We See the Same Mistake With Most Releases

[@capsaicinJT]

a good example that comes to mind: eldar windriders. they have a bunch of different weapon options, but you'd be kinda crazy to take anything other than all shuriken cannons. scatter lasers can be good too into light infantry, but if you want that you can just take shroud runners instead for the same points. and the shuriken catapults just do not have the sauce.

[@LetsTalkTabletop]

Great point!

[@Benjaminy2k]

The fun thing about xeno weapons is that you can model them however you like and tell your opponent it's whatever happens to be optimal at the moment. Imperium players won't know the difference and xeno players won't call your bluff because they're doing it too.

[@davidwasilewski]

Is it a mistake though? In the current edition, it’s a no-brainier choice. But in the NEXT edition, it’ll be a different weapon load out that’s the no-brainier pick. This forces a lot of tournament players, or players who want to play Wysiwyg, to go out and have to buy a load more miniatures to still have a competitive unit in the meta.

[@sagacity1071]

If only weapons had a point cost... oh wait, we can't have that....

[@maxbooth179]

If only various packages of weapons and wargear could be balanced against one another without the need for points

[@jeffreymccann4050]

I've dropped 40k partially due to the new list building rules. Mostly sticking to 30k and TOW for now.

[@peterixon8708]

You made a stack of great points. No quick answers, but plenty to muse over. Thanks mate. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you.

[@LetsTalkTabletop]

Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too!

[@hephesto555666]

That's the thing with list building, there needs to be some sort of resource management. Points usually do the trick, but I've also seen plenty of games that have unlock requirements or where specialist gear, weapons etc. is drawn from a limited pool. Leads to quite a different feel at times, where certain games you're struggling with managing scarcity while at other times choice overload gets to you. There will always be a better or best options, especially if your game has a competitive meta. But in a game like 40K you're doubly penalised for taking the subpar choice. You are worse of and your opponent didn't have to trade in anything to get that advantage. So unless you are picking weapons and gear based on the meta, your direct opponent and list optimisation, assuming you are even knowledgeable enough about what is a very complex game, the gap between players quickly becomes huge. Though granted this has been the major problem of 40K's competitive scene for the last decade............people who do not live the game, have the time to keep up with all releases or who aren't able or willing to constantly expand their collections to keep up with the meta will get their behinds kicked constantly. If your local scene is competitive and that's not your primary focus you're essentially screwed if you want to get some games in. And lets not forget 40K is a big game, in everything from cost, rules and hobby time invested. We're not talking Deadzone for example where you could find out a Specialist doesn't work for the rest of your force and you just find a single other profile / weapon with cool model to replace that one Specialist. Getting the 'wrong' unit in 40K sets you back at least a single box and Emperor knows how many hours of painting.

[@daniellord-vera6987]

I’m exited for trench crusade honestly it’s affordable, has a great concept, easy to play like chess

[@zacharyloflin3523]

So very true. Like I mentioned before, ork vehicles used to go faster if they were red, so why wouldn’t you make it red? And I wasn’t even competing at that point, I just thought it was fun.

[@AFnord]

The Red Paint Job did cost points though, it wasn't a free upgrade. In 3rd edition it added 10% to the cost of a Trukk (before weapons), for 1 inch extra move, in 5th they upped the point cost. A better example of rules where the model mattered would be the old scythes rule for chariots from 5th edition WHFB. While scythes did have a point cost, it was a flat cost, and the number of impact hits caused by the scythes were dependent on the number of scythes on the model.

[@adambarlev8992]

I spent so long magnetizing my tau, but there was no point, the best weapon was completely dominant. Then I started gluing them on... And when the codex came out all my crisis suits were illegal! Screw you GW

[@mtgmac1]

This is the typical pitfall of free wargear. You can and will math out the best picks and your game will be solved quicker. So you need to pivot and make "balance changes" which serve nobody but you and change around the power of gear, options or models. Gotta love the business model of perfect imbalance. It's devious in its brilliancy. So devious that I saw it for what it is years ago and decided not to fuel it anymore.

[@frankmaybury5292]

magic and psychic tends to have that problem in all editions I agree with you so much on this. Even when its a random generation thing they tend to give advantages to high level casters like lore of heavens in 6th comet of casendora was brutal lol. better have a few dispel scrolls lol. I still loved 6th but dang that could be brutal.

[@duymon7296]

I hate 10th edition and its 0 wargear cost building because you're forced to take the Best in Slot option for EVERYTYHING. There's no more tweaking units by taking slightly weaker options in order to free up points for a whole extra unit or something. HH 2.0 does it better

[@LetsTalkTabletop]

Actually, I can't believe that didn't come to mind when I was discussing this. I completely agree with you.

