Oh so effectiveness isn't factored into army book design Mr Thorpe?

Gav Thorpe’s recent Q&A suggested that the fluff guided them in determining the rules of a new army and that pricing the effectiveness was something done well after all of this and more just to keep the game friendly rather than balance it.

From what I could glean this is apparently done because that is what non-tourney gamers want an experience in command the army of that race and that the outcome of the game is really secondary to that.

To this I say bull@$%t. Utter implausible bull#$%t

To accept this reasoning is to accept that power creep is just an absolute freak occurrence that it is purely coincidence that with startling regularity more recently released books tend to be more effective point for point. How can rewrites of books consistently make armies more cost effective when they were both written to the same feel and fluff?

As the head of that area for considerable time he was a knowing and willing supporter of power creep in army design. The reasoning behind this can only be that GW feels that enough of their customers view competitiveness as a differentiating feature when choosing whether or not to start a new army that giving an efficiency boost is worth any potential ill will from customers who disapprove. Which means they specifically cater to competitive types when designing armies?

Though given Gav Thorpe’s credibility this kind of deliberate act of deceit isn’t exactly a shock.