on a single roll you can't modify, re-roll or impact in anyway. So while I am not a tournament player, I think, from my personaly expiriance playing my army in 9th, that having a big difference between win/lose ratios as going first and second as a very important thing.

First because it sucks for your opponent to get his army blasted off with stuff like eradicators and second because its boring as feth to have a point and click unit that requires no tought whatsoever to carry your game.

But you have your OP stuff to, as you said it, blast his stuff. So where is the problem.? Is it better the way it is now or the way it was in 8th, and I assume in prior editions too, that only some armies had access to OP builds ? I don't think so. If everyone has access to the OP, then no one is OP.

As for playgroups regulating the strength of your lists, its absolutely possible, you just have to be close to your playgroup and talk to them outside of the games. Have a facebook group to chat on, learn what powerlevel they want to play at. Adapt your armies accordingly.

And this works only in small groups in places where people are rich. I can tell you that telling a person that struggled to buy a 2000pts army, that you don't like how powerful their army are, and that yeht dluohs yub worse units or a even a whole weaker army, is going to get the same kind of response every time and I think you can imagine what it would be.

So far the things I like from 9th:
* New missions
* Secondary Objectives instead of cards
* Trend of moving upgrades from CP to Points
* Balanced CP pool
* Terrain Rules(not perfect but way better than 8th)

Things I didn't like:
* Game speed not increased as advertised

Karol wrote:

Its posts like this that show you have zero imagination and you keep accepting your fate. The whole point of the discussion we're having is theoretical, how we would each like the game to play out. Perfect world IS something we can aspire to even if the possibility of GW making it reality is super low.

Yes problems with imaginations are part of the disorder I have. I mainly try to understand things that exist in real life, or which I can base on real life actions. Thinking about potentials that aren't real, just makes my head hurt. They also have very little impact on my hobby life.

Without trying to understand potentials, there is no way for anything, game or not to develop and grow. Everything 40k is today was a potential some point in the past.

Karol wrote:

GK have a 27% difference between wining going first and going second. And that is from expiriance players with optimised lists in a closed tournament enviroment. The gap gets even bigger outside of those players. It is not very fun to have games being decided by a large margine on a single roll you can't modify, re-roll or impact in anyway. So while I am not a tournament player, I think, from my personaly expiriance playing my army in 9th, that having a big difference between win/lose ratios as going first and second as a very important thing.

Yeah, it should be a consideration among other aspects. Tau having an even winrate on the first and second turn doesnt make them balanced.

But you have your OP stuff to, as you said it, blast his stuff. So where is the problem.? Is it better the way it is now or the way it was in 8th, and I assume in prior editions too, that only some armies had access to OP builds ? I don't think so. If everyone has access to the OP, then no one is OP.

Having OP stuff is whats causing all the problems right now and part of the reason why the first turn advantage is so real. When everything is OP, getting first turn means your OP stuff can wipe my OP stuff and make it a non-game. Ideally every unit should be middle powered. No bs like wiping 200% of your points in one shooting phase or stuff like that. Then the game becomes an actual strategy instead of "me shoot your strong unit, boom boom, gg"

And this works only in small groups in places where people are rich. I can tell you that telling a person that struggled to buy a 2000pts army, that you don't like how powerful their army are, and that yeht dluohs yub worse units or a even a whole weaker army, is going to get the same kind of response every time and I think you can imagine what it would be.

You dont need to be rich to play 40k but you do need to have disposable income. This is something you shouldve researched before buying into the hobby.
If you dont have the money to afford the full game, you should instead stick to lower pts level (instead of the stupid 2250pts limit you currently play with) or play killteam.
You can also simply ask your opponent to not use their full potential on you. something as simple as "can you not use endless cacophony + votlw when we play against each other, it destroys my list and i can't really recover from that" is an alternative that costs nothing more than basic human decency from your opponent.

I always advice to play with 50-75% of an existing collection, to max 2000 points. I mean if you have 10k points of models 2000 points games are fine, I wouldn't suggest playing huge games unless you really want that kind of scenario.

This way you could always change your list and you're not forced to buy something else if at some point the inevitable nerf comes down to 1+ of your units.

It's flat out impossibile to play balanced (and fun) games if all the people in your group are using the same exact armies forever.

Instead of 2250 try 1500.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

And this works only in small groups in places where people are rich. I can tell you that telling a person that struggled to buy a 2000pts army, that you don't like how powerful their army are, and that yeht dluohs yub worse units or a even a whole weaker army, is going to get the same kind of response every time and I think you can imagine what it would be.

