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.

I wish 40k were balanced enough to avoid trap options/trap Codexes. I don't expect it to be, no, because I've played GW games for over a decade and I'm convinced their release structure (update a whole army all at once, then don't touch it for years while releasing other armies) and internal organization (assign each Codex to some small sub-team that doesn't talk to anyone writing any other Codexes, proceed without any centralized leadership or vision, and if you don't play the army you've been assigned to write feel free to fix absolutely nothing about it) isn't capable of producing anything better, no matter how much people wish it were.

At this point ? No. GW have proven even with their most vocal cries for balance they are either unwilling or incapable of doing so with their game system. Perhaps the imbalance sells and they like pushing players towards and away from units to keep lists flowing, who knows but it tends just to sweep from side to side or leave some armies and choices trash forever with no real dream of balance in view. Neither for army unit selection or army vs army match ups.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Voss wrote:
Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.

Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.

That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'

One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.

They're just setting themselves up for disappointment.

The game works perfectly fine when you play with someone. The minute one player is playing against the other, it ceases to.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Voss wrote:
Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.

Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.

That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'

One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.

They're just setting themselves up for disappointment.

The game works perfectly fine when you play with someone. The minute one player is playing against the other, it ceases to.

Which is a problem. 40k is a competitive game-not a good tournament game, but a competitive one. There's a winner and a loser, and you're directly working against your opponent.

It's not D&D, or any other TTRPG. Those games are cooperative.

Now, that is not to say you should be trying to squash your opponent's fun or anything, but in general, you should be able to play your best and not worry about the game being a boring slog for either people just due to imbalances. Don't be a jerk-but playing well shouldn't be a jerk move.

Do You Expect 40k To Be Balanced?

Not anymore. I would like for w40k to be balanced, with armies each having at least that one good fun list and if possible no trap options or even factions. But GW does not seem to be very much interested in balancing anything. So if that happens to be the case, then I want as good as possible rules for my army, and as bad as possible rules for armies that hard counter my.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Voss wrote:
Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.

Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.

That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'

One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.

They're just setting themselves up for disappointment.

The game works perfectly fine when you play with someone. The minute one player is playing against the other, it ceases to.

Which is a problem. 40k is a competitive game-not a good tournament game, but a competitive one. There's a winner and a loser, and you're directly working against your opponent.

It's not D&D, or any other TTRPG. Those games are cooperative.

Now, that is not to say you should be trying to squash your opponent's fun or anything, but in general, you should be able to play your best and not worry about the game being a boring slog for either people just due to imbalances. Don't be a jerk-but playing well shouldn't be a jerk move.

That I think is the spirit most players of the game should or do have. They don't expect the most finely balanced game ever, they just wish to be rid of trap choices or even whole trap factions that are just bad. At the far ends of competitive play things will always look crazy over the top but you shouldn't need to pace yourself just to have a fun game against a random. That is and has been a large flaw in the games design for awhile. Easy to miss in the beginning but hard to avoid the longer you play. Which may be a reason they love to drag in new blood and try and phase out the old guard, the old guard are wise enough to know how they do things new entrants haven't been a part of the cycle long enough. Also the older players only get things here and there and new players need to buy whole new armies.

GW is a miniature company. Their business is selling you plastic. From their perspective, the rules don't have to be great, they just have to be good enough to get you to buy the plastic.

When you realize this, a lot of what GW does with rules becomes more comprehensible. I don't think it's so much that they actively go out to create an unbalanced game, they just don't really care as long as people keep buying the plastic crack.

While that is true some people, foolishly, believe GW is their friend and not just a company that wants their cash. Hence why they become evil, or morally wrong, for keeping a system forever unbalanced. When you think they care, their lack of actions to words hurts. Not to me, I know they don't care, but to some and that is what breeds resentment after a time.

I never expected it to be balanced and it never even crossed my mind until I encountered tournament play. I would rather have deeper mechanics that make an attempt to depict actual fighting than balance.

One time 40K was balanced. 3rd Edition using the army lists in the big rulebook. Just like 6th WFB with Ravening Hordes, the lists were balanced off the rule set AND with each other immediately. And just like 6th WFB, army book/codex creep destroyed that balance.

I had high Hope's that 8th would pull a similar thing with the Indexes (Indices?) at launch but that was not the case.

