Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?

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.

**catbarf**

alextroy wrote:
As I mentioned in my first post, I like the idea of many model and unit options being baked into the unit. Too many of these options are too hard to get the right points value for individually. Is a Meltagun worth 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 points on Unit X? What about on Unit Y? What is the right points for the Flamer on both those units?

Making them free allows the designers to concentrate on balancing the options against each other (Flamer vs Melta vs Plasma) while deciding one cost for the unit.

On the flip side, if they're free and you have to balance them against one another, then you run into the same problem- how a flamer stacks up against a plasma gun is going to be different for a BS3+ unit than a BS4+ unit, or a deep striking unit vs a relatively static one.

You can, of course, start giving the same weapons different stats for different units, but then that gets to be a headache to remember. And at that point, wouldn't it just be cleaner to just keep the weapons the same, but have the costs vary unit-by-unit?

FWIW I agree with you that I like the idea of baking 'standard' equipment into the unit and offering sidegrades that give you interesting choices rather than just Budget vs Expensive options. I'm just not sure it actually makes it easier to balance.

**H.B.M.C.**

alextroy wrote:
As I mentioned in my first post, I like the idea of many model and unit options being baked into the unit. Too many of these options are too hard to get the right points value for individually. Is a Meltagun worth 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 points on Unit X? What about on Unit Y? What is the right points for the Flamer on both those units?

And to that, I call bull. The issue with these guns wasn't the individual points - I think that's just false dilemma of the highest order there - because the real issue was that you'd find the one gun that was the best in most situations (for a long time the plasma gun), and just take that. Flamers might be better in some situations, and meltas in others, but the plasma would do in the majority of situations your unit would find itself in, so it didn't matter whether it was 5 points or 6 points or 8 points or 10 points - it's what'd get the most use, so it was taken.

If you better define the roles for individual weapons, then this would cease to be an issue. From everything I've read/watched, cover is a much bigger deal in 10th, and things with "Ignore Cover" could be very important. Instant win for the Flamer. Overwatch has greater applications, and a weapon that auto-hits is very good there. Another tick for the Flamer. Grenade Launchers have received a boost (for those that have them), and you could define it differently from the plasma gun. And then you have the meltagun in a completely different role as anti-tank... or would have if GW hadn't left it behind and not upgraded it like they did other AT weapons like Lascannons.

These weapons are better than the default weapons. The idea that they should be free because working out how many points they should be is "too hard" is absolute bunk.

**Wyzilla**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
alextroy wrote:
As I mentioned in my first post, I like the idea of many model and unit options being baked into the unit. Too many of these options are too hard to get the right points value for individually. Is a Meltagun worth 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 points on Unit X? What about on Unit Y? What is the right points for the Flamer on both those units?
And to that, I call bull. The issue with these guns wasn't the individual points - I think that's just false dilemma of the highest order there - because the real issue was that you'd find the one gun that was the best in most situations (for a long time the plasma gun), and just take that. Flamers might be better in some situations, and meltas in others, but the plasma would do in the majority of situations your unit would find itself in, so it didn't matter whether it was 5 points or 6 points or 8 points or 10 points - it's what'd get the most use, so it was taken.

If you better define the roles for individual weapons, then this would cease to be an issue. From everything I've read/watched, cover is a much bigger deal in 10th, and things with "Ignore Cover" could be very important. Instant win for the Flamer. Overwatch has greater applications, and a weapon that auto-hits is very good there. Another tick for the Flamer. Grenade Launchers have received a boost (for those that have them), and you could define it differently from the plasma gun. And then you have the meltagun in a completely different role as anti-tank... or would have if GW hadn't left it behind and not upgraded it like they did other AT weapons like Lascannons.

These weapons are better than the default weapons. The idea that they should be free because working out how many points they should be is "too hard" is absolute bunk.

Part of the problem has GW also just increasing wargear bloat, thus I'm not highly opposed to the idea of changing combi weapons yet again as 10e did as one of the few positive changes. But similar to how in real warfare the differences of rifles are meaningless on the company level, or how all hand weapons are just hand weapons as Warhammer Fantasy understood, a lot of gak could be rolled into blanket definitions to encourage conversions for aesthetics while maintaining gameplay standards. The cardinal example of such weapons bloat before Primaris to me is the grav gun, which has always just been effectively competing with the plasma gun and meltagun for a role. Truly, we have no need for grav guns and could simply slap it and the plasma gun as identical weapons in rules and forget about needing to define the grav gun in some asinine manner from the other heavy infantry deleter. Worse than points is when you have so many ways to skin a cat and need to figure out what the hell you're committing to when gluing that gun on unless you're using magnets.

