Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Martel732 wrote:I disagree with this philosophy.

You also lose every game if your forum posts are anything to go by...

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:It really isn't. Before the internet and games where a player didn't need to buy anything more than a rule book, it didn't take very long to figure out what the best class, abilities, spells, etc. if powergaming was your goal In the age of the internet it is even easier.

As much as some people what to believe that low hanging fruit of picking the thing that is completely better than the other thing makes them Napoleon, it really isn't. It is substituting actual skill for putting the game on an easier setting. In games like 40k, they give the impression that one player is better at the game than another when they are basically playing a 5th level character vs. a 3rd level character.

Having trap choices is wasted ink and pretty much the opposite of skill expression. Anyone wanting even something close to a competitive game (as in a game where the winner is a contest, not the colloquial use of it here on Dakka Dakka) are going to straight up easily avoid them leaving them to players that don't really care that much about winning to likely even play well anyways with the occasional player taking them to provide more challenge in winning depending on how much of a trap they are. So often times, trap options are doubling the difference of outcomes since the only ones taking them are the ones not likely to play all that well to begin with.

If a fluff player is constantly getting blown out because they built and purchased a terrible army, they should use the social contract that comes with playing a game to set up scenarios that work for their army and allow for a fun game. Otherwise even the 'best' army can lose to a skew list that it wasn't designed to fight.

Not Online!!! wrote:This is wrong at so many levels... All options should have some uses. Not all of them should be equal in all context. But when you put design time into creating something people will pay money to have, and spent time building and probably painting it, that thing should have a place. An utility, and not just to be a trap so people can kid themselves into thinking they are great at list building when most just copypaste lists from the internet.

That's not how real militaries work and it isn't how 40k works or has ever worked. Maybe there exists some ideal game that hits perfect balance while also holding a level of true to life (or lore) realism but that game isn't 40k.

I’m sorry, since when am I a billion dollar gaming company?

GW should balance the game-not perfectly, but a hell of a lot better.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
This example also applies to 40k which has always had units that are good/competitive and units that are bad/uncompetitive. That's reality.

(...)

Show me a time that this has ever been the case for 40k. I'll wait.

(...)

It's mathematically impossible for there not to be a worst unit in a math-based game like 40k. Define what you mean by 'generally just good' versus 'super optimized' and then tell me how you would test for that to ensure that it happens; then repeat that process for every unit in the game. I eagerly await your results.

That sonic boom you hear is the sound of goalposts flying from 'deliberate imbalance is a good thing because it rewards me for being able to netlist' to 'flawlessly perfect balance isn't possible'.

There's a big difference between "the unit is worse than that one" and "this is a bad unit".

"You also lose every game if your forum posts are anything to go by..."

I only talk about the losses for the most part. Usually ugly ones. And that has nothing to do with this analysis anyway.

Suffice to say, I disagree with Canadian's posts, for a variety of the reasons given above.

Units existing just to be considered "trash" units because "there's objectively trash military units IRL" is terrible game design for a *game*.

Martel732 wrote:
IF and IH were crippling me in 2 turns anyway.

With the current deployment rules...hide and drop stuff into deepstrike. Let them take ground turn 1 and if they overtuned their list for the doctrine they'll suffer.

 catbarf wrote:
It's a garbage design philosophy. It may have a business justification in a genre (TCGs) designed to encourage you to spend more to get the randomly-distributed 'good' cards, but it has absolutely no place in serious game design.

Name a successful competitive videogame where the developers deliberately introduce trap options to reward the 'skill' of picking the meta choice. Heck, name a successful non-TCG analog game with that philosophy.

*cough* 40k *cough* Or do you think that GW doesn't intentionally nudge units to make sales?

League of Legends balances for 4 tiers of play. A pick that works at one level is likely not as effective at another level and this is entirely intentional.

Hearthstone is a CCG, you specified non-TCG remember, that also uses MtG style card balance.

This is only true if
1. You place no value on collecting the army that works the way you want it to or are most comfortable with,
2. You have no skills relevant to the actual game which make your choice of list more effective than one randomly generated,
3. 'Everything is worth taking in some context' actually means 'randomly-generated slapped-together lists are just as effective as ones created with a plan and understanding of strategy', which is simply false.