But yes, I expect balance. It's also why I stopped playing the modern games and went back to editions I felt WERE balanced.

No I don't expect it. I suspect there are a culmination of reasons why, many will just take the one that suits their narrative. Suits vs creatives, how the designers see the game, the modelling side being at least as important as the gaming in the eyes of the company, the sheer size of it all, time (or lack of it).

I think the dev team are at least clearly trying at this point.

I don't expect everything to be balanced. That would be boring tbh. I feel like the players have a responsibility to themselves and to their opponents to keep their lists "sane", even nerfing their armies on purpose if necessary. I'm playing to have fun, not to establish chestbeating rights over my colleauges and friends.

GW has too much to gain from manipulating WAAC players, they will not strive for 100% balance, or even "good enough". There will always be something new to buy to give you an advantage on the tabletop, if you want to be GW's bitch.

No one here has mentioned the "testing" done by -if i am not mistaken- the ITC guys (i read every post, but I may have read them too fast and missed it, in that case sorry).

We heard a lot about that during 8th, not so much since 9th kicked off. They alledgedly warned GW about the initial IH release, saying it was too strong. I hope GW have learned from that fiasco a bit, but the fact that no chapter approved is heading our way makes me fear they don't really care about balance ATM.

Necron codex is ok, but War Nuns is quite OP in my opinion (though I have won against them with my nids thanks to their relative lack of mobility, which means they can't get across to objectives that easily, unless they use lots of jetpack sisters).
We will see with the next codex relases, but the fact that GW doesn't communicate at all on how they check for balance when they design a codex is worrying me. It does seem like they never learn...

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.

Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?

No, and for good reasons. There are too many variables when creating a list that games can be absolutely one-sided even if at the top competitive levels all armies have the same winning ratio. Those competitive data however are only a tiny fraction of the whole picture.

So those ultra competitive games can be reasonably balanced and it's legit to assume that they should be. But most of the times two noob friends get into the hobby together and start playing 40k both with small or medium sized X points lists consisting in their entire collections and one of them wins everytime no matter what. Even if he expands his collection with a couple of new kits; to compete with his friend he may need a significant investment in miniatures.

But that shouldn't be a problem at all IMHO, new players should focus to learn the game, paint their army and expand their collections. Constantly losing for even a year or two shouldn't be an issue. It wasn't for me when I was a kid. The issue is that new players want to have a 50/50 winning ration since the beginning, no matter what. They shouldn't have that: if they do it means they play mirrored matched which is the death of 40k, or they have been extremely lucky in choosing the models. Same issue with people owning extremely old collections and they want to have that 50/50 winning ratio without buying anything new.

It's when players have some experience and play with half or less their collections that things should be reasonably balanced and actually they already are with acceptable standards.

 Blackie wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.

Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?

No, and for good reasons. There are too many variables when creating a list that games can be absolutely one-sided even if at the top competitive levels all armies have the same winning ratio. Those competitive data however are only a tiny fraction of the whole picture.

So those ultra competitive games can be reasonably balanced and it's legit to assume that they should be. But most of the times two noob friends get into the hobby together and start playing 40k both with small or medium sized X points lists consisting in their entire collections and one of them wins everytime no matter what. Even if he expands his collection with a couple of new kits; to compete with his friend he may need a significant investment in miniatures.

But that shouldn't be a problem at all IMHO, new players should focus to learn the game, paint their army and expand their collections. Constantly losing for even a year or two shouldn't be an issue. It wasn't for me when I was a kid. The issue is that new players want to have a 50/50 winning ration since the beginning, no matter what. They shouldn't have that: if they do it means they play mirrored matched which is the death of 40k, or they have been extremely lucky in choosing the models. Same issue with people owning extremely old collections and they want to have that 50/50 winning ratio without buying anything new.

It's when players have some experience and play with half or less their collections that things should be reasonably balanced and actually they already are with acceptable standards.

I am sure, the " great balance " of 8th for early dex GK or R&H even with massed and allied armies was not describeable as balanced at all.
And yes, GW IS using frustration to force sales upon rules and supplements or to encourage buying of certain units.

I don't expect 40k to be balanced, but I expected GW to try and make it balanced.

I want 40k to be balanced, but I accept that 40k won't be balanced and play anyway.

The problem is that GW blatantly introduces imbalances in order to shift product. To SOME EXTENT this is tolerable; turning SM into the worst army, bar none, would be problematic when it makes up the bulk of their range and profit. I totally get that.

