Amature vs Professional. 6ed

[Renegade]

Going from forum to forum, and reading the latest from Brent, it seems that opinions on this edition are broken in to dividing parties still.

You have those that want a more competitive game design, that allows for tourney play. Another way of describing such a design would be to make the game professional, those that play to win and play the most competitive lists and/or armies.

Then you have those that play for the sake of enjoying a game, win or lose. So called fluff players etc. These could also be called amateur gamers, as they are unlikely to get involved in tourneys and have more unconventional lists.

The company that makes the game has come out in favour of amateur play over professional play time and again, and such direction is emphasized in this edition. Personally it is a move that I appreciate, as professionalism has consumed many games and sports already, and all it does is take the game away from those that just want to have fun with it.

There are many other games that simulate warfare that are played professionally, let this game alone and enjoy it for what it is.

[Wolfshade]

I think the direction was inevitable.
When I look at my group and how often we play we rarely play in tournaments, and I would imagine that the majority of people's gaming experiance is in a non-tournament scene.
It makes sense therefore to appeal to the larger base in terms of rules.
The engagement of people with the fluff (or fluffier side) is one that causes people to have more attachement to the game then say a game of monopoly. This engagement is what make moves the game from a game to an hobby.

[velox atrum]

The two styles are not mutually exclusive. If rules are written to the level of "professional" play than can easly have alternative rules or levels of rules for "fluff" players... if the game is written to the "fluff" it is much harder to go the other way as the basic requirements of "RULES" not "guidelines" has been missed

[Mr Mystery]

Look at the people GW seek to employ, and you'll understand the ethos of their game design...

A good staffer should reflect the hobby, and GW want hobbyists, not those who declare themselves 'elite' gamers.

[velox atrum]

Which is why each edition is "broken" to aid what ever army/style the hobbyist in question at GW London likes.

As to the Pro v. Fluff players.... to take each to its logical exteme Pro players would have 40k look like Star Fleet Battles rules. http://starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/CadetHandbook.pdf while Fluff players would end up like the schools that no longer keep score on sporting events so every one can just have a good time..

[Mr Mystery]

Having had the benefit of GW training, you've done them quite the disservice there.

More later, am at work with a sneaky iPhone posting!

[eldargal]

Of course the key thing to remember is that the vast majority of hobbyists are fluff players, competitive players are a (loud) minority. GW does has never seemed to believe that making the game more competitive would net them more sales, and they are in a far better position than any of us to judge.

Also, it is frankly insulting to compare fluff players to stupid schools which remove scoring. Fluff players just remember that while the goal of the game is to win, the point of it is to have fun.

[Wolfshade]

Which is why each edition is "broken" to aid what ever army/style the hobbyist in question at GW London likes.

As to the Pro v. Fluff players.... to take each to its logical exteme Pro players would have 40k look like Star Fleet Battles rules. http://starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/CadetHandbook.pdf while Fluff players would end up like the schools that no longer keep score on sporting events so every one can just have a good time..

I'm not sure what school you went to, but winning was everything. Hey being in the 1st XV gave one certain privileges that was not afforded to those who weren't.

[Captainparty]

GW has never promoted the game as a competitive game, its always been a roleplaying experience. People will try and make it competitive, like people try and make Smash Bros competitive, it can be done, but it isn't the most effective way of having a competitive game.

WAAC tournement players would do well to remember, and I think the new rulebook spells it quite clearly on page 8, that they're not playing the game as it was intended to be played and they're in the vast minority of war game players.

I guess they seem more important online than they really are becuase people who play for fun don't write useful blogs about how they made their games fun for other people who only play for fun to copy verbatim in their own games.

[Chumbalaya]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, they never were.

Stop forcing a false dichotomy.

Better writing benefits everyone, better rules benefit everyone.

[eldargal]

But how do you define better? Is better a tighter and more balanced ruleset or is it less balanced but more choice and more things put in simply for 'fun'. Can you really have both? Given how competitive players seem to despite 'randomness' can you really but in fun but not necessarily reliable things into books and keep it balanced?

[SotonShades]

I think that is a bit harsh, Velox. Partly because GW isn't based in London (also there is no GW London... there are a great many stores in our Nation's capital city!) and the good folks in Nottingham really don't break the rules to their favoured styles of play. I recently interviewed for a position on the Design Team and got into a really in depth discussion with Adam Troke about some of our tournament lists we have used, where he plays outside of work etc. I also know Phil Kelly and Robin Cruddace have attended a tournament or two in their time. Don't forget that the accounts department has a big say in which direction the rules are written too, which was one of the reasons one of their managers sat in on the one-on-one part of my interview. Yes we all know Jervis loves his fluff, playing narrative games and campaigns etc. Yes we know Matt Ward wants to add in more crazy rules to keep the game up with the insanity he write in the background sections, but that doesn't mean they are trying to turn the game in their favour.