Most importantly: The fact that perfect design is nigh-impossible does not in any way justify embracing deliberate imbalance so that netlisters can feel like they have credible skill, ESPECIALLY for a game as hobby-oriented as this one.

1. There exists no game where hat you want is possible so I'm going to ignore this suggestion. Developers should not be forced to chase an impossible goal.
2. If the game were to be perfectly balanced this would be an equally viable way to play.
3. Show me a version of this game, or any other asymmetrical game for that matter, where every unit was/is viable.

My stance on the matter is that, given that perfect balance is impossible, designers should seek to add strategy and skill expression to each level of gameplay play.

The first level is figuring out your style of play. If you prefer hardcore tournaments it's advisable to check the rules and meta for those before moving onto the next step. For a less competitive player, this might involve picking an army that speaks to them.

At the first level, you have a list building/unit selection. Your task here is to build a list that meets your goals on the table. At this stage, the worst units in terms of balance are likely to be filtered out by people who care about winning games.

The next level is pregame, how will you deploy what optional wargear or psychic powers will you take.

Finally is the actual gameplay where the models are moved and dice are rolled.

None of this means that there shouldn't be balance between armies, each army should have lists that appeal to all levels of play, this goal, however, doesn't require all units to be equally playable at every level. In fact, some units could even exist solely to look cool in a diorama. After all, in a game as hobby focused as ours that can be its entire point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
This example also applies to 40k which has always had units that are good/competitive and units that are bad/uncompetitive. That's reality.

(...)

Show me a time that this has ever been the case for 40k. I'll wait.

(...)

It's mathematically impossible for there not to be a worst unit in a math-based game like 40k. Define what you mean by 'generally just good' versus 'super optimized' and then tell me how you would test for that to ensure that it happens; then repeat that process for every unit in the game. I eagerly await your results.

That sonic boom you hear is the sound of goalposts flying from 'deliberate imbalance is a good thing because it rewards me for being able to netlist' to 'flawlessly perfect balance isn't possible'.

You can quote me as stating that the game, even before the recent FAQ, was in a good place balance-wise. My stance on that hasn't changed so you don't have the gotcha here that you think you have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Suffice to say, I disagree with Canadian's posts, for a variety of the reasons given above.

Units existing just to be considered "trash" units because "there's objectively trash military units IRL" is terrible game design for a *game*.

It doesn't surprise me that all the people who hate tournament-style lists and gameplay would disagree with a person approaching the game from a tournament playing mindset...

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’m sorry, since when am I a billion dollar gaming company?

GW should balance the game-not perfectly, but a hell of a lot better.

They're working on it. I mean, the latest errata helped a lot.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It doesn't surprise me that all the people who hate tournament-style lists and gameplay would disagree with a person approaching the game from a tournament playing mindset...

'The game should be deliberately imbalanced so it rewards me for exploiting its rules (or just netlisting)' isn't a 'tournament playing mindset'.

It's a 'bad player looking for a way to start the game with an unfair advantage' mindset.

Folks like Nick Nanavati aren't asking GW to pretty please leave IH alone so they can be rewarded for the strategic genius of using the same broken lists everyone else is. Good players don't need to exploit bad balance to win, let alone pretend that it's a legitimate game skill.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

*cough* 40k *cough* Or do you think that GW doesn't intentionally nudge units to make sales?

Banshees in PA. Brand new kit. Did people want to use them? Nope.
They took a point cut. Do people want to use them? Still nope (according to the forums).

So what's GW's angle here? Do you think they're not selling banshees outside the competitive arena? Because it's a bet you'd lose.



That's $8,000 of those models on just eBay. Do you really think GW needs to nudge models to sell them? "The worst unit ever" - CSM have listings with 113 + 71 + 91 + 264 from SS...and that's all I care to look at. That's a gak ton of models through a single sales channel for models that are "not good".

They don't even make a Chaplain Dread right now, but it is one of the most popular models on tables right now. What do you figure the strategy is there?

And what's even more absurd about this notion is that GW could never ever nerf anything without someone calling it a nudge even if the unit needed it.

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It doesn't surprise me that all the people who hate tournament-style lists and gameplay would disagree with a person approaching the game from a tournament playing mindset...

'The game should be deliberately imbalanced so it rewards me for exploiting its rules (or just netlisting)' isn't a 'tournament playing mindset'.

It's a 'bad player looking for a way to start the game with an unfair advantage' mindset.