But what we're seeing right now is insane. Marines have been gaking on everyone, with basically no-holds-barred, for about a year. And there's no end in sight. The amount of releases marines get in comparison to other factions is staggering.

I feel that a fair contrast would be 5th ed orks. In 5th ed orks were strong. Nob Bikers were a death-star unit that could merc most things, run rampant across the board, and was a huge pita to kill. Boyz were cheap as chips but also surprisingly dangerous, making them great chaff. Things like Grots and Killa Kans had their place. Orks could put together a top-tier and nigh unbeatable list, but if you didn't take care during the list-building phase you could also wind up with a pile of useless garbage that couldn't accomplish anything on the board. Orks also were good at what they were good at; they couldn't do crazy things like out shoot guard, have more specialization & mobility than eldar, or run psychic deep-strike hordes like nids.

A certain Player character army can, at present, take just about any combination of units in their codex and be at the competent / semi competitive level. That faction also does everything in the game (except MAYBE hordes) better than any other faction. This faction also seems to have been forgotten when making secondary objectives, as while they have a slew of secondaries which allow them to tailor their objectives against any enemy, they fit into the perfect place where their enemies don't get that edge.

And then on top of that they've gotten a plurality more releases over the past few years than many other factions.

This leads to an atmosphere which just feels.. Abusive. Specific factions (mainly one faction) is the Player Character faction. They get all the toys, all the strength, all the tools, all the releases, and none of the draw backs. While it's expected they'd be top dog, numerous other factions receive so little in comparison that they serve no purpose other than being NPC goons to get blasted off the table.

 Blackie wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.

Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?

No, and for good reasons. There are too many variables when creating a list that games can be absolutely one-sided even if at the top competitive levels all armies have the same winning ratio. Those competitive data however are only a tiny fraction of the whole picture.

So those ultra competitive games can be reasonably balanced and it's legit to assume that they should be. But most of the times two noob friends get into the hobby together and start playing 40k both with small or medium sized X points lists consisting in their entire collections and one of them wins everytime no matter what. Even if he expands his collection with a couple of new kits; to compete with his friend he may need a significant investment in miniatures.

But that shouldn't be a problem at all IMHO, new players should focus to learn the game, paint their army and expand their collections. Constantly losing for even a year or two shouldn't be an issue. It wasn't for me when I was a kid. The issue is that new players want to have a 50/50 winning ration since the beginning, no matter what. They shouldn't have that: if they do it means they play mirrored matched which is the death of 40k, or they have been extremely lucky in choosing the models. Same issue with people owning extremely old collections and they want to have that 50/50 winning ratio without buying anything new.

It's when players have some experience and play with half or less their collections that things should be reasonably balanced and actually they already are with acceptable standards.

Two new players joining a 40K game club may get close to that 50/50 ratio if both seek advice from more experienced players (I have seen it happen once, with my own eyes, years ago during 5th edition. The ratio was perhaps 60/40 but both kids were having a blast), and then listen to feedback when they make ingame mistakes and list building mistakes. But these must be like 5% of the new kids joining in, sadly. And 0% currently with covid.
I don't know if store owners/employees have the time to give enough advice, or if the younglings have the patience to hear it, but left alone to their own devices, new kid starting marines will crush new kid starting eldar/orks/tyranids/GSC/etc.

Unless maybe battlereps on youtube and such can teach new players (I guess they would have to already have a good grasp on rules, missions and army specific rules), but I doubt it. I would like it to be the case though. Perhaps someone here knows something about that.

You were happy losing for a long time, and understood that it was the price to pay for a game with factions offering very diffrent rules (making the game rich in this sense). But the majority of newcomers probably get put off by such an ordeal.

=> I also think that 40k keeps it appeal with the diversity of faction specific rules and playstyles, and if it lost that in the search of better balance (it won't because GW will thankfully never take that road), it would start bleeding players. This diversity will always poop on balance attempts, but balance can still be improved, and GW has to keep trying. The game right now is pretty rad, and I think the young me would get into it even more than I did (end of 4th), even if I destroyed for a year before understanding how to win.

I don't expect GW to deliver balance at all.
I think GW wants a roughly balanced game, but balance is very low on their priority list.