**alextroy**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
alextroy wrote:
As I mentioned in my first post, I like the idea of many model and unit options being baked into the unit. Too many of these options are too hard to get the right points value for individually. Is a Meltagun worth 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 points on Unit X? What about on Unit Y? What is the right points for the Flamer on both those units?
And to that, I call bull. The issue with these guns wasn't the individual points - I think that's just false dilemma of the highest order there - because the real issue was that you'd find the one gun that was the best in most situations (for a long time the plasma gun), and just take that. Flamers might be better in some situations, and meltas in others, but the plasma would do in the majority of situations your unit would find itself in, so it didn't matter whether it was 5 points or 6 points or 8 points or 10 points - it's what'd get the most use, so it was taken.

If you better define the roles for individual weapons, then this would cease to be an issue. From everything I've read/watched, cover is a much bigger deal in 10th, and things with "Ignore Cover" could be very important. Instant win for the Flamer. Overwatch has greater applications, and a weapon that auto-hits is very good there. Another tick for the Flamer. Grenade Launchers have received a boost (for those that have them), and you could define it differently from the plasma gun. And then you have the meltagun in a completely different role as anti-tank... or would have if GW hadn't left it behind and not upgraded it like they did other AT weapons like Lascannons.

These weapons are better than the default weapons. The idea that they should be free because working out how many points they should be is "too hard" is absolute bunk.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I challenge you to find the proper points to make all the weapon options, including taking no options at all, for any single unit equally viable.

**H.B.M.C.**

alextroy wrote:
You are welcome to your opinion, but I challenge you to find the proper points to make all the weapon options, including taking no options at all, for any single unit equally viable.

This is just another way of asking for "perfect balance". Worse, it's demanding it in an attempt to prove your point. If we cannot create perfect, balance, it means you're "right". This is piss-poor attempt at a 'gotcha'.

**Trickstick**

The solution to not having perfect balance between options is not to abandon the quest entirely.

**Wyzilla**

It's also easier to attempt some strike of a better equilibrium when wargear is +5 to the base unit cost, then assuming the unit is taken with the best wargear; thus, meaning anyone running anything else is running overcosted units that reduces the ability to take more units in a list to counter a sub-optimal structure.

**Unit1126PLL**

Furthermore, it may be hard to "prove" that 7pts is correct for a meltagun on a squad vs say 5pts, but it is very EASY to say that 0 pts is totally inappropriate.

One does not have to prove that something is worth exactly X points in order to refute that Y points is wrong. They must only prove that Y points are wrong and I think that is trivial.

"Is a thing better than the other thing? If yes, it costs more than.0 points"

**H.B.M.C.**

Or just give people the choice to take what they want and pay for it, or not take it and not pay for it.

Again: This isn't rocket science. They've been literally doing this for 30 years (and other games not by GW do it as well in one form or another).

This isn't some great unsolvable riddle for the ages. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to exist.

[EDIT]: Thank you, Unit. You said it better than I did.

**vict0988**

chaos0xomega wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Does it make sense to charge someone an extra 25 points on the basis that they *might* get a 5% increase in damage output from the unit? I lean towards probably not.

Are you taking the piss? Who is paying for the other lascannons in your list that Timmy doesn't get because he just wants to field infantry without HWT? Why should you get any increase in damage output without paying for it? How much do you think 2 lascannons increases the firepower of a Predator with two lascannons?

But that's the point, hwt in infantry teams don't usually add that much to a units performance. A good portion of them will be removed from the table before they ever fire a single shot, of those that remain, half will miss their targets, of those that hit some percentage will fail to wound, the remainder will do something, that something probably will amount to a statistically insignificant difference in damage dealt to the enemy. Rinse/repeat each turn. Congratulations, at the end of the game spending 30% of your points budget on upgrades netted you a ~5% increase in lethality over baseline.

