It's all in the intention of the game.

I know it's hackneyed, but please forgive it's further use - Page 5 of Warmachine. It's a statement of the designer's intent, that the game is about bringing your best and giving your opponent six-nowt.

Compare to AoS - which in intent is more about just spending an evening playing a game against a friend, within mutually agreed boundaries.

Each game has it's own intent. Nothing wrong with either.

And to back up PW's statement, although in less..erm...emphatic words....

Systems are there to be broken. If someone is hell-bent on winning the game over any other consideration, any other balancing mechanisms (however flawed, however perfect) fall by the way side. They'll have that win by hook or by crook.

Let me take you back to 6th Edition Warhammer. Ready?

Diddly-do, diddly-do, diddly do (adjust vertical hold now, and fix after three seconds for desired affect).

I'm playing a game. My Dark Elves (with their 'rubbish' book) against Dwarfs. I've taken my usual army - 36 Repeater Crossbows, Black Dragon, Manticore, 4 Cold One Chariots and 2 Hydras (before they became War Hydras, when they weren't hideous death monsters). My opponent? Gunline. Nothing but Dwarf Handguns, Rangers with Great Weapons and Crossbows, Cannons, Cannons, Organ Guns with a side order of Cannons.

Now, I know this is going to be a tough game. But I also know I'm more than competent enough a general to smash my opponent to bits and carry the day. HURRAH! YAY ME! WOOT! Etc.

I was late getting to the shop because of traffic, so my opponent had kindly set up the terrain. And guess what? Each far corner? A hill. Press up against the middle of each long board edge? A hill. Centre completely open, desultory terrain on the middle of each flank..............in short, a gunline's dream deployment zone, regardless of who got which side.

Now, armies aside, this shows very poor sportsmanship from the get go. The table was stacked in my opponents favour. There was nowhere for my Monsters to hide. No cover for my Chariots and Hydras to take advantage of as the cross the board into combat.

In the end, I managed to win the game by a decent margin. Turns out my opponent couldn't guess range for toffee. He also failed to realise that you can't really block a Flyers charge, because the rules clearly states Monsters can see over intervening units, allowing me to declare charges over enemy units. Went straight up either flank in a classic pincer movement, and ripped him a new one.

So, not only had my opponent fielded an army which reduced his tactics to 'sit on a hill and shoot', but also reduced my own tactics to 'get across the board as fast as I can and hope I have enough left to do the necessary damage, but he'd also set up the terrain completely to his advantage.

And when I spanked him like a red-headed stepchild? Proceeded to whinge. And to moan. And claimed my army was broken and beardy, that I'd 'rules lawyered' him. That the Dark Elf book was just better.

Not a fun game. And not the only game of that type I've played.

So, if we take away the relative balance or lack thereof, depending on your own view, I'm still left with an opponent who shows no actual sportsmanship. If he'd won, he'd have done his usual 'tactical genius' routine, despite having not actually employed any, so not only a poor sportsman and a bad loser, he's also a bad winner.

No amount of points perfection or list restrictions would change that. Despite playing really, really well (create opportunities, capitalise on opponent's mistakes) I didn't enjoy that game at all.

And all because my opponent was a Richard.

So as I was saying - it doesn't matter how perfectly balanced a game is, or if there's no points and no real guide - someone determined to be an idiot is going to be an idiot.