I agree with earlier sentiments that external balance between factions should be very close. Whether you choose Space Marines or Tau should not have a big impact on how well you perform.

Internal balance is also important, but much more complex. I think it should be important for each army to deliver a balanced output. You need some anti-tank units, some horde clearing units, some heavy infantry killers, etc. Some long and short range capabilities.
Within each of those there should be multiple viable ways to achieve that. Whether I choose Devastators, Predators, or Eradicators as my anti-tank capability should not matter, although each would have clear positives and negatives.
Skewing your capabilities too far one way would leave yourself with serious gaps or vulnerabilities for a more balanced enemy to exploit.

That's what I think is the ideal.

However, this won't happen. Balance is best achieved through a mature system which gradually converges on the ideal.
However, GW has a very strong incentive NOT to allow this, as only a fresh system will sell another £100+ round of rulebooks to each player.
A mature model range means everyone already has what they need, a fresh range means they sell to existing players again. Newer, fancier, rules draw people to the new units instead of what they already have.
That is why the game will never be balanced.

Having played since the tail end of 5th, absolutely not. It'd be nice if it were more balanced, but given the evidence so far I have to conclude it'd be quite an unreasonable expectation. Especially since they're a big company that brings out new stuff far quicker than they squat stuff, and as the list of units to balance grows it becomes an ever harder task.

Not Online!!! wrote:


I am sure, the " great balance " of 8th for early dex GK or R&H even with massed and allied armies was not describeable as balanced at all.
And yes, GW IS using frustration to force sales upon rules and supplements or to encourage buying of certain units.

If just a couple of subfactions aren't good I'd consider the game very well balanced.

The point is 40k should have two ways of playing:

- Ultracompetitive mode with players that should periodically update their armies, otherwise lists that may be incidentally overpowered will last forever

- Friendly games with players that should agree to tone up/down their lists if needed, even the most infamous editions can be balanced this way

Lack of balance wouldn't be a problem, outide of end tables of big events, as long as the armies were fun to play with.

The moment a faction is forced in to playing the way people don't want to play it , like cmd or shield spams, or there is no fun to play your army, things become rather grim.

 addnid wrote:
No one here has mentioned the "testing" done by -if i am not mistaken- the ITC guys (i read every post, but I may have read them too fast and missed it, in that case sorry).

We heard a lot about that during 8th, not so much since 9th kicked off. They alledgedly warned GW about the initial IH release, saying it was too strong. I hope GW have learned from that fiasco a bit, but the fact that no chapter approved is heading our way makes me fear they don't really care about balance ATM.

Yes, well, GW does use imbalance to sell stuff. I doubt they'd have sold nearly as many IH supplements (& dreads) had they heeded the warning they got from those play testers....
Instead they released the book, soaked in the $, and THEN changed it. Milked a bunch of fools but good in a short amount of time with that scam. And they'll do it again.

 addnid wrote:
codex is ok, but War Nuns is quite OP in my opinion (though I have won against them with my nids thanks to their relative lack of mobility, which means they can't get across to objectives that easily, unless they use lots of jetpack sisters).

An immobile SoB army is a choice made by the individual player, not the Codex.
Sob have: 2 different jump squads (3 if you count the saint & her girls), nearly every unit can be mounted in a rhino/immolator/repressor (legends option), there's 3 units (Arcos/Penitent engines/Mortifiers) that move 7"+ & who's only goal in life is to close with you - so they don't mind advancing at all, Dominion squads get a free move prior to the 1st turn, and the force as a whole can load up on assault class weapons wich work best at short ranges & encourages movement as needed.
In addition, save for aircraft of their own, the SoB player has all the Strategic Reserve options every other player enjoys.
That's not a force lacking in mobility....

So if your SoB opponent isn't moving, & moving to objectives, then that's just their choice.
Now imagine how OP you'll think those nuns are once your opponent figures out mobility.

The rhinos and and all ground vehicules can be moved blocked pretty easily, and the jump squads are not ob sec, nor are they very tough.

Any army with hordes will be prevent deep strike shenanigans.

My opponent plays well, he has placed well in past tournaments in Paris (during The World Before), though he is relatively new to sisters. I think sisters lose out on their strenghs if they go for more mobility. But perhaps it needs to be done.

Dominion squads getting the "before first turn move" can help, but the unit is not that scary or that tanky if it goes out of range of certain auras.