It's why gw made upgrades for guard squads free in 9th edition in the first place. Why were guard players being asked to effectively double the cost of their infantry teams to take upgrades, knowing that 1/4 to 1/3 of those upgrades would be removed from the table in the first turn against a competent opponent? Surprise surprise, eliminating the cost of upgrades and making the unit a flat price actually worked and produced a more competitive and better balanced army - and those who took advantage of it didn't entirely standardize on weapon choices as some here insist would happen.

As for your Predator anecdote, adding the lascannons doesn't actually double it firepower due to the strength disparity between weapons as well as the twin linked keyword, but let's call it a 40% increase, but because of how the games mechanics actually work that doesn't actually translate to a 40% increase in lethality (hence in part why in previous editions adding the lascannons was more like a 10-15% cost increase at a time when lascannon lethality was overall much higher than it is today. This is further compounded by the intangible nature of target priority - a Predator with 4 lascannons is a bigger target than a Predator with 2, bigger targets attract more attention, and thus die faster, which shortens the useful life of the unit and the overall lethal value of its weaponry. If a 2 lascannon pred will avg 16 pts of damage out in a typical game, a 4 lascannon pred might only avg 18 for this reason. You can argue that that's a 12.5% increase, but across an entire army that puts out ~300 pts of damage in a game that's actually less than a 1% change in performance... which goes back to the whole margin of error thing I mentioned before, it's insignificant, doesn't actually alter the outcome of a game.

Now across an entire army of upgrades? Sure that might run away from you a bit, 2 extra pts of damage becomes 20 - but both parties have equal access to it, and you don't both need to maximize it in order to maintain parity. If one side does maximize, the other side only actually needs to take some % of the options in order to offset the difference in performance and render the differential insignificant again - provided that the points system is otherwise fairly calculated to generate fairly balanced armies (which currently it is not and has several clear winners and losers).

I will leave you with another thought, the faction currently running away with the game is aeldari, but it isn't because the most powerful emerging builds for that faction are running riot with free upgrades - the majority of the power units are those with few if any upgrade options at all.

A lascannon of 25 pts increases the cost of a 50 pts Guardsmen Squad by 3%, against a Ghost Ark the unit goes from inflicting 0,7 damage (with Born Soldiers) to 1,3, that's an increase of 77%. So really 25 pts for a lascannon is far too little.

The increased focus the Guardsmen will take from the enemy army will allow the rest of your army to inflict another 0,53333... damage per unit squared by the number of battle rounds which is 4% more damage across the entire army for EVERY SINGLE LASCANNON in a Guardsmen Squad, do you see now why it needs to cost points?

A lascannon does (1/6*2/6*4+1/6)/2*4,5=0,875 Damage to a Ghost Ark, 8 pts worth on average. A lasgun does (2/6*2/6*1+2/6)/3=0,148 Damage to a Ghost Ark 1,3 pts worth on average or lets say it shoots at a Necron Warrior instead so you get (2/6*2/6*2+2/6)/2=0,278 Damage 3,3 pts worth. Assuming you get two shots against a vehicle that's 10 points worth of value. If Infantry Squads in your list are a high priority target then you might only get one shot, if they are a low priority target you might get five shots. But if they become a higher priority target from taking the lascannon then the inclusion of that lascannon will have saved the life of some other unit that would have otherwise been the highest priority. You want durability on your high priority targets, offense on your low priority targets. Either way an increase in durability or offense is not worth 0 pts.

A Predator twin lascannon does 1/6*4/36*32/2*4,9=1,45 Damage or 1/36*32/36*32/2*4,9=1,94 with Oaths. Two lascannons do 2/6*4/6*4/2*4,9=2,18 or 2/36*32/36*32/2*4,9=3,87 with Oaths. An increase of 150% or 199% with Oaths. A CSM lascannon Predator in 5th cost 105, sponsons cost 60, an increase of 52%. Stop the sophistry.

**Unit1126PLL**

I have never been killed by an army of straw men conducting a rearguard action for the goalposts before...

**alextroy**

Your opinions are both valid and irrelevant. The game designers got to make the call and they decided on take what you want, the unit is worth X points… until they decide to change their minds again. I’m not holding my breathe for the 3-6 months to see if it happens soon.

**H.B.M.C.**

"Well we can't do it because you can't perfectly balance it."

"You don't need to do it that way."

"Well we can't do it because it's what's the game designers decided on!"

Remind to never challenge you to an arm wrestle. All that time moving goalposts has made you strong!