You dont need to be rich to play 40k but you do need to have disposable income. This is something you shouldve researched before buying into the hobby.
If you dont have the money to afford the full game, you should instead stick to lower pts level (instead of the stupid 2250pts limit you currently play with) or play killteam.
You can also simply ask your opponent to not use their full potential on you. something as simple as "can you not use endless cacophony + votlw when we play against each other, it destroys my list and i can't really recover from that" is an alternative that costs nothing more than basic human decency from your opponent.

I strongly disagree that a requirement to play 40k should be a willingness to throw several hundred pounds at an army, and rben rapidly abandon it because the winds of balance blow in their favour.
It sounds very privileged and gate-keepy to be advocating for that.

You've also dodged the issue of larger groups. It was pointed out by someone else that it doesn't take that large of a group before this sort of relationship becomes unachievable.
If we've never played eachother before, you don't know if I'm being cheesy or not. I don't necessarily trust that you genuinely do have a problem with being wiped out, or just want to be the only one bringing cheese.
If there's six months between each time we play one another, you're not going to remember and everything is going to have changed anyway.

Its only impossible to play balanced games because the rules arent balanced. If they were, there would be no need for a group to find a equilibrium level of OP for everyone to play at.

I expressed myself poorly. I don't mean abandoning whole lists as the meta evolves, i'm talking about buying a predator to replace your Eradicators while they are overpowered for example. Tweaking the army, not completely ditching it.

I still think that 40k requires a certain amount of disposable income to be fully enjoyed in its current state. No need to be rich like they originally mentionned, but if youre lioving paycheck to paycheck, its probably not the best move to do.

As for randoms that you don't play often against, i think these aren't part of the original equation. Its the people that you commonly play with that you can discuss what powerlevel you are looking for. If the rando that you play against once per 6 months always brings cheesy lists and the rest of your playgroup doesnt, the solution is pretty simple : have a talk with the rando after the game (you know, we try and play a bit lower power around here, i'd recommend you only bring 3 eradicators instead of 9), or if the rando refuses to adapt, just dont play him again.

Perhaps we're talking about slightly different things.
It seems to me that you're simply describing the way balancing the game currently is. And I agree, the only way you're going to get a balanced game is if people work together to establish a middle ground.

However, my point is that's a really gakky way for the game to work.
I started the hobby at about 14, saving my pocket money (and perhaps siphoning off a little lunch money) to buy a kit every month or two.
If I turned up to a game with my Predator I had spent 3-4 months saving up for, then spent about a money building and painting all nice, and it turns out I can't use it because it's too good, how do you think I would feel? That's a really gakky way for the game to work.
And "well you're too poor to be playing the hobby anyways* is ridiculous, at no point in this hobby is it ever advertised that you should only buy a small section of what's on offer, because anything else is either too weak or too powerful for your local group.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Perhaps we're talking about slightly different things.
It seems to me that you're simply describing the way balancing the game currently is. And I agree, the only way you're going to get a balanced game is if people work together to establish a middle ground.

However, my point is that's a really gakky way for the game to work.
I started the hobby at about 14, saving my pocket money (and perhaps siphoning off a little lunch money) to buy a kit every month or two.
If I turned up to a game with my Predator I had spent 3-4 months saving up for, then spent about a money building and painting all nice, and it turns out I can't use it because it's too good, how do you think I would feel? That's a really gakky way for the game to work.
And "well you're too poor to be playing the hobby anyways* is ridiculous, at no point in this hobby is it ever advertised that you should only buy a small section of what's on offer, because anything else is either too weak or too powerful for your local group.

Oh, i agree with you that its a flawed system. In a perfect worlds every single list possible would have a perfect 50% against everything else.

As for the monetary aspect. You can't really tell me that the game is cheap. Sure you CAN play it and you CAN make smart purchases of used stuff to get a cheap army. The problem is that as it stands, the only way to have a balanced, enjoyable game is to change your list so that it matches the expected power level of your opponent's. Or to play lower pts level/killteam, something like a group of friends each buying a start collecting and sticking to it is an example of a cheap way to play the game. Playing 2250pts games isnt.

I'm not saying the game is cheap.
I'm saying expecting people to willing and able to cut out and change large chunks of their list on the whims of other people in unfair.

The crux of the matter we started to discuss is whether or not agreeing with your opponents is an effective way to balance the game.
And it's not, because not everyone is in the position to do that, and they shouldn't have to do that anyway.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I'm not saying the game is cheap.
I'm saying expecting people to willing and able to cut out and change large chunks of their list on the whims of other people in unfair.