Folks like Nick Nanavati aren't asking GW to pretty please leave IH alone so they can be rewarded for the strategic genius of using the same broken lists everyone else is. Good players don't need to exploit bad balance to win, let alone pretend that it's a legitimate game skill.

Bruh, I haven't even posted a list yet and my current collection doesn't contain a single Primaris model as I bought it years ago. On top of that I play DA who haven't exactly had it great ith 8th edition. If anybody marines player should be crying about Primaris power creep it would be me, but I'm entirely cool with it.

Take your false narrative and shove it.

Saying "there should be bad units" isn't a tournament mindset. It's a "I only have fun when I'm using the same list everyone else is using and curb-stomping this lame casual" mindset. In fact, the tournament scene would be a whole lot more interesting if there were more "good" choices, allowing for a wider variety of build options and less "and here we have the exact same two lists you saw last game and they'll be doing the exact same thing you just saw". I mean, would it really be bad for a tournament to have a solid array of different lists?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

*cough* 40k *cough* Or do you think that GW doesn't intentionally nudge units to make sales?

Banshees in PA. Brand new kit. Did people want to use them? Nope.
They took a point cut. Do people want to use them? Still nope (according to the forums).

So what's GW's angle here? Do you think they're not selling banshees outside the competitive arena? Because it's a bet you'd lose.

Spoiler:

51 Jain Zar
https://www.ebay.com/itm/40K-Jain-Zar-Howling-Banshees-Eldar-Phoenix-Lord-Warhammer-Blood-of-Phoenix/163910426357?hash=item2629d29ef5&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&enc=AQAEAAADcA%2BN9XuYeBVuIDcYQ9BCQ%2Fbyuz%2BG2es63YytanDUDMuICb5ZzaRSe0%2B8HrxWTMMG2qEKKFIzEhCe6brNJVeyVGASI1MKRN8snWGzEQvkF4D26LkB4fHYpp%2BNjtXCc6wUZUEf2ANi0g2srUTzc4vzqoKSSOmlu3p1pw4udlTic3aTyvAlhevKnd6KUU%2FGyQhtlNI5dINUywjzCiq3%2Bron5h5ldyCaR6L0awGOHIYKzpYrceK3uxij3%2B40pPnr8f9Phl6SFyZv3ko92CWjUrM6InRmxHhbPWL2KxEKfXbj32Vca3Q5N4IiQr2GMorIZLk6BftgQNdMzGGqZ4uIw6tRMvbuc7FZ1Vwktbv1T%2F8i7JrEAP%2BusfYzab%2BnHKM5ADwrwfVBR5cCy1vyJHRxIBE41uMsttNyGsppqLlf%2B1Ge0zAho6a7IVP68GhJUX058OW4D8Qlb85bIPbbU7rq7f%2FWWWh7qs7nb6qM8ns3jOnQOpq7BGZ6GBmejy9UHOlj63zGM5beqrJSGpG%2B97hLFdDMI2yo0CDPWcwRJw%2BNJl%2Fw9yQNVp4X3ANDXW5t3RkXf9bPmBKpWgN0JvYixhGyG6RWpJuIuoDh9aviz%2BpVp5xZjfGsOZCD%2BCAuPK%2FbOqf8NUGjxMHirjc0rYkdqH2lT8UoHWsC5NJrqAjfOU0SgqvZ4EGUmdffq8dbSZs4%2F1CgBYGAotmnQN1EvxRP%2B1OdfVxxkF3z77VSMbi%2BbfU2gxOZPHa9lA0Ew3Fpj1%2BH8n28HJ62Kl2ACqE05pUJjyzNm%2Ff71%2Fnky8gO7Em8AsRiSk7tcxKjIbuyK%2FNKwNJ7hEs6wS%2BOK86I5Y54EZCxiLjY1meSvGiGy1%2B0S16WXmmImDdHLw3Fntr%2FmIzjwHpbqbVQ8EM7CnNpGvN56oq%2BexeZ77QSaCTKwoJqqgXDyOtyMwkylJVm0KFJPP0k%2F%2Fxj1rAuldqrrLOTM5KKCmX3e7huE9ExxO3HaYiBsuG9ujWNQjynqpD86pcOmssqUI6BGhs%2FTExv7Qrg29M0e0WdZHcihxQavUf1kF8Y0c4qpjCzi5vxZsBy6M5lh%2BJLyVY%2BqyupbJcP5J7xW8IxAuVkaYPCThsjTHGWZZdh9Y7pYxYHgWucDp1fhDqwR3oG2iXs%2F2Y%2BvNHmp7TUimC8Jy8J85SZWgLxHWo%3D&checksum=163910426357e029a9c740174cbeab6d71feab4639c1