Also, why have two versions of, or alterations to, the ruleset for competitive and casual play? For football (soccer to you folks over the pond) we use the same rules whether people are playing at the World Cup, pitting against each other to prove which nation is the best in the world at putting a ball in a big net, or playing a friendly game with your mates on the park. We even have a friendly league in our village who play every weekend. Sure they are never going to compete against Manchester United or Chelsea, but they enjoy themselves and play the same rules as the big boys. They also keep score. People also push the boundaries of what can be done within the rules. In times gone by, goal keepers have covered their gloves in glue to make the ball easier to catch, more recently one of the teams had towels on hand to dry the ball off during the match for throw-ins and goal kicks to ensure greater accuracy. When the use of towels was banned, they sewed an extra layer of absobant material into their shirts "to better absorb sweat" which could easilly be pulled from under the shirt to clean the ball. At the time, all of those things were within the rules of the game, in part because they hadn't been outlawed. Every season the FA add in more rules so everyone is playing the same game fairly. It doesn't mean there is balance though. All teams have 11 people on the pitch and some reserves. But bigger teams have coaching staff, medical staff, more reserves, better training facilities, huge stadiums designed to bring in fans to give the team a boost, conference facilities to bring in more money so they can buy better players... the list goes on.

For any game, be it 40k or football, playing for fun doesn't mean no one cares about winning. Just beacuse the Professionals and casuals are aiming for different goals doesn't mean they can't play by the same rules. The professional/competitive 40k gamers will always try to push the limits of the rules in the system. Your average sunday league/"fluffy"/fun gamer won't, or at least not in the same way.

For a game like chess, computers have been programmed to calculate very possible permutation of the game. This means that there are no new ways to break the game to be exploited. You can only out play your opponant (although the method by which you achieve that may be new to you or them). Because we have free movement rather than set spaces, we can't do that, so only by trial, error and a lot of playtesting and competition with the best ways to win come to light, and even then thanks to the fickleness of fate, luck probability or what ever you want to call it, the dice rolls can effect it. Same for football; you maye have the 11 best players in the world on the pitch together, but by some quirk of happenstance (the way the ground shifts when a player plants his foot to take a penalty, the way someone lands after a tackle skewing the ref's opinion of whether or not it was a foul...) they could be beaten by a much less talented team.

In both cases, by having the better, more highly tuned side you increase your odds of winning. I don't see how that has changed with the new rules. Yes there are different things to consider when working out the optimum army, in many cases more things than in 5th, but I hardly think it has stopped it being competitive. If anything this new, more cinematic and narrative based ruleset could be considered more competitive. With more variables in the game, there are more ways to optimise an army, let alone the fact that allies give everyone (apart from Tyranids of course) more options to even out the field. Even once the game has started, there are more ways to achieve objectives and all three phases are more active than before. If anything, this new ruleset demandsa a lot more of a General than 5th did, especially when playing against someone else who has thoroughly learnt the rules and mastered them. If it is harder to pick pout a single list that should win against most others in most missions (and is therefore more likely to win tournaments), doesn't that fall under the very deffinition of a competitive system? Simplicity and reliability (factoring out anything random) doesn't necessarilly make a system more competitive, just that an individual army is more likely to win.

[SotonShades]

that was only going to be a quick reply... oops

[Captainparty]

But how do you define better? Is better a tighter and more balanced ruleset or is it less balanced but more choice and more things put in simply for 'fun'. Can you really have both? Given how competitive players seem to despite 'randomness' can you really but in fun but not necessarily reliable things into books and keep it balanced?

This is exactly the point, WAAC players complain about allies, complain about the random elements and complain about other things in the rules that add a lot of fun for the rest of us, if it were up to them, the game would be a very stale affair.

The thing is, if you only read the blogs and articles on BOLS, it would seem that wanting to play fluffy games or just meet up with your mates and fight with your cool armies puts you in a minority and that you’re wrong to play like that.

If fluff and competitive aren’t mutually exclusive, why are there so many Purifiers or Psyriflemen dreads in the tournament scene when in the Fluff there are only “about score” of Purifiers and about 8 dreadnaughts, not all of which would have autocannons?