The crux of the matter we started to discuss is whether or not agreeing with your opponents is an effective way to balance the game.
And it's not, because not everyone is in the position to do that, and they shouldn't have to do that anyway.

Yeah, its more of a patch that players have to use to enjoy the game more. Absolute shame that the balance isnt better

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

The crux of the matter we started to discuss is whether or not agreeing with your opponents is an effective way to balance the game.
And it's not, because not everyone is in the position to do that, and they shouldn't have to do that anyway.

Yeah, its more of a patch that players have to use to enjoy the game more. Absolute shame that the balance isnt better

First up, you guys are not wrong. But I do think there is a bigger picture out there.

Take this From the perspective of someone who is actually into 'that kind of thing' and plays with a group that wants the same.

Saying not everyone is in the position to do it kind of misses the point for me. It should always be a consideration. Maybe you can't do it now for whatever reason (new to the game, collection is small, only brought one small army with you when you moved countries etc) but it should be a consideration at least, maybe not now but at least for the future and for the community building and relationship building in the greater community.

Yes, you are correct. it is a patch, but it's also a based on a realistic and 'hands-on' approach and a realistic understanding of the limitations of these kinds of games - ttg's can't hold much weight. They need us to front-end some of the burden. From the perspective of someone who values his opponents enjoyment of a game as much as his own and regards it as of equal importance to 'trying to win', I have no problem with accomodating someone else's wishes for a game and saying no one should have to do it also misses the point.we all want something different. It's good to give, even if it costs me somewhat or isnt exactly what I want (worst case scenario I accomodate you this time, next time it goes the other way). Few things in life are without compromise and accomodation or understanding of someone else's wishes. It's as true for my relationship with my wife as it is with my relationships with other gamers. (As with anything, there are limits)

So, at the end of the day it's about as effective as anything else. We can't do much worse than the folks that write the ttg rulebooks.

As you say, Balance could be better, rules could be cleaner and less clunky, but in fairness too, I don't think the balance people want, or insist as their due is realistically feasible either. I certainly don't think the majority of folks who want better balance will.actually be happy to pay the price or deal with the sacrifices or consequences of the actions necessary for any kind of improvement. And let's be honest, even with said improvements, there will be still be flaws and enough exploitable gaps that it will be 'broken'.

Perfect balance is a unicorn. The 'better balance' people speak about is often little better. It's a myth. Best you'll get it 'good enough, at least some of the time' and with the caveat that 'you might have to have a chat with the other guy'.

I don't think it's unfair to consider cutting out chunks of your list, depending on circumstances to be a part of the social contract.weve been playing this way for years. I mean, as an extreme scenario, would you take a list on the bleeding edge of competitiveness against a twelve year olds first terrible list made from a few starting sets and weird selection of random things?

Is cutting out chunks or asking for changes something to insist on, all of the time? Not necessarily. Too many tfgs and competitive at all cost douches will weaponize it for their advantage and too many casual scrubs will use it to virtue signal and punish everyone else. Then again, blind match ups based on list building for advantage, and just accepting the broken edges, falls so far short of the mark that holding them as any kind of metric of quality is ridiculous.

It's a spectrum.I think it's fair to rock up, and get to know people first (you know, get to know, develop and grow your social circle rather than treat them as disposable NPC's), and let people know ahead of time what your into and what kind of a game you're into and looking for. Is it fair to ask for, to expect and to be willing to give accomodations? Yes, at least sometimes. I think it is if it's what you're into. I think it's fair to look for other folks wanting the same. Then again, most important thing is play with like minded folks. If it's something I'd ask for, rest assured I will accomodate back. Talk to me. Far more important...

Game building, at least to me, is a far more valued skill and far more important aspect of the game than list building for advantage'. At least to me and my group. I find it a far more intriguing test of skill than just 'who can make the most powerful list' and a more rewarding approach.

Balance is not that hard.
GW deliberately makes it hard by restarting the edition every couple of years in order to sell players new rulebooks.
They then make it worse by intentionally buffing up new units so that players buy the new rules and units.

Better balanced just requires the writer to actually care, rather than seemingly doing everything in their power to avoid balance.

And they're only aided by their customers saying it's not GW's responsibility, it's other player's to go out and buy more stuff until they have the right stuff!

The concept of balance is also subjective. For me the game IS reasonably balanced now, both competitive and casual metas.

We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.