**vict0988**

alextroy wrote:
Your opinions are both valid and irrelevant. The game designers got to make the call and they decided on take what you want, the unit is worth X points… until they decide to change their minds again. I’m not holding my breathe for the 3-6 months to see if it happens soon.

Most of the playerbase wanting points instead of PL does matter.

**kodos**

vict0988 wrote:
Most of the playerbase wanting points instead of PL does matter.

most of the GW customers don't care as long it is official
that those who play don't like it does not matter as long as they still play

GW doing it has no effect on sales or people playing the game, and it won't be a problem for GW unless they don't sell out on new releases or people start complaining on the official sites that they hardly find someone to play with because most people are playing something else

and those things won't happen, so what most of the players "want" or "like" does not matter as long as most of the customers still buy and play

**vict0988**

kodos wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Most of the playerbase wanting points instead of PL does matter.
most of the GW customers don't care as long it is official
that those who play don't like it does not matter as long as they still play

GW doing it has no effect on sales or people playing the game, and it won't be a problem for GW unless they don't sell out on new releases or people start complaining on the official sites that they hardly find someone to play with because most people are playing something else

and those things won't happen, so what most of the players "want" or "like" does not matter as long as most of the customers still buy and play

Would seeing a post from someone saying they're not playing 10th edition because its PL only change your mind? Would you accept the rationality that fewer people playing 40k in some way decreases the amount of 40k miniatures and books sold?

**Dudeface**

kodos wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Most of the playerbase wanting points instead of PL does matter.
most of the GW customers don't care as long it is official
that those who play don't like it does not matter as long as they still play

GW doing it has no effect on sales or people playing the game, and it won't be a problem for GW unless they don't sell out on new releases or people start complaining on the official sites that they hardly find someone to play with because most people are playing something else

and those things won't happen, so what most of the players "want" or "like" does not matter as long as most of the customers still buy and play

I suspect that this will actually have an impact on the bottom line however. Most of the recognisable outward facing GW content creators are doing it from a competitive angle a lot of the time, they sell coaching classes, list building sessions, analysis on events etc. and if those personas struggle to sell those sessions because of the list building process being too simple/irrelevant in a lot of ways, or become too critical too often it'll drive them and their consumers away. If the e-sports bunch start to complain and vanish then the competitive scene will shrink, meta chasing with shrink with it meaning less sales and a less recognisable product in the online space.

I'm maybe not wording that well and I'm not a PR person, but bored "professionals" who aren't happy have fewer customers, if they have less presence fewer people engage in the same practice, that practice is buying stuff to be in tournaments, tournaments shrink due to fewer people, local communities die off, sales drop.

**Trickstick**

I'd like to highlight another unit that I am currently having issues with: the tank commander.

The tank commander is a 240 point unit that can choose any leman russ turret gun. However, the different leman russes range from 180-220 points. So picking a demolisher, the most expensive variant, is the most efficient choice for points. However, it may not be the best choice tactically. So, looking at other variants, you have to factor in how many points you are "wasting" by paying 240 for a cheaper gun.

A vanquisher may be a decent (and certainly fluffy) choice for a tank commander. However, without some sort of discount it is very hard to justify.

**vict0988**

Dudeface wrote:
kodos wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Most of the playerbase wanting points instead of PL does matter.
most of the GW customers don't care as long it is official
that those who play don't like it does not matter as long as they still play

GW doing it has no effect on sales or people playing the game, and it won't be a problem for GW unless they don't sell out on new releases or people start complaining on the official sites that they hardly find someone to play with because most people are playing something else

and those things won't happen, so what most of the players "want" or "like" does not matter as long as most of the customers still buy and play

I suspect that this will actually have an impact on the bottom line however. Most of the recognisable outward facing GW content creators are doing it from a competitive angle a lot of the time, they sell coaching classes, list building sessions, analysis on events etc. and if those personas struggle to sell those sessions because of the list building process being too simple/irrelevant in a lot of ways, or become too critical too often it'll drive them and their consumers away. If the e-sports bunch start to complain and vanish then the competitive scene will shrink, meta chasing with shrink with it meaning less sales and a less recognisable product in the online space.

I'm maybe not wording that well and I'm not a PR person, but bored "professionals" who aren't happy have fewer customers, if they have less presence fewer people engage in the same practice, that practice is buying stuff to be in tournaments, tournaments shrink due to fewer people, local communities die off, sales drop.

