100% agree with this, iv been talking in my group about this aswell and just think it would be a lot better, when thr CSM book came out first thing people was doing is looking at the detachments that had armour of contempt in it the rest of them got overlooked pritty much instantly.... (still only played felhammer siege host myself) but yeah an army strat that is the "go to strat" would make more detachments a lot more viable
IN THEORY, there isn't much benefit-other than simplicity-to making it a hard rule that all detachments MUST share a common stratagem. It just removes balancing knobs. I think the better way to frame it would be that we shouldn't refrain from having duplicates, and that it can be beneficial for those reasons you've pointed out.
@@Zejety That's certainly a different way to go about it. As I was more focused on the removing knobs aspect, you do raise a good point that maybe more repeats is enough on their own.
Really glad you've brought this up. As a new player I've wondered about this already. Would it not be more balanced to always have a set type of strategem for every army to balance durability and damage. Then add flavour with utility strats. Eg every detachment gets 1 damage dealer and one defensive buff, both being balanced against everyone else's. The aim being so all detachments are viable choices for competetive play, and winning games being more dependant on player skill in using what they have, rather than player resources in being able to field the right choices within a given meta. This will all intertwine with GW marketing strategy. But I really don't think it is necessary. They are totally undervaluing the quality of their products, and overlooking their customers enthusiasm for the product, in favour of endless deliberate re shuffling to trigger people to purchase. I think they would make just as much money selling models if the game was consistently a level playing field, because we love the models. We would still buy thousands of points worth of stuff across multiple armies, because we love the setting and the hobby. I think if they trusted the consumer more, and provided a competitive scene that relied more on player skill than list building, 40k would be in a much better place.
@@malevolentswarm It is certainly worth something to think about in terms of what makes more money. Constant rises and falls of army power levels or standardization. Unfortunately, I can't speak to many game systems that have a similar premise in which even playing fields maintain the attention of meta chasers. But, I would agree their evaluation of their product is misplaced. I think it has leaned too heavily on here is this cool model, you will buy it for ridiculously high prices, and we may or may not make it good to use this edition. You will assume we will because it is new but then we have examples such as Norns that are still very mixed in being worth. Then expect you to buy the books, to use the rules, but have no quality control to make sure things within the book are free of typos, or just make sense overall. But, back to just the game aspect, I have begun to find myself in the bandwagon of they write rules with intent to sell. Cynical? 100%. However, some imbalances are so clear it is hard to see otherwise.
@miztahmonstur admittedly the meta chasing aspect is exciting, it also generates lots of opportunity for people like yourself to make content, which is great, in a way it keeps everything fresh too. I also think with such a large games system it's obviously going to be hard perhaps impossible to get it right first time and have everything perfectly balanced. It's not going to happen is it. And I agree... less nerfs based approach and more upwards tweaking would be far more positive and a less frustrating/more fun way to address balancing. Perhaps they downgrade things to keep everything in check, rather than letting the whole system run away with itself into overpowered absurdity! Which would also not necessarily be fun.
@@malevolentswarm 100%, it is just to say that meta chasing tends to keep games alive and I haven't seen a system stay healthy without it. But yeah, balance is difficult. I just hope for an approach that many don't venture in because it is easier to nerf a thing at a time than buff things around it.
Weeelll about Tyranids I agree IF stratagems like tankshock apply to monsters, and some Tyranids get grenades and smoke keyword Otherwise it should be a better version of one of those
It gets too word soupy, but many of the monstrous creatures should have a special rule that allows them to tank shock. Or have the tank shock strategem usable for any unit with keyword Tank (just like keyword grenade or smoke) and give it to things like carnifexes and not neurothropes. And make so scout sentinels can't tank shock...it just makes no sense.
The problem is that this limits options and creativity instead of enhances it. I dont have a problem with an Army wide strategem, but i dont think it as universal for most armies as you want. You mention guard and always having reinforcements, but the all tank guard just lose a strategem with that. Tyranids are the same where there is not a strategem that really makes sense for every detatchment unless it is synapse or shadown of the warp related and that doesnt cover the feel no pain strat which is the one you would want. Do i think every detatchment should have at least 1 offensive killing firepower, 1 defensive resilience, and 1 mobility/objective control strategem; absolutely i do, but saying that all tyranids need to have the same thing instead of giving them something that all tyranids have, but has a different flavor because of that detachments evolution from a similar concept i think is a bad design choice. That all being said the problem is internal balance and choice for detachments. Do you choose the army style you want or the tactical strategems you like? And how do you balance that so that all the detachments are fun and competitive to play?
