Well, he's got a point--and I really hate to say that about anyone who can't spell "miniature." But his "within codex balance" is pretty much a science fiction/fantasy gaming thing. Elsewhere, when we observe that war runs heavily to a limited range of troop types and tactics, we shrug and wargame something else. We can't demand an improved reality for the next edition.
And his "series of games balance" can only be a tournament thing. No one's going to go into his Saturday afternoon game and think it's OK that he doesn't have a chance because next week his opponent won't stand a chance.
Which leaves non-tournament historical gamers right where I came in--with single-game balance, which is trickier to determine than he really considers. I take it we're all familiar with the army which gives good results--but only once you've played it a lot? Or the "balance" which shifts when someone works out a new tactical system for one of the armies?
I generally figure that if you come to the table with a chance in three, you can improve it by good decision-making, and the decision-making is more important than the die rolls, the game designer has done his job.
Call it the "any given Sunday" standard. I don't have to win 50.0% of my games, but I do have to have a chance of winning every time. Anyone have a different standard?