You're making the CAAC crowd salivate, this is exactly what they have been saying forever, get rid of points and anyone that likes them so we can make pew pew sounds and throw sand down our pants.

**Dolnikan**

On the most basic level, a good approach for the game to take would be more consolidation. Earlier someone mentioned something like Squad Leader Pistol or the like and I think that it would work well for almost all squad leaders. Sure, my guardsmen would 'lose' plasma pistols, bolt pistols, and laspistols but honestly those are all tiny little details that make little to no difference to a battle of the scale of the typical ,40k fight. Those are all differences that only really matter for much smaller skirmishes. That also is why I'm happy that things like different kinds of power weapons being folded together although I do think that the Thunder Hammer should just have been made an alternative look for the power fist and assorted other heavy power weapons. You could also easily create a Light Squad Leader Melee Weapon and a heavy variety. Heavy and special weapons should also have some consolidation done to them but at least they for the most part have clearly different roles.

For other wargear options like vox casters I would just remove the model-bound benefit and make it a general rule for the units that have them while leaving the bits on the models as more of a nice visual extra just like countless other bits and pieces on your models.

That said, I find the point structure for unit sizes a little more of a problem because that's where it feels off. Can you imagine a warboss telling one of his nobs that he can't join on an attack because his mob isn't a nice round number? But then again, I'm still a little salty about the remnant squad being abolished for Guard.

As for sponsons and other big changes to tanks I think that they should just come with disadvantages. They're heavier and take more crew, so that could mean making the tank slower. Additionally, it means weakening the armour where such things are placed which could give those tanks a lower toughness or save. Other vehicle upgrades are things I'd just shove into the standard rules of the vehicle and make them more aesthetic choices.

**Dudeface**

vict0988 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
kodos wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Most of the playerbase wanting points instead of PL does matter.
most of the GW customers don't care as long it is official
that those who play don't like it does not matter as long as they still play

GW doing it has no effect on sales or people playing the game, and it won't be a problem for GW unless they don't sell out on new releases or people start complaining on the official sites that they hardly find someone to play with because most people are playing something else

and those things won't happen, so what most of the players "want" or "like" does not matter as long as most of the customers still buy and play

I suspect that this will actually have an impact on the bottom line however. Most of the recognisable outward facing GW content creators are doing it from a competitive angle a lot of the time, they sell coaching classes, list building sessions, analysis on events etc. and if those personas struggle to sell those sessions because of the list building process being too simple/irrelevant in a lot of ways, or become too critical too often it'll drive them and their consumers away. If the e-sports bunch start to complain and vanish then the competitive scene will shrink, meta chasing with shrink with it meaning less sales and a less recognisable product in the online space.

I'm maybe not wording that well and I'm not a PR person, but bored "professionals" who aren't happy have fewer customers, if they have less presence fewer people engage in the same practice, that practice is buying stuff to be in tournaments, tournaments shrink due to fewer people, local communities die off, sales drop.

You're making the CAAC crowd salivate, this is exactly what they have been saying forever, get rid of points and anyone that likes them so we can make pew pew sounds and throw sand down our pants.

My concern is if that cycle does start that GW will panic and knee-jerk equipment costs in for everything without any consideration or thought, which would be just as bad as what we have now to some degree.

**ccs**

Trickstick wrote:
I'd like to highlight another unit that I am currently having issues with: the tank commander.

The tank commander is a 240 point unit that can choose any leman russ turret gun. However, the different leman russes range from 180-220 points. So picking a demolisher, the most expensive variant, is the most efficient choice for points. However, it may not be the best choice tactically. So, looking at other variants, you have to factor in how many points you are "wasting" by paying 240 for a cheaper gun.

A vanquisher may be a decent (and certainly fluffy) choice for a tank commander. However, without some sort of discount it is very hard to justify.

Not if it's the correct Tactical choice.

**kodos**

Dudeface wrote:
I suspect that this will actually have an impact on the bottom line however. Most of the recognisable outward facing GW content creators are doing it from a competitive angle a lot of the time, they sell coaching classes, list building sessions, analysis on events etc. and if those personas struggle to sell those sessions because of the list building process being too simple/irrelevant in a lot of ways, or become too critical too often it'll drive them and their consumers away. If the e-sports bunch start to complain and vanish then the competitive scene will shrink, meta chasing with shrink with it meaning less sales and a less recognisable product in the online space.