My opponent did have arcos and mortifiers, which are great (though with repentia, who really needs these ? Still very good melee units though) but not when they get hit by a tyranid dimachaeron, or other high number of wound high tougness beast.

He should have used his dominions to "before first turn move" and bubblewrap the mortifiers though (arco were in a rhino).

SoB can indeed move, you demonstrated that, but, say compared to eldar, kraken tyranids, white scars, even orks or necrons, I would say not that well.
The still hit like a truck and tank, and they are most def a top tier army overall, but I still claim that movement shenanigans is the only RELATIVE real weakness they have. It is not a glaring weakness, I agree with you, but they just don't have enough stuff with fly, and no special deepstrike, and they don't have bikes. OK they have a +1 to charge and advance option, an advance and charge strat (advance with miracle dice then charge with miracle dice can go a long way though, true), but all in all nothing really impressive. Again, still a top tier army, and one that requires a bit of skill to master.

I think it's balanced well enough. Games workshop doesn't view 40k as their competitive tournament game. I think they try to make it as balanced as possible, and the updates twice a year are a good way to help with that. But, it's too complicated a game to ever be truly 'balanced'

Warhammer Underworlds is the game they advertise as their competitive game, and I think it's very well balanced (hence why it's my favourite GW game).

I hope for a +/- 10% scenario, in terms of balance.

GW has no *moral* obligation when it comes to rules design. They have a product, people choose to pay for it or not. It's a luxury item. So unlike food, clothing, shelter, etc, they GW games are not a necessity. If a person is unhappy with the state of the game, they vote with their wallet.

The problem with voting with your wallet is that there's often other pressures to participate beyond what you personally like.
Wargames are very geographically limited, and expensive in terms of money and time.
If everyone around you is sticking to 40k, you'll either have to do without wargames or play 40k. Similarly if you can't afford to buy in to a new system.

That doesn't mean I don't agree with you to a point, GW has n o obligation to make a good game.
But I do think 40k has reached a critical mass of self-sustaining size where it will continue to attract and retain players in spite of anti-consumer decisions by GW. Which is helped enormously by the extreme loyalty of much of the fanbase.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.

Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?

40K? Not really.

For their explicitly more "competitive" / "event" / "tournament" -style games like Underworlds or Kill Team Arena, I would expect that game balance be at a fairly high priority for the game designers.

For the more "kitchen-sink" / "show-off-all-your-miniatures" / "3-hour-sunday-afternoon" -style games like 40K or AoS that aren't really suited for tournament play or events (and never were designed for it), balance probably shouldn't be a high priority for the game designers. At least I wouldn't expect it.

Especially older and "legacy-games" from GW that have been around for 20+ or even 30+ years, some imbalances are a big part of the nostalgic appeal that draws the majority of players to those games in the first place (40K being the obvious, but also things like stunty teams in Blood Bowl, etc..).

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The problem with voting with your wallet is that there's often other pressures to participate beyond what you personally like.
Wargames are very geographically limited, and expensive in terms of money and time.
If everyone around you is sticking to 40k, you'll either have to do without wargames or play 40k. Similarly if you can't afford to buy in to a new system.

That doesn't mean I don't agree with you to a point, GW has n o obligation to make a good game.
But I do think 40k has reached a critical mass of self-sustaining size where it will continue to attract and retain players in spite of anti-consumer decisions by GW. Which is helped enormously by the extreme loyalty of much of the fanbase.

i havnt bought anything from GW for my last two armies... there are ways to keep playing while not giving GW money.

I will say that I don't think GW can balance 40k without some drastic changes, and I also don't think they will make those changes.

So I don't 'expect' it to be balanced - in the sense that in my estimation of the future it won't be balanced.

HOWEVER

I do think a balanced game is a better game, if there are multifactions involved. How long would an MMO last if only one faction crushed all the others even 65% of the time in PVP? That's too high of an imbalance.

So I expect 40k to be balanced. Here I am using expect in the moralizing way, rather than the anticipatory way.

In other words, a balanced game is better and more fun. 40k could be more balanced, therefore it could be better and more fun. However, the game designers have shown time and again that the required changes are not a priority, and so 40k will be less good and less fun (while still having a degree of fun that means playing it isn't a chore).

Lack of integraton between army strategy and terrain strategy kinda disrupts any ability to balance any two players without mirror-matches.