100% agree with this, iv been talking in my group about this aswell and just think it would be a lot better, when thr CSM book came out first thing people was doing is looking at the detachments that had armour of contempt in it the rest of them got overlooked pritty much instantly.... (still only played felhammer siege host myself) but yeah an army strat that is the "go to strat" would make more detachments a lot more viable
@@toxxicteddy5557 That's cool to hear so many others have considered this as well. Also, love to see somebody using Fellhammer!
Ayy 1k subs
@@zZ1n0 Thanks for the support!
IN THEORY, there isn't much benefit-other than simplicity-to making it a hard rule that all detachments MUST share a common stratagem. It just removes balancing knobs.
I think the better way to frame it would be that we shouldn't refrain from having duplicates, and that it can be beneficial for those reasons you've pointed out.
@@Zejety That's certainly a different way to go about it. As I was more focused on the removing knobs aspect, you do raise a good point that maybe more repeats is enough on their own.
Really glad you've brought this up.
As a new player I've wondered about this already. Would it not be more balanced to always have a set type of strategem for every army to balance durability and damage. Then add flavour with utility strats. Eg every detachment gets 1 damage dealer and one defensive buff, both being balanced against everyone else's. The aim being so all detachments are viable choices for competetive play, and winning games being more dependant on player skill in using what they have, rather than player resources in being able to field the right choices within a given meta.
This will all intertwine with GW marketing strategy. But I really don't think it is necessary. They are totally undervaluing the quality of their products, and overlooking their customers enthusiasm for the product, in favour of endless deliberate re shuffling to trigger people to purchase.
I think they would make just as much money selling models if the game was consistently a level playing field, because we love the models. We would still buy thousands of points worth of stuff across multiple armies, because we love the setting and the hobby.
I think if they trusted the consumer more, and provided a competitive scene that relied more on player skill than list building, 40k would be in a much better place.
@@malevolentswarm It is certainly worth something to think about in terms of what makes more money. Constant rises and falls of army power levels or standardization. Unfortunately, I can't speak to many game systems that have a similar premise in which even playing fields maintain the attention of meta chasers.
But, I would agree their evaluation of their product is misplaced. I think it has leaned too heavily on here is this cool model, you will buy it for ridiculously high prices, and we may or may not make it good to use this edition. You will assume we will because it is new but then we have examples such as Norns that are still very mixed in being worth.
Then expect you to buy the books, to use the rules, but have no quality control to make sure things within the book are free of typos, or just make sense overall. But, back to just the game aspect, I have begun to find myself in the bandwagon of they write rules with intent to sell. Cynical? 100%. However, some imbalances are so clear it is hard to see otherwise.
@miztahmonstur admittedly the meta chasing aspect is exciting, it also generates lots of opportunity for people like yourself to make content, which is great, in a way it keeps everything fresh too.
I also think with such a large games system it's obviously going to be hard perhaps impossible to get it right first time and have everything perfectly balanced. It's not going to happen is it.
And I agree... less nerfs based approach and more upwards tweaking would be far more positive and a less frustrating/more fun way to address balancing.
Perhaps they downgrade things to keep everything in check, rather than letting the whole system run away with itself into overpowered absurdity! Which would also not necessarily be fun.
@@malevolentswarm 100%, it is just to say that meta chasing tends to keep games alive and I haven't seen a system stay healthy without it. But yeah, balance is difficult. I just hope for an approach that many don't venture in because it is easier to nerf a thing at a time than buff things around it.
Weeelll about Tyranids I agree IF stratagems like tankshock apply to monsters, and some Tyranids get grenades and smoke keyword
Otherwise it should be a better version of one of those
@@FrogEnjoyer17 Interesting, I could be sold on it.
It gets too word soupy, but many of the monstrous creatures should have a special rule that allows them to tank shock. Or have the tank shock strategem usable for any unit with keyword Tank (just like keyword grenade or smoke) and give it to things like carnifexes and not neurothropes. And make so scout sentinels can't tank shock...it just makes no sense.
The problem is that this limits options and creativity instead of enhances it. I dont have a problem with an Army wide strategem, but i dont think it as universal for most armies as you want. You mention guard and always having reinforcements, but the all tank guard just lose a strategem with that. Tyranids are the same where there is not a strategem that really makes sense for every detatchment unless it is synapse or shadown of the warp related and that doesnt cover the feel no pain strat which is the one you would want.
Do i think every detatchment should have at least 1 offensive killing firepower, 1 defensive resilience, and 1 mobility/objective control strategem; absolutely i do, but saying that all tyranids need to have the same thing instead of giving them something that all tyranids have, but has a different flavor because of that detachments evolution from a similar concept i think is a bad design choice.
That all being said the problem is internal balance and choice for detachments. Do you choose the army style you want or the tactical strategems you like? And how do you balance that so that all the detachments are fun and competitive to play?
#neowashere
@@thetrueneoteric Thanks my guy!