I'm maybe not wording that well and I'm not a PR person, but bored "professionals" who aren't happy have fewer customers, if they have less presence fewer people engage in the same practice, that practice is buying stuff to be in tournaments, tournaments shrink due to fewer people, local communities die off, sales drop.

People making a living from 40k, be it directly involved into playing or being a content creator, you will find a way to make money or go for a different job
and there are a lot of people, be it the professional Tournament Orgas, STL sellers, painting classes, torunament coaches etc.

e-sports are a good comparison, as simply as just because Call of Duty (just a random pick because the last version was not very popular) becomes not worth covering any more does not mean the whole e-sports scene collapse but they are going for a different game
and in the case for 40k there is a good chance that it will be from the same publisher

worst case for the scene is that if 40k is not worth doing events, they switch to Horus Heresy, and you will see tournaments coming up, community rules for Xenos being allowed and guides on how to use your 40k armies there

best case is they switch to AoS or Lord of the Rings and the chance is very low that they pick a game from a different publisher like the e-sports scene is doing

vict0988 wrote:
kodos wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Most of the playerbase wanting points instead of PL does matter.
most of the GW customers don't care as long it is official
that those who play don't like it does not matter as long as they still play

GW doing it has no effect on sales or people playing the game, and it won't be a problem for GW unless they don't sell out on new releases or people start complaining on the official sites that they hardly find someone to play with because most people are playing something else

and those things won't happen, so what most of the players "want" or "like" does not matter as long as most of the customers still buy and play

Would seeing a post from someone saying they're not playing 10th edition because its PL only change your mind? Would you accept the rationality that fewer people playing 40k in some way decreases the amount of 40k miniatures and books sold?

well, I follow the Thousand Sons and Space Wolves Reddit groups as those are my armies and the last days the majority of posts were either painting/collecting (show off new stuff, what to buy or how to paint) and posts like "I made this Excel sheet to calculate the best unit composition"

people don't like PL but the community is already going full math-hammer mode to make the best possible list and those communities are currently more active than they were before (and people complaining are just told to buy more models)
so I don't see any impact of PL getting people to quit the game

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
My concern is if that cycle does start that GW will panic and knee-jerk equipment costs in for everything without any consideration or thought, which would be just as bad as what we have now to some degree.

I think this would actually be better for the game as only if they fail hard, they will consider doing it properly (like with AoS)

**Bencyclopedia**

Dudeface wrote:

I suspect that this will actually have an impact on the bottom line however. Most of the recognisable outward facing GW content creators are doing it from a competitive angle a lot of the time, they sell coaching classes, list building sessions, analysis on events etc. and if those personas struggle to sell those sessions because of the list building process being too simple/irrelevant in a lot of ways, or become too critical too often it'll drive them and their consumers away. If the e-sports bunch start to complain and vanish then the competitive scene will shrink, meta chasing with shrink with it meaning less sales and a less recognisable product in the online space.

I'm maybe not wording that well and I'm not a PR person, but bored "professionals" who aren't happy have fewer customers, if they have less presence fewer people engage in the same practice, that practice is buying stuff to be in tournaments, tournaments shrink due to fewer people, local communities die off, sales drop.

There are a few assumptions nested within that though. That requires that:
- The 'e-sports bunch' dislike the new system enough to spot in significant quantities.
- The 'e-sports bunch' make up a significant portion of games workshops sales (afaik we don't know the revenue split by game line but 40k isn't their only product).
- The game being notionally easier to pick up and play doesn't attact more new customers than it alienates.

I don't doubt that GW will watch it closely, but I think it's a stretch to believe that it will significantly affect sales.

**Dudeface**

Bencyclopedia wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

I suspect that this will actually have an impact on the bottom line however. Most of the recognisable outward facing GW content creators are doing it from a competitive angle a lot of the time, they sell coaching classes, list building sessions, analysis on events etc. and if those personas struggle to sell those sessions because of the list building process being too simple/irrelevant in a lot of ways, or become too critical too often it'll drive them and their consumers away. If the e-sports bunch start to complain and vanish then the competitive scene will shrink, meta chasing with shrink with it meaning less sales and a less recognisable product in the online space.

