The meta stats are just an easy way to get an idea of what people are actually playing. Sure it has a competitive slant that you can take into consideration, but if no one is playing it or it's over-represented on the table that at least tells you something. No one wants to get bullied for a couple hours at a table. Maybe their favorite detachment is fun, but if it's so unbalanced that you get tabled constantly you're probably not going to run it.
And that's a sensible reply as opposed to just having a kneejerk reaction to it of "omg, meta, ew". The reality is when some faction ends up with a 70% win rate for whatever reason, that shit WILL also happen in "casual" games and the result is either everyone else getting their shit stomped regularly which isn't fun for them(and boring for a sane person), or you've got someone with the currently busted bullshit but can't play what they want because people will cry about it.
I can't think of a modern game that doesn't use data from some source or another to make sure they've at least attempted to balance shit, because we've seen what happens when they don't.
I wont pretend that OPR is the deepest ocean, but have you actually read the rules? And I don't mean just glanced at some data sheets. Have you played the game? It's simple, yes, but you get out of it what you put in. The moment to moment gameplay, I feel, is more meaningful and intentional than 40k. It cuts out some of the dumb dice rolling like rolling to charge or move, so more of your actions are intentional. It avoids random chance grinding the game to a halt because you accidentally rolled a one and your unit basically loses its turn. The advanced rules offer a ton of options for your games, but it's left up to you to decide what kind of game you want.
Nope, because I've read through it and I've got zero interest in what I've read. 40k can definitely do with some removal of dice rolls, and especially re-rolls, but no I don't want as much randomness as possible removed from the game and a failed charge roll shouldn't grind a game to a halt either(should also not be trying to rely on 9"+ charges but that's a separate issue).
Where it does fail is their missions aren't as interesting as Warhammer. You could try to convert them to work in OPR or just come up with your own scenarios. It also doesn't have any reactionary abilities like Warhammer does, though that's because it's alternating activations so it's not really needed. It's not as complex as Warhammer, for sure, but I think saying it has nothing going for it is a disservice. What would you say Warhammer has that OPR doesn't?
And that's right where it starts to fall apart. I've said as much before on the topic, I don't want to show up to a game to spend 30+ minutes sorting out which rules are being used, negotiating terrain placement, etc. If I'm showing up to a game, I want to play. As far as what 40k has that OPR doesn't? Many things. An IP with themes I find interesting, the ability to just show up and play, but more importantly it actually has a playerbase. If I'm going to consider playing OPR that I don't like after reading through it, I sure as hell don't also want to have to spend weeks begging at the game store for someone else to be willing to play it when I already don't want to. I'd have an easier time finding a game for ASOIAF than that. And no, I don't think OPR is the worst rules on the planet, far from it, it's just not interesting in the slightest compared to Conquest, Infinity, Shatterpoint, and a pile of other games I'd rather put time into long before OPR.
And that's all before being fed up with the OPR evangelism that exists online.