To go back to my SSB Brawl point, the tournament scene changed things so much in that game to make it competitive that it became unrecognisable, banning characters, only playing on the most simplistic and boring level without any of the fun effects and taking all the randomness out by banning items, they complained when the new edition came out because it added more randomness to attacks...

[Thanatos_elNyx]

I play Fluffy lists at Tournaments; what does that make me?

[Captainparty]

I play Fluffy lists at Tournaments; what does that make me?

Part of the majority, most people who go to tournaments go there to play the game that they enjoy and have a good time, not to destroy everyone they face, thats why I tried to use the term "WAAC player" rather than tournament player, a WAAC player doesn't care if his opponent has fun, which while it isn't against the rules of the game, is against the spirit.

[SotonShades]

I play Fluffy lists at Tournaments; what does that make me?

A squirrel.

To be fair, There are very few tournament lists I have seen that i couldn't write a decent bit of fluff to explain why that army is composed like that.

Purifiers and Psyriflemen...

Only 40 in the galaxy (more or less) and all are here because of a singular threat that only they can be trusted to deal with because of their abilities. We mortals can only see the threat in this plane of exhistence; who knows what deamonic threat from the warp is contained inside those Crisis suits or within a relic of the Dark Age of Technology they are uncovering back at their base camp. As for having so many Dreadnoughts, obviously they have had to come through some urban/forested/desert covered are where normal tracked vehicles would be unsuitable, and the Techmarines of the Greyknights decided that Autocannons were the optimal weapons configuration for the mission, able to unload a hail of shots on the massed troops of the great enemy while also able to rip apart the light transports the Librarius on Titan predicted would be accompanying them.

[the jeske]

This is exactly the point, WAAC players complain about allies, complain about the random elements and complain about other things in the rules that add a lot of fun for the rest of us, if it were up to them, the game would be a very stale affair.
yes dude . tournament players complain about 2 FoC for ally , because it lets them make more optimal lists... no wait ... that doesnt make any sense . See they complain about them not because of mechanics , but because of how the mechanic works . Imperials get more battle brothers . Marines get more battle brothers . nids are screwed ally wise[+get scary stuff from head of the DT in the form "it is hard too.." which is can be translated to "we have no idea how to make them work"] . Flyer rules are cool , more options is always good. But leting few factions spam those and others get little or no flyers or at atleast anti flyer is a bad idea.
Imagine in a year or two you have 4-5 dex . each has at least 2 flyers inside [am not thinking about ally/FW/etc here] and you happen to play a dex that can do nothing against them . And before you say "buy an aegis" I say check the terrain deployment rules , you plop it down before I will put a huge *** pice of terrain block its Line of Sight.

new psychic powers ? awesome . divination is OP , but one can live with that one will always be the best one. But w40k is not WFB where all armies have psychic defense . Taking farseers in a tau/Deldar army will not be a fluff thing in 2-3 dex time .

See a tournament player will adapt . He will switch an army , switch the system . But what will a dude do if he is just starting with his group of friends and they all already grabed the big 3 and he is left with the eldar/tau/nid option ? how much fun will he have ?



The thing is, if you only read the blogs and articles on BOLS, it would seem that wanting to play fluffy games or just meet up with your mates and fight with your cool armies puts you in a minority and that you’re wrong to play like that.
go around main land europe .armies played in clubs/shops/"friendly" games are the same people play in tournaments. Not that having 2 armies [one tournament one not] is a bad thing , I envy those who live in enviroments rich enough to have play groups like that . That automaticly means more armies , a lot more offten army switch [which then means more armies sold second hand] . But realy for a huge number of players razors spams , draigos , IG gunlines were not a "just tournament" thing.






To go back to my SSB Brawl point, the tournament scene changed things so much in that game to make it competitive that it became unrecognisable, banning characters, only playing on the most simplistic and boring level without any of the fun effects and taking all the randomness out by banning items, they complained when the new edition came out because it added more randomness to attacks.
boring is not the tournament sceen foult , If GW makes a dex that has 1 viable way to play then its not the peoples foult they dont want to spend their money on stuff that doesnt work . As the randomness goes . Most tournaments for WFB do not use the terrain rules , at least in euro land . As boring in 6th goes . Go check blogs about people writing about testing how much more time does it take to check stuff because of ally and double FoC. With so many builds in just gold fish builds , there is stuff to do for years to come even if there were no new dex. And thats just counting the good dex.