58 Banshees
https://www.ebay.com/itm/5-Howling-Banshees-Blood-of-the-Phoenix-Warhammer-40K-Eldar-Craftworlds/163910426884?hash=item2629d2a104:g:MOYAAOSwEd1dqlWg

55 Banshees
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Howling-Banshees-Aeldari-Eldar-Blood-of-the-Phoenix-40K-Plastic/133206568754?hash=item1f03baef32:g:QqoAAOSwwFldqQyc

That's $8,000 of those models on just eBay. Do you really think GW needs to nudge models to sell them? "The worst unit ever" - CSM have listings with 113 + 71 + 91 + 264 from SS...and that's all I care to look at. That's a gak ton of models through a single sales channel for models that are "not good".

They don't even make a Chaplain Dread right now, but it is one of the most popular models on tables right now. What do you figure the strategy is there?

And what's even more absurd about this notion is that GW could never ever nerf anything without someone calling it a nudge even if the unit needed it.

Somebody bought all those Banshees, why should GW care if they later went on to resell them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
Saying "there should be bad units" isn't a tournament mindset. It's a "I only have fun when I'm using the same list everyone else is using and curb-stomping this lame casual" mindset. In fact, the tournament scene would be a whole lot more interesting if there were more "good" choices, allowing for a wider variety of build options and less "and here we have the exact same two lists you saw last game and they'll be doing the exact same thing you just saw". I mean, would it really be bad for a tournament to have a solid array of different lists?

See my post right above yours...

Those are trade sales by FLGS that use eBay. It clearly demonstrates demand for models - despite rules. GW literally don't ever need make gak OP to sell models.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those are trade sales by FLGS that use eBay. It clearly demonstrates demand for models - despite rules. GW literally don't ever need make gak OP to sell models.

Don't need to doesn't mean doesn't do, but it's impossible to prove that somebody doesn't do anything so I'll just leave this paticular line of argument at unresolvable.

I don't really care if you've posted a list or not, because it doesn't matter in regards to the mindset of "there should be objectively bad choices". It's (I want to curb stomp my opponents with the same list everyone else is using) not a false narrative because that mindset either doesn't apply to you (and I didn't call you out by name) or it does and it's a true narrative. Pick one.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those are trade sales by FLGS that use eBay. It clearly demonstrates demand for models - despite rules. GW literally don't ever need make gak OP to sell models.

Don't need to doesn't mean doesn't do, but it's impossible to prove that somebody doesn't do anything so I'll just leave this paticular line of argument at unresolvable.

It is likewise to prove that somebody does do something without consistent and repeatable evidence.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Bruh, I haven't even posted a list yet and my current collection doesn't contain a single Primaris model as I bought it years ago. On top of that I play DA who haven't exactly had it great ith 8th edition. If anybody marines player should be crying about Primaris power creep it would be me, but I'm entirely cool with it.

None of this is at all relevant to the fact that you're saying the game should deliberately have bad balance to reward listbuilding rather than actual skill at gameplay, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

Did you think I was accusing you of wanting IH to stay broken? I used Nick as an example of a high-level competitive player who doesn't call for imbalance nor use listbuilding as a crutch for bad generalship. He has a competitive mindset, and it's about being good at the game, not using spreadsheets to club seals and calling it skill.

flandarz wrote:I don't really care if you've posted a list or not, because it doesn't matter in regards to the mindset of "there should be objectively bad choices". It's (I want to curb stomp my opponents with the same list everyone else is using) not a false narrative because that mindset either doesn't apply to you (and I didn't call you out by name) or it does and it's a true narrative. Pick one.

catbarf wrote:None of this is at all relevant to the fact that you're saying the game should deliberately have bad balance to reward listbuilding rather than actual skill at gameplay, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

Did you think I was accusing you of wanting IH to stay broken? I used Nick as an example of a high-level competitive player who doesn't call for imbalance nor use listbuilding as a crutch for bad generalship. He has a competitive mindset, and it's about being good at the game, not using spreadsheets to club seals and calling it skill.

