I have said it before, and will say it again and again until it breaks
into your skull and sets up camp, and, hopefully, becomes the wargamer's
philosophy:

The problems are with YOU, not the game.  The game is neutral, just a 
set of options.  It is YOU, the player, who make the game whatever it
is.  Nobody makes you take that wizard lord with assorted kill-everything-
on-the-table-in-one-turn kit.  Nobody forces you to bend the rules to
fit your preconceptions.  Everything in the game is up to the players.
You have a huge range of choices.  It is YOU who chooses to field that
beardy army, the cheesy combination.  Don't blame the game for your own
failure to control yourself.  Stop blaming the possibilities, and
take responisibility for your exploitation of those possibilities.

No the game is not perfect.  No it is not well written in many places.
No everything has not been thought through to its logical, worst case
conclusion.  But none of this guarantees bad playing, abusive army
lists, overpowered characters.  What guarantees such things is people
who cannot restrain themselves, who, when faced with someone who just
wants a good game, feel obliged to push the rules to their limit, to
win at all costs, to break the spirit of the game.  No rule requires
them to do so.  There is no line in the magic book stating that all
Undead armies must contain a Necromancer Lord with the Forbidden Rod,
Potion of Knowledge, Curse of Years, and Soul Drain.  Nowhere is there
a monolith dictating that all Chaos warbands are to be led by Khorne
Lords, riding Juggers, with the Helm of Many Eyes, a double-handed axe,
a Potion of Strength, gifted with Regeneration, and leading a unit of 
Chaos Knights who fly the Banner of Rage beside their loyal ally, the
Bloodthirster.  No Dwarf ancestor-lord ever carved, in foot high runes,
that all Dwarf forces shall contain not less than 8 organ guns, and
shall be found to contain mostly Slayers, Hammerers, Iron Breakers, and
Longbeards, led by the most powerful of heroes, the 1000 point Dwarf 
Lord and marginally cheaper Runesmith.  No plaque infelxibly lays down
for posterity the unbending maxim of using both Lords Mazdamundi and
Kroak, along with a suitably aged Slann of the fourth level with every
item worth 75 points or more that you can lay your hands upon.  
Nowhere is it written that thou shalt NOT go into battle without 
accompanying Allies to fill ye gaps in thy lines.

No, the game does not tell you to do this.  It doesn't make you do this.
But it does ALLOW you to do this, if that's the sort of game you want
to play - both of you, because it's not just YOU playing the game:  
you face, across 48 inches of varnished wood or flock, a fellow gamer,
who, in their depthless naiveté, just wants to have a good time.  To
spend a few hours having fun.  Whether you get the most fun out of
mighty heroes striding across the field of slaughter, mowing down 
entire armies as they go, or from carefully constructed armies, true
to the history of their race and tactics, is up to YOU.  And the game
permits both to be played with equal facility.  Neither approach is
wrong, when both players enjoy it.  It is when one of the players cannot
control his desire to win, and so ignores the wishes of his fellow,
that he descends to abuse, to cheese, to beardy play.  Just because
the game lets you do it is no reason to knacker it - do not shoot the
messenger, shoot the bastard who can't or won't play properly.  Make
it your business to correct them, because you WILL regret your inaction
and mere whining when, on that fateful day, you find yourself unable
to field a varied army, unable to use a wizard, unable to enjoy the
game anymore, all because of the massive restrictions and removals
imposed because people could not, or would not, stop themselves...

The beauty of Warhammer is that it allows you to do all the terrible,
cheesy things listed above.  I would far prefer to be allowed to take
such things should I and my opponent wish to play that way, than be 
forced to play in a very specific manner - compulsory troops, no or
extremely little magic, no scope for individual quirkiness or choice.

Too many times lately have I read people screaming for the reduction
of magic, or the removal of this or that item, the introduction of
the 40k army selection method.  Why?  Because they have played someone
who has taken full advantage of the possibilities of the game, without
regard for their opponent.  And so they rage about cheesy armies,
forgetting entirely that it was the person who made that army and
fielded it without bothering to enquire as to what sort of game was
expected that ruined their day, not the game or the options.

You say that reducing or removing magic, and toning down characters
even further, will help balance the game, make it better.  For whom?
Not I, when I want to occasionally play a magic dominated game.  Not
those who enjoy playing with mighty heroes, who crush 'neath their
sandals the jewelled thrones of the world whilst they bestride it.
Not those whose armies are designed to be played in a certain fashion.
Not those who who want to play as they would.  Your way is not the
only one, and certainly is not the best - there is no best way.

If you prefer just one style of play; if you don't like magic, and 
want it limited; if you are sick of facing unbeatable units or 
characters, and don't want to go to the same lengths in order to 
combat them - SAY SO.  Not to the Studio, or the list, but to your
opponent who has upset you.  They will never know what they are doing
wrong if you do not tell them.  Don't just whinge - do something.
Agree to play without magic.  Agree to play in character, or with
powerful characters.  Agree to tone things down.  But always remember,
it is YOU who choose - nobody and nothing chooses for you.