Part of the majority, most people who go to tournaments go there to play the game that they enjoy and have a good time, not to destroy everyone they face, thats why I tried to use the term "WAAC player" rather than tournament player, a WAAC player doesn't care if his opponent has fun, which while it isn't against the rules of the game, is against the spirit.
Was mecha guard unfluffy ? no . Was mecha SW unfluffy ? no . Were GK builds unfluffy ? no . Were 4th ed eldar circus or IW unfluffy ? no . were 4th ed nids unfluffy ? no . It is impossible to build a legal army with a GW legal codex that is not fluffy . Freaking JJ told us that the most awesome thing about the gav dex was that we finaly can have a khorn lord leading a unit of 1ksons . If that is fluffy [and JJ does only fluffy, he does in character durning buissness metings] , then everything else is fluffy too.

[Wildeybeast]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the OP that GW aim much more to fluff, I have to agree with the views that they too are not mutually exclusive.
I also think the phrases 'amateur' and 'professional' are unhelpful. In the strictest sense they refer to people who get paid for something and those who do it for fun. I'm not aware of anyone who gets paid to play this game of ours so that isn't relevant.
In the broader context, it carries the sense that one set of players are significantly better at the game than others, which is misleading and unfair. There are plenty of people who are very good at this game and could place highly at tournaments, but prefer to play a friendly game with some mates. Equally there are people at tournaments who aren't tactical masterminds, but enter for a chance to meet new gamers and have some fun.
Stick with those who prefer playing just for fun and those who like to play competitively. Everyone know what you mean by this.

[Fortunato]

When it comes to arguments like this, what is always forgotten is GW doesn't care about "competitive" or "casual" players. Bottom line, GW is a business. Their sole concern is that they continue to make money. The decision to include allies wasn't to allow casual players to create fluffy armies or to allow pro players to design powerful lists, it was to get players to buy models from different armies. Once you have a few units of army X, it is easy to be pulled in to buying a full army. It also allows them to create "ally only" armies I expect to be seeing soon, like squats or Adeptis Arbites. Less design costs to create only a few new unit types than a whole army. Same goes for fliers. It would be tough to sell more tanks to armies already filled with vehicles. How better than to create a whole new unit type and make them very powerful! Not only are fliers a new and fresh concept, but if you want to handle your opponent's fliers, you'll need your own. The difference between GW games and a sport like football or a game like chess is that GW owns all rights to their games. Sports and classic games are free domain. 40k is a product and in GW's eyes, everyone here is a consumer, regardless of you consider yourself a "pro" or "casual" player.

[Mr Mystery]

How do! Back again to expand upon my earlier allusion to GW staff selection...

So yeah. Who do GW seek to hire to work in the Stores, effectively as ambassadors for the product? In short, all rounders.

One of the central training tenets is not to sell or discuss your hobby but the customers hobby. If your right into your Tournaments, they should be able to discuss this with you. But overalll, the staff are there to promote the whole hobby, and from my personal experience (which should not be taken as a statement of fact) the vast majority of people are sold, and then hooked on the background, not the mechanics.

It's going back a bit, and again this is purely anecdotal, but out of all the hobby conversations I had as a staffer, perhaps two or so a week would relate to the rules and tournaments. Sure, you'd get people asking rules questions quite often, but very, very rarely would you get an actual discussion on the quality of the rules. It's not that the subject was avoided, it just didn't come up in conversation!

The majority of the training (which I have to say is excellent, and got me where I am today) was about how to promote the whole hobby, and to show off the creative side the most (this is what sells it to the parents. 99% of the kids coming in are already sold and packaged!)

[fuzzbuket]

in a amature scene there will always be 1 d*ck that powergames to waac.

was in 4rth ed.
was in 5th ed
is in 6th ed

nothing to see here

[velox atrum]

I may have come off a bit harsh, but it was not meant to be so. Only that over the years since 3rd ed various armies and styles have been aided or hurt by rules changes, one interp is that it is an attempt at game balance. This argument has now been eliminated with 6th discarding balance for "Narrative" as the primary objective of the game, and if that is what GW wants to sell it is all well and good but please do not tell me or those of use that enjoy the GAME that it is all sunshine and rainbows !

My apologies to placing them in London instead of

Games Workshop Limited,
Willow Road,
Lenton,
Nottingham,
NG7 2WS
UK


As to fluff vs game balance, they can as I said both be served if rules are well written.

As far as the sheer randomness that M.Ward has placed in this edition, in "friendly games" I will eschew as much of the randomness as is possible,


In a campaign years ago I had the ground started attacking my vehicles.. and lost the game due to it, not because my opponent played better or that I made mistakes no it was purely due to RANDOM CHANCE which to a GAMER makes for a un-fun game. Maybe to a Hobbyist the story of how the vial Chaos weeds attacked would make it a fun but for many of us it just makes playing well see some what pointless.