This applies to both of you so I'll save myself doing individual replies.

None of the players at the top tables net deck and an average to poor player with the exact same list wouldn't win a tournament. If either of you are trying to imply that you can rock up to a tournament with a less than bulletproof list that you know how to run and do well I think we can end this discussion right here.

As for why bad choices are good they reward the ability to spot and avoid them. That could be via reading the codex/FAQ/supplements or just via asking on a forum such as Dakka. They also help to separate the wheat from the chaff when the meta does shift or a new edition drops. These 'net lists' didn't all drop fully formed onto tables and the process of discovering what to use before the community has reached a consensus on what to use and waht not to use is a skill worth rewarding.

That said outright terrible units are often so obviously bad that sorting them out early isn't a high bar, so the game could do with a raising of the floor (which I have advocated for up thread) rather than nerfing things at the top.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those are trade sales by FLGS that use eBay. It clearly demonstrates demand for models - despite rules. GW literally don't ever need make gak OP to sell models.

I think what that demonstrates is huge supply... But not necessarily the demand. You'd need the actual "sales completed" analytic here. As someone who flips models on the regular, usualy when theres good models with good rules there ain't that many on ebay because as soon as they are below RRP price people gobble them up.

Theres a reason there are a bazillion falcolns & Vypers for sale

I think the disagreement here boils down to you saying that spotting the bad choices is preferable, while myself and the others are saying spotting the superior choices is preferable. A good game (and by extension, a good tournament scene) shouldn't boil down to less than a dozen viable builds (or slight variations of). That's not fun to play or watch.

While the lists are obviously being built by skilled players, it certainly doesn't take much skill to copy their list and strategy. A more skill-based list building scene would have more equivalent choices. Then people would be testing out far more variations on and coming up with a large variety of lists and strategies.

Side note: people HAVE won tournaments with "less than bullet-proof lists". Partly because random dice, but also because they recognize shifts in the meta and look for ways to exploit them. For example, right now the meta is geared towards taking out Primaris. Knowing that, you could (theoretically) build a list that exploits the abundance of high AP and 2 Damage weaponry. It may even be "suboptimal" under normal conditions, but the environment would make it a winner.

To an extent Cadian is correct. In general it's not smart to buy Power Weapons for Infantry sergeants, period. They're not a melee unit and never will be. Why should Power Weapons be even CHEAPER than they are just for them? They shouldn't be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
I think the disagreement here boils down to you saying that spotting the bad choices is preferable, while myself and the others are saying spotting the superior choices is preferable. A good game (and by extension, a good tournament scene) shouldn't boil down to less than a dozen viable builds (or slight variations of). That's not fun to play or watch.

While the lists are obviously being built by skilled players, it certainly doesn't take much skill to copy their list and strategy. A more skill-based list building scene would have more equivalent choices. Then people would be testing out far more variations on and coming up with a large variety of lists and strategies.

Side note: people HAVE won tournaments with "less than bullet-proof lists". Partly because random dice, but also because they recognize shifts in the meta and look for ways to exploit them. For example, right now the meta is geared towards taking out Primaris. Knowing that, you could (theoretically) build a list that exploits the abundance of high AP and 2 Damage weaponry. It may even be "suboptimal" under normal conditions, but the environment would make it a winner.

Except those lists have always been one-offs and not overall successful for a reason.

This is true, but the argument was that it taking a "less than bullet-proof list and winning a tournament" is absurd. It, however, DOES happen, even if rarely.

 flandarz wrote:
This is true, but the argument was that it taking a "less than bullet-proof list and winning a tournament" is absurd. It, however, DOES happen, even if rarely.

Which is a point of luck. Someone creating a decent TAC list should not lose to another TAC list because they chose the incorrect army. THAT is not good design. However that's the design that's being defended.

I agree. Which is why myself (and others) have argued that "bad" choices aren't preferable in this game.

 flandarz wrote:
I think the disagreement here boils down to you saying that spotting the bad choices is preferable, while myself and the others are saying spotting the superior choices is preferable. A good game (and by extension, a good tournament scene) shouldn't boil down to less than a dozen viable builds (or slight variations of). That's not fun to play or watch.

What are your thoughts of 'trap choices' things that look good due to either raw stats or special rules but that just never work in practice? Do those take skills to discover and would the game be better off without such tests of skill?