[@LinkiePup]

The big reason why I am not a big fan of enhancements, and think the current Leader system in 40K are bad is because: In older editions, your character, the warlord, didn’t necessarily buff the unit they were attached to, unless explicitly stated, outside of Leadership. And on top of that, warlord traits added more flavor to just the character, with an occasional army wide buff. Also the why Warlord traits didn’t cost anything is because you were supposed to be upgrading your Warlord so that they were effective on their own, as well as adding to a uint they were attached too.

[@Grogeous_Maximus]

Alg for the algorithm gods!

[@LetsTalkTabletop]

Hey thanks maximus!

[@gk7003]

Another option is to have enhancements randomized

[@btpingel]

Well after everyone builds the best options, they can now make those options super expensive thus making everyone buy new models. GW wins with more sales.

[@bladblazer123]

You can pick any enhancement or loadout you want, this edition. Last one it was different, next one might be too. If you want to try the less “meta’ spell or enhancement because you like it for whatever reason and play with friends just do it.. who cares. This is on;y relevant to tournaments and having the need to play the “best”. Which means nothing. Have fun.. play a game

[@skeith1543]

that's not how people work. If everything is free, then people gravitate towards the best option. This is basic human nature. Points costs on gear actually forces choices. For instance. Warhammer Old World, your lord *could* take the 60 point magic sword with +2 str, ap-2, Armor bane 2 and magic attacks. or they could take the 5 point Great weapon which has +2 str, ap-2, Armor bane 1 at the cost of no magic attacks and striking last. they could then spend their magic item points elsewhere. Better hope the Enemy has no ethereal Units or doesn't hit really hard and kill you before you can hit back though. If the Magic sword and the great weapon cost nothing to take, you'd grab the magic sword every time. without fail. It's simply better and has zero downsides other then the hefty point cost. that's the same thing with 40k right now. even in friendly games, the objective is to win and no one likes losing without at least giving their best effort. why would you hamstring yourself? The only way that it would work is if both sides agree to use subpar options or limit the best choices to like 1 unit. that way you don't get one side is geared towards the optimum selections and the other is naively trying to play honorably with a variety of selections that for his army are just inferior cause the best options are free. This is a key part of most war games, make choices and sacrifices in the army creation so that you can have a few good things at the cost of other less desirable options. then making the best of it with tactics. To go back to Old World again. I find Spear equipped units are best for infantry. So i want big chunky units with spears to better defend against enemy attacks. but Spears cost more. if i go hard on spears maybe i only get 2 big units of infantry. but if i sacrifice one unit of spears and take smaller basic units, i can get 4 infantry units. more tactical flexibility at the cost of durability. but if the spears are free and the models cost the same regardless of equipped weapons, i'll just make 3 or 4 spear units.

[@bladblazer123]

@ i do not dissagree with things not being balanced 100%. Things can and never will be balanced perfectly in a game with 20+ factions, hundreds of units with even more abilities enhancements, wargear, spells, attached characters etc. Nor is the point of Warhammer to be so balanced. I think the most detrimental thing going on right now is all the balancing and constant changing of everything for the sake of balance. When my Blood angels (before the new codex) beat the rubric thousand Sons horde of flamers that was epic and an achievement. And not likely to happen often as i got bbqed all the time. Next edition or now likely next week in the next dataslate things will be different again. Im just a bit tyred of people complaining About everything. Have fun, play how you want to play. The game relies mostly on dice rolls wich in itself is not balanced at all. If you want to be the winner as much as possible. Pick optimal and go for it. I like to win, and i also like to see my friends win. Both are wins in my book. There Will always be less desirable options. If millions of People would play the game the video creator brutal something, he would find his system is also not balanced. Or had a much much smaller selection of everything. If people want balanced go play chess or something. War is never balanced and neither should Warhammer be. Everything now is just being dumbed down to nothing.

[@madluper]

Bump

[@LetsTalkTabletop]

Haha. Awww, thanks!

[@michaelroth2166]

As usual, the arguments are somewhat based upon emotion, appeal to "obviously" while relying entirely on a flawed premise: "All choices should be equal". There is no reason why enhancements need to be the same cost across one faction. You were soo close in the end. Yeah, players CAN min/max the fun out of a game but you can still put in subpar choices for people that want to play a certain way or want to play a "fluffy" list.

[@schnuersi]

I think you turn cause and effect upside down. Yes, underpowered choices might still be intresting for narrative play or somd special occation like a "who ca build the worst list" contest. It stays an underpowered and thus unbalanced option though. Which is simply poor design. Arguing that it might be usefull in specific circumstances is just trying to find excuses. A well designed and balanced game has fluffy options too... only they are on the same powerlevel as the rest. No need to compromise narrative and fluffy with effectiv or even competative. There are plenty of games and designers out there who try to achieve this. In some cases they are successfull. Especially GW dowsn't seem to care and use power creep and lack of balance to sell more stuff.