A game can still be balanced in how the units act but the scenario be "fluffy"

Think Battle of Thermopylae or more close to my home The Alamo, "fluff" makes the possibility of a truly balanced game, i.e. Leonidas I or Travis winning out right is impossible but making the way the game plays is can balanced just adjust the Victory Conditions to fit the"fluff"

[velox atrum]

Futuro has it spot on.. its a matter of money to GW at a corporate level with out doubt, but making decisions that alienate chunks of the target audience makes room for competitors and can destroy a company in the end.

[Mr Mystery]

I may have come off a bit harsh, but it was not meant to be so. Only that over the years since 3rd ed various armies and styles have been aided or hurt by rules changes, one interp is that it is an attempt at game balance. This argument has now been eliminated with 6th discarding balance for "Narrative" as the primary objective of the game, and if that is what GW wants to sell it is all well and good but please do not tell me or those of use that enjoy the GAME that it is all sunshine and rainbows !

My apologies to placing them in London instead of

Games Workshop Limited,
Willow Road,
Lenton,
Nottingham,
NG7 2WS
UK


As to fluff vs game balance, they can as I said both be served if rules are well written.

As far as the sheer randomness that M.Ward has placed in this edition, in "friendly games" I will eschew as much of the randomness as is possible,


In a campaign years ago I had the ground started attacking my vehicles.. and lost the game due to it, not because my opponent played better or that I made mistakes no it was purely due to RANDOM CHANCE which to a GAMER makes for a un-fun game. Maybe to a Hobbyist the story of how the vial Chaos weeds attacked would make it a fun but for many of us it just makes playing well see some what pointless.

A game can still be balanced in how the units act but the scenario be "fluffy"

Think Battle of Thermopylae or more close to my home The Alamo, "fluff" makes the possibility of a truly balanced game, i.e. Leonidas I or Travis winning out right is impossible but making the way the game plays is can balanced just adjust the Victory Conditions to fit the"fluff"

So why play any game involving dice? They all have the same element of chance.

[velox atrum]

No, not really but it is an expected retort. Dice add an element of probabilistic chance but even that can be predicted with in boundaries. Having an IG army suddenly eaten by the ground they tread may well be very fluffy but not very fun to the player involved.

[Renegade]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the OP that GW aim much more to fluff, I have to agree with the views that they too are not mutually exclusive.
I also think the phrases 'amateur' and 'professional' are unhelpful. In the strictest sense they refer to people who get paid for something and those who do it for fun. I'm not aware of anyone who gets paid to play this game of ours so that isn't relevant.
In the broader context, it carries the sense that one set of players are significantly better at the game than others, which is misleading and unfair. There are plenty of people who are very good at this game and could place highly at tournaments, but prefer to play a friendly game with some mates. Equally there are people at tournaments who aren't tactical masterminds, but enter for a chance to meet new gamers and have some fun.
Stick with those who prefer playing just for fun and those who like to play competitively. Everyone know what you mean by this.

Actually if you are adding professionalism to something, you are making it more than just a hobby because you are working at it. How many times has Goatboy et al written about practising before a tourney? Such terms belong to those that take the game to a serious, rather than just for fun, level. AS soon as you have those that try to compete at a serious level, you have amateur and professional players. Some tourneys also have cash prizes, which adds another layer of professionalism.

[DarkLink]

rather than just for fun

What you're not understanding is that 'fun' is exactly why people like Goatboy do all that 'practising' (which is spelled practicing, by the way:p).

Not only is it fun to get in a lot of games before a tournament, but it's a lot of fun to face off against the toughest players and armies and try and bring your a-game and bring the best army list you can.

I've actually met Goatboy in real life, and I can assure you he's in 40k for the hobby and not for the almost non-existent prize money. And in my experience, it's funny how this applies to most top tournament players. Reecius is another prime example of a very skilled competitive player, but he has multiple large, extremely well painted and heavily converted armies and has won plenty of soft score awards for painting and sportsmanship and is an awesome guy to play.

[Kyban]

What you're not understanding is that 'fun' is exactly why people like Goatboy do all that 'practising' (which is spelled practicing, by the way:p).

Not only is it fun to get in a lot of games before a tournament, but it's a lot of fun to face off against the toughest players and armies and try and bring your a-game and bring the best army list you can.

I've actually met Goatboy in real life, and I can assure you he's in 40k for the hobby and not for the almost non-existent prize money. And in my experience, it's funny how this applies to most top tournament players. Reecius is another prime example of a very skilled competitive player, but he has multiple large, extremely well painted and heavily converted armies and has won plenty of soft score awards for painting and sportsmanship and is an awesome guy to play.