While the lists are obviously being built by skilled players, it certainly doesn't take much skill to copy their list and strategy. A more skill-based list building scene would have more equivalent choices. Then people would be testing out far more variations on and coming up with a large variety of lists and strategies.

Yeah, but those just copying the best list aren't winning major tournaments (I can't speak to FLGS tournaments where the turn out is tiny) and no balance change will stop them from doing it. The kind of player who netlists will take the tournament winning lists if they win by an inch or a mile.

Side note: people HAVE won tournaments with "less than bullet-proof lists". Partly because random dice, but also because they recognize shifts in the meta and look for ways to exploit them. For example, right now the meta is geared towards taking out Primaris. Knowing that, you could (theoretically) build a list that exploits the abundance of high AP and 2 Damage weaponry. It may even be "suboptimal" under normal conditions, but the environment would make it a winner.

They never have sustained success and your looking for any loophole you can get is laughable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
This is true, but the argument was that it taking a "less than bullet-proof list and winning a tournament" is absurd. It, however, DOES happen, even if rarely.

Which is a point of luck. Someone creating a decent TAC list should not lose to another TAC list because they chose the incorrect army. THAT is not good design. However that's the design that's being defended.

I've said that we should raise the floor for the worst armies. Units can be imbalanced but armies should all have a range of roughly balanced playable lists.

I don't believe "trap choices" are a test of skill. Even if you don't ask around the internet first, or have the know-how to spot them, you're only gonna field it maybe a handful of times before you figure it out anyway. I guess the "trap", in this case, is that GW trapped you into spending money and time on a unit that's bad, so yay, I guess?

If GW's stance is "forge the narrative", then all units should, at least, be viable. If I wanna, say, build an Ork army that centers around Burna Boyz (which is currently an extremely bad choice), that should be a viable option. It doesn't have to be "top of the meta", but it shouldn't be a free win for my opponent either.

And that's what we've been saying to you. You should be able to field the army and the units with the lore you love and not be punished for it. You shouldn't have to be forced into less than a handful of lists in order to not get stomped into the ground. It doesn't have to range from awful to OP, when a range from good to great would suffice and make for a better game for everyone.

Edit: also, I don't believe that all units should be either equally good, or equally good at everything. A "trap choice" could just be a unit that works well under certain circumstances, or against certain targets/opponents. That's fine. But there shouldn't be out and out, in every circumstance, bad picks for units or Factions. Ideally, every unit and Faction should have options and the chance to shine as the meta shifts.

 flandarz wrote:
I don't believe "trap choices" are a test of skill. Even if you don't ask around the internet first, or have the know-how to spot them, you're only gonna field it maybe a handful of times before you figure it out anyway. I guess the "trap", in this case, is that GW trapped you into spending money and time on a unit that's bad, so yay, I guess?

You failed the skill test, welcome to the game.

If GW's stance is "forge the narrative", then all units should, at least, be viable. If I wanna, say, build an Ork army that centers around Burna Boyz (which is currently an extremely bad choice), that should be a viable option. It doesn't have to be "top of the meta", but it shouldn't be a free win for my opponent either.

Then talk to your opponent and set up a fluffy fun game where your bad units have a chance. Use the social contract that is part of the game to your advantage.

And that's what we've been saying to you. You should be able to field the army and the units with the lore you love and not be punished for it. You shouldn't have to be forced into less than a handful of lists in order to not get stomped into the ground. It doesn't have to range from awful to OP, when a range from good to great would suffice and make for a better game for everyone.

You also shouldn't run your fluffy weak list into a guy grinding reps for ITC and expect a close game. Talking to your opponents and planning a match is part of the game, so try that step once in a while too.

Edit: also, I don't believe that all units should be either equally good, or equally good at everything. A "trap choice" could just be a unit that works well under certain circumstances, or against certain targets/opponents. That's fine. But there shouldn't be out and out, in every circumstance, bad picks for units or Factions. Ideally, every unit and Faction should have options and the chance to shine as the meta shifts.

Your definition of a 'trap' is a specialist unit and they already exist.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’m sorry, since when am I a billion dollar gaming company?

GW should balance the game-not perfectly, but a hell of a lot better.

What a strange dig to make on the day where they have literally balanced the game better.

You get free erratas and faqs.