[@michaelroth2166]

@@schnuersi "only they are on the same powerlevel as the rest" why? You assume this without any justification. No game is perfectly balanced (besides rock paper scissors). Yes it would be nice if flavour choices were not weaker than other ones but just because they are does not cause any problem to the game.

[@schnuersi]

@@michaelroth2166 "You assume this without any justification." The justification has been presented in the video. I do share these points. Balance is not just about the number of plus or minus modifiers but also about how likely they apply and how they fit into the context of the rules in general. I never claimed that there is perfect balance, which BTW does exist and there are games that have it, or that perfect balance is needed. But reasonable balance IMHO is a requirement. Such choices should actually be meaningfull for the gameplay. Otherwise they are unnessary baggage or bloat. If there are three options and two are obviously inferiour why have them in the first place? Just make the sensible choice standard and delete the rest. Problems arise in the greater context. Of different rules stacking and factions interacting. A faction that has poor or "meh" choices or even if they have one good one is at a disadvantage. If nothing else the fact that they have only one good one makes the predictable. Especially in GW games, that are mostly won by listbuilding and optimising the interaction of special rules, its important to actually allow players to participate in this. Giving a faction "meh" choices in such an environment is poor design and bad customer service.

[@michaelroth2166]

@@schnuersi Holy wall of text batman. No, the justification isn't in the video. No, I didn't claim perfect balance doesn't exist but rather that practically no somewhat complex game achieves it. If you have 3 choices that are somewhat optimal and two that are duds, you still have choices. This isn't bloat either. "GW games, that are mostly won by listbuilding" basically everyone that is actually playing those games professionally disagrees with you. Familiarity and understanding of lists / matchups is far more important than lists. Giving a faction 5 instead of 3 choices with 2 that are "meh" isn't poor design, no.

[@TheAurgelmir]

There is an argument I've heard - but might not agree with - that there should always be a "better option," because that's where the interesting builds come in. But, at the same time, that's where balance issues also comes in hard. It's nigh on impossible to make a perfectly balanced game like Warhammer. But, I think it would be more enjoyable for everyone if it was. Where choices were more equal, but the combination of choices and how you played was how the game became fun. Especially in a collectible hobby game like Warhammer, the look at feel of a unit matters to a lot of players - it always suck to feel the unit that drew you to an army isn't what's good. (Like Dark Angels back in the day was just Death Wing and Raven Wing, even though I personally like the green armor...)

[@zondervonstrek]

I have heard "GW is doomed" every few years for a decade and GW is making more money now than ever before. They will not stop, they will not improve. It will keep going on like this until people stop buying.

[@bartlester591]

If you want, my opinion, games workshop is about to have an apocalypse on themselves. By that I mean the fact that there’s a couple of the channels I watch and they’ve been talking about the fact that there are gaming stores now that are just basically kicking games workshop out of their stores that means no more no product at all because game workshop is refusing to sell to them or some nonsense I don’t know but what is picking up steam because it started with one store and now there’s several stores that are doing this I think workshop is going to lose. I see you in a couple years losing 80 to 90% of the hobby store and seeing things like trench, Crusade picking up more steam and outpacing games workshop and a lot of it has got to do with the fact that they just decided to cave in to Amazon About the TV deal and the fact that they decided to go completely in early woke and their precious are outrageous

[@neoraven223]

i have yet to see any game store near me kicking them out if anything they get more stock. the store near me stocks more than the official warhammer store in my city we even have a games workshop warehouse here as well. maybe in their local area they are doing it but for a lot its expanding. my store gets large shipments twice a month.

[@bartlester591]

@ it’s going to take time, but I would bet within the next year or two you start seeing a lot of gaming stores divesting themselves of games workshop stuff and games workshop trying to funnel everybody to either getting your stuff online or through their stores at higher prices and that is what’s going to kill them in the end with cheaper games like trench, crusade, gaming, popularity, and stuff like one page rules, and other things where you can just download your miniatures and print them out yourself workshop their own extinction and they’re doing themselves

[@sagacity1071]

Doubtful... toxic positivity still owns the GW discourse.

[@robertchmielecki2580]

I have seen the internet preaching that the end is nigh for GW for like a quarter of a century now. And they are only getting stronger. Like it or not, business-wise they know what they are doing.

[@Dre0oq]

@@robertchmielecki2580 This. KZbinrs make money on doom and gloom. Meanwhile, GW is about as large as the entire British fishing industry. 11,000% increase since their IPO in the '90s. I'm not saying it's always been smooth sailing for GW, but a handful of FLGS that mismanaged their relationship with GW and drop them is not a threat to their business.