Exactly! Tournaments and hobby aren't mutually exclusive, there is no reason you can't have a competitive and fluffy ruleset but it would appear that GW doesn't really lean that way.

[Wildeybeast]

Actually if you are adding professionalism to something, you are making it more than just a hobby because you are working at it. How many times has Goatboy et al written about practising before a tourney? Such terms belong to those that take the game to a serious, rather than just for fun, level. AS soon as you have those that try to compete at a serious level, you have amateur and professional players. Some tourneys also have cash prizes, which adds another layer of professionalism.

By practising (it's only with a 'c' for you yanks DarkLink, we'll stick to English in it's pure form thanks ;)) do you mean playing lots of games with an army, slowly refining it over time to improve your skills and create an army that you are happy? Because I'm fairly sure that is what everyone does who plays the hobby. Even the most inept players get better over time, and not just in terms of tactics, but with modelling, painting and learning to take wining and losing with good grace. I resent the suggestion that only people who go to tournaments and play competitively are 'working hard' at it. I put a lot of time, effort, care and thought into making sure my army is fluffy, looks nice on the tabletop and that I'm a good sport to play with, as I'm do sure does virtually everyone else in this hobby. The difference between competitive and fun players is only the motivation - some do it because they enjoy winning, others because they enjoy playing/modelling/fluff etc. Both are equally valid and not mutually exclusive. The suggestion that there is some elite group of players who put more effort in than others or are in some way better than others is as nonsensical as it is insulting.

[DarkLink]

And not only is the attitude of casual vs competition not mutually exclusive amonst players, but there's no reason why the rules can't include both very easily. I call bull**** on the idea that sloppy rules and poor balance is a pre-requisite for casual gaming. The very idea is ludicrous.


(it's only with a 'c' for you yanks DarkLink, we'll stick to English in it's pure form thanks )

Really? You can't even spell words in your own language right? No wonder we had to start speaking American. Because America is awesome.
http://americasolidarity.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/American-Patriot.jpg

Sorry, I couldn't find a bigger picture on short notice.

[ragnarcissist]

you tell em darklink!!!

[Drunkencorgimaster]

'MERICA!!!!! Hell Yeah!

http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/J/Thomas-Jefferson-9353715-1-402.jpg

[Renegade]

Looks to me like the Yankees are over compensating for something...:D

Can we get this back on topic, please.:rolleyes:

If tourneys are not going to allow all parts of the game to be played ( like the option to buy terrain to form part of your army), and so called competitive players are complaining about the elements added for fun, then they are not apart of the hobby that adds to it. It has never been all about the game, GW do other games with tighter rules, 40K is there purely for the enjoyment of playing.


What you're not understanding is that 'fun' is exactly why people like Goatboy do all that 'practising' Then maybe they should cut the BS and call it having a few casual games instead. It certainly does not sound like they are giving the Death Korps player a game or two, and come across like the awful types that kick off if anything forge world is put on the table.

[DarkLink]

If tourneys are not going to allow all parts of the game to be played ( like the option to buy terrain to form part of your army), and so called competitive players are complaining about the elements added for fun, then they are not apart of the hobby that adds to it.

You know what's kind of funny? The biggest complainers I've seen about a lot of the stuff (particularly allies) are comp heavy TOs. The anti-competitive types. That's my observation, and the point is that, just like every new set of rules, there are a lot of different people with varied complaints.

Anyway, the issue with terrain comes down to time. If you want to get 50 people to play 3-4 games in a day, you literally do not have time to spend a half hour rolling dice and placing terrain just to set up the battlefield. You have to have the tables and terrain all set up, roll off for first turn, deploy and go. Every time you add five minutes worth of dice rolling to the startup of the game, you slow things down a lot. It's awkward, it's time consuming, and it's not necessary for a fun game. So a lot of tournaments will skip that part.

And, while allies were pretty well done, the flyer rules are stupid unbalanced. I'm sure you'll go off on how a lack of balance makes for a better game, so long as you're only looking to have some fun, but the point still stands.



It has never been all about the game, GW do other games with tighter rules, 40K is there purely for the enjoyment of playing.

Like Malifaux or Infinity (or dare I mention Warmachine?) that all, as I understand, manage to maintain high quality, complex, fun, and entertaining rules while also avoiding clumsy rules and loopholes and gaps.

Going to GW's reputation is not going to help your argument. GW's notorious for mediocre rules. They're imprecise, sloppy, poorly balanced, compared to a lot of the other stuff out there. You're trying to blame GW's issues on some imaginary vision of competitive players you've formed in your head.