I'm maybe not wording that well and I'm not a PR person, but bored "professionals" who aren't happy have fewer customers, if they have less presence fewer people engage in the same practice, that practice is buying stuff to be in tournaments, tournaments shrink due to fewer people, local communities die off, sales drop.

There are a few assumptions nested within that though. That requires that:
- The 'e-sports bunch' dislike the new system enough to spot in significant quantities.
- The 'e-sports bunch' make up a significant portion of games workshops sales (afaik we don't know the revenue split by game line but 40k isn't their only product).
- The game being notionally easier to pick up and play doesn't attact more new customers than it alienates.

I don't doubt that GW will watch it closely, but I think it's a stretch to believe that it will significantly affect sales.

The 'e-sports bunch' are a social perception barometer for a good chunk of the playerbase however. It doesn't matter if they direct account for sales or even 1st hand effect, as tournament results and talk filters down even to the flgs it'll shift sales and create discussion. If the esports element suffers in any way then it will trickle down.

**Arachnofiend**

Any of those guys who quit the game, decide to keep playing 9th or whatever will just get replaced by new guys that will make content for 10th, and people searching for 40k on youtube will find those guys instead. As someone who plays fighting games I can tell you that this happens every time a new game in a series comes out and a bunch of the old guard get mad that it's been simplified.

**Klickor**

Direct "E-Sport" sales is pretty low and not the big problem if GW loses them.

The problem is that they are a lot of the visual community and what creates hype and interest for the game outside of the official GW channels. If they stopped doing content from GW or stopped buying armies for tournaments GW would directly lose low single digit % of sales. I dont think any is disagreeing with that.

The risk though is that all the people who enjoy the battle reports, articles and videos from those people also lose interest in GW. If there is no surrounding hype it will feel less like that they are part of an active community. This is probably in the low tens % of sales this could affect.

But then there is the even larger killer. All those very casual people who mostly just hangs around at a club or in a friend group or sometimes show up to an LGS. Their main reason to be an active part of the community is that they have friends or club members who are active and they just hang on to it and could swap to any other game in a second if it looks more interesting. When Warmachine, X-Wing or locally Mesbg under the pandemic, showed up A TON OF people just swapped systems at once. The few people who hold the events in an area have a huge impact on what is actually going to be played. Most people rather switch games than host their own events. We went from a 40k focused club to barely any 40k or AoS during the pandemic cause we were there to play fun games with like minded people. Not just playing 40k. From 0 MESBG events in this part of the country for years we now have regular events and went from 6 players first tournament to 28 attendees in a few months and reached 23 players with just local players at events in less than a year. From only 40k we will soon have a Malifaux, Bolt Action and Mesbg weekend. Things can change faster than people think if just the right people in the community, the TOs and the content creators, swap systems. A huge chunk of the rest will follow.

**kodos**

yeah, it is the content creators, be it online of offline, that have a big impact on what is played and what people show interest in

be it YT channels, be it the local TO, store owner or club

and in the past I have seen people switching rather fast depending on those things
from Battletech to Warhammer Fantasy, and from Fantasy to 40k

if a lot of the content creators would switch from 40k to AoS or LotR, the impact for the community would be big, for GW not so much as they would just see a shift in sales while the 3rd party 40k supply would be devastated

problem for GW would be if people change to a different publisher, specially if the rules are not compatible with their model line (like Battletech instead of GDF or WP:FF)

**ccs**

kodos wrote:
yeah, it is the content creators, be it online of offline, that have a big impact on what is played and what people show interest in

be it YT channels, be it the local TO, store owner or club

and in the past I have seen people switching rather fast depending on those things
from Battletech to Warhammer Fantasy, and from Fantasy to 40k

if a lot of the content creators would switch from 40k to AoS or LotR, the impact for the community would be big, for GW not so much as they would just see a shift in sales while the 3rd party 40k supply would be devastated

Sounds like a bunch of stupid people acting like a herd of cattle. Just running along blindly with the herd....
Or a bunch of rats following a piper.

**kodos**

welcome to the modern world
were a game is dead if the rules are not changing every 3 months and you cannot use non-official rules or models
were "miniature-agnostic" means that only if the publisher officially writes in the rulebook that you are allowed to use other models, you are actually allowed to use other models

40k is played because everyone plays it, not because it is a good game, or easy/cheap to get into, or the background being so unique that it only works with the dedicated rules
just because there is a lot of content

and the same will be true if that content switches to any other game