GW's taken a step in the right direction. They've done a better job with a lot of the stuff in 6th, and they actually managed to quickly release FAQs for everyone, even if the FAQs were terrible. But they still have issues, and they are problems with GW's methodology and not with how the players decide to enjoy their hobby.



Then maybe they should cut the BS and call it having a few casual games instead. It certainly does not sound like they are giving the Death Korps player a game or two, and come across like the awful types that kick off if anything forge world is put on the table.

You've clearly never met Goatboy, or any of the other BoLS crew. Goatboy's got a meticulously converted goat army of goat Marines (he's as weird in real life as he is in his articles;)). All the other guys in their group that I've met also have very well painted, often converted, armies, though nothing as notable as a bunch of Marines with goat heads. And Reecius, the guy leading the group that runs the Bay Area Open, is one of the guys pushing for allowing Forgeworld stuff in tournaments, and play it fairly frequently on their own.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Looks to me like the Yankees are over compensating for something...:D


-Who yew callin' Yankee?:p

[eldargal]

There is nothing wrong with tournaments and a competitive mindset. The problem comes when the small minority of players that are using a ruleset in a manner for which it is not intended then start demanding the rules be tailored to suit them. If you want to play 40k as a competitive ruleset you need to accept that sometimes you might lose because of a random mechanic thrown in to let the majority of the playerbase just have fun.

A good example of the dichotomy between competitive and normal mindsets is the Dark Eldar codex. Extremely well balanced, extremely fun to play, but it is not considered a 'competitive' codex. But in my opinion it is the finest codex GW have produced to date. There is very little in that it is useless, but much that is not considered 'competitive' but some of it, like the Casket of Flensing and the Dark Gate are obscenely fun and amusing sometimes.

This isn't to say that GWs rule are perfect, they are not and I would agree with Darklink that while 6th is a step forward it still has its (relatively minor) issues. But it still doesn't change the fact that if the ruleset and the codices were written with pure balance and competitiveness in mind we would see a much blander game.

Comp scores are nonsense, if you are going to twist 40k into a competitive event you can't turn around and penalise things for not reflecting the hobby as a whole. That isn't the point of a tournament.

Americans are, and always will be, compensating for the fact that they are just starting to get sarcasm now, nearly a century after the rest of the world mastered it and only four and a half centuries after it was mastered in Britain.

[Renegade]

You know what's kind of funny? The biggest complainers I've seen about a lot of the stuff (particularly allies) are comp heavy TOs. The anti-competitive types. That's my observation, and the point is that, just like every new set of rules, there are a lot of different people with varied complaints.. If you are running any type of tourney, you are running a competitive event. Point being, there are plenty out there who claim to be pros at painting and converting..[/QUOTE]


Anyway, the issue with terrain comes down to time. If you want to get 50 people to play 3-4 games in a day, you literally do not have time to spend a half hour rolling dice and placing terrain just to set up the battlefield. You have to have the tables and terrain all set up, roll off for first turn, deploy and go. Every time you add five minutes worth of dice rolling to the startup of the game, you slow things down a lot. It's awkward, it's time consuming, and it's not necessary for a fun game. So a lot of tournaments will skip that part. Fine, start it early, there are ways around such things. Being lazy and saying it takes to long is no excuse. Terrain is now a playable part of the game, people will have lists that involves them taking some and are perfectly legit. TO's need to adjust to this edition, are simply give up, as they are disallowing things that are in the rules.


And, while allies were pretty well done, the flyer rules are stupid unbalanced. I'm sure you'll go off on how a lack of balance makes for a better game, so long as you're only looking to have some fun, but the point still stands. I can think of only one 5ed codex that hasn't a flyer yet, so they are balanced with the most up to date codices.


Like Malifaux or Infinity (or dare I mention Warmachine?) that all, as I understand, manage to maintain high quality, complex, fun, and entertaining rules while also avoiding clumsy rules and loopholes and gaps.

Going to GW's reputation is not going to help your argument. GW's notorious for mediocre rules. They're imprecise, sloppy, poorly balanced, compared to a lot of the other stuff out there. You're trying to blame GW's issues on some imaginary vision of competitive players you've formed in your head.
GW's taken a step in the right direction. They've done a better job with a lot of the stuff in 6th, and they actually managed to quickly release FAQs for everyone, even if the FAQs were terrible. But they still have issues, and they are problems with GW's methodology and not with how the players decide to enjoy their hobby.


How about Blood Bowl, Space Hulk and even LotR are said to have a tight rule set. Go play one of them at quit whining about 40K rules.

The rules are good enough to have a fun game with, that is all they are intended for.


You've clearly never met Goatboy, or any of the other BoLS crew. Goatboy's got a meticulously converted goat army of goat Marines (he's as weird in real life as he is in his articles;)). All the other guys in their group that I've met also have very well painted, often converted, armies, though nothing as notable as a bunch of Marines with goat heads. And Reecius, the guy leading the group that runs the Bay Area Open, is one of the guys pushing for allowing Forgeworld stuff in tournaments, and play it fairly frequently on their own.

Nope, they play in a country that plays at the upper end of the points scales, so only know them by how they come across on BoLS. Goat CSM are hardly original, go look at some old conversions of Chaos Warriors from WFB from when beast men could be added into the fold. Not to say his conversions are not good, just not particularly original or zany.

[the jeske]

Fine, start it early, there are ways around such things. Being lazy and saying it takes to long is no excuse. Terrain is now a playable part of the game, people will have lists that involves them taking some and are perfectly legit. TO's need to adjust to this edition, are simply give up, as they are disallowing things that are in the rules.
playing without the terrain rules/ally/1999/etc is adjusting to the edition . A Org cant have a tournament drop by 1/3 or more people from a tournament .

as the starting sooner goes . even if the terrain stays the same for every game and isnt deployed by the players , you still have to roll every effect for each game . w40k takes longer then 5th now . that happens when you start runing single rolls to maxmize wound allocation/saves.



I can think of only one 5ed codex that hasn't a flyer yet, so they are balanced with the most up to date codices.
but you remember that eldar, tau , sob [WD dex] , nids , chaos , demons do exist right ? that there is more to the game then loyalist marines and IG match ups .


The problem comes when the small minority of players
you know if big tournaments are 100+ people plaing , smaller ones are 50-60 sized [dozens of those in europe every month] and god knows how many shop tournaments , you cant say that it is a small minority . unless small is anything other then 50,9999999999999999999%.



I resent the suggestion that only people who go to tournaments and play competitively are 'working hard' at it.
how many times per day do you play when preparing for a big even ? oh wait you guys generaly dont do that , only the minority does it . saying fluff gamers put the same work in to the game as tournament gamers is like saying dudes that play football every weekend , do the same work as dudes that are in a youth league.

[Renegade]

playing without the terrain rules/ally/1999/etc is adjusting to the edition . A Org cant have a tournament drop by 1/3 or more people from a tournament .


as the starting sooner goes . even if the terrain stays the same for every game and isnt deployed by the players , you still have to roll every effect for each game . w40k takes longer then 5th now . that happens when you start runing single rolls to maxmize wound allocation/saves.

Then anyone winning a tourney cannot claim to have played a 6ed tourney. Either they are run allowing 6ed rules or they are not.


but you remember that eldar, tau , sob [WD dex] , nids , chaos , demons do exist right ? that there is more to the game then loyalist marines and IG match ups .

Nid, CSM, Daemons all have flyers currently in the form of winged MCs. That leaves SOB, Eldar,Tau, BT, SW, DA without flyers... oh look, only two non-imperial armies have no flyers in their codices! Whatever are GW thinking?!



you know if big tournaments are 100+ people plaing , smaller ones are 50-60 sized [dozens of those in europe every month] and god knows how many shop tournaments , you cant say that it is a small minority . unless small is anything other then 50,9999999999999999999%. It is unlikely that the tourney base makes up anywhere near 50% of the player base. There are 4 clubs are 2 GWs in my local area, and they do not have 40K tourneys going every other day, or week, or month. There maybe one or two quarterly or so.



how many times per day do you play when preparing for a big even ? oh wait you guys generaly dont do that , only the minority does it . saying fluff gamers put the same work in to the game as tournament gamers is like saying dudes that play football every weekend , do the same work as dudes that are in a youth league. So the minority are not playing the game how it was intended to be played, and wont be playing 6ed at their events as they don't know how to fit the rules in. The amateur/fluff/non-tourney player will spend more time playing this edition than professional/competitive/tourney players.

[SotonShades]

I'm normally not a fan of going through someone's argument line by line, but I think here I want to make an exception.


playing without the terrain rules/ally/1999/etc is adjusting to the edition . A Org cant have a tournament drop by 1/3 or more people from a tournament .

Agree so far. Personnally I don't see why Allies need to be banned, but keeping terrain static does make sense to me. After all, the rulebook includes having the terrain set up for a narrative, rather than rolling for how much and taking turns placing terrain anyway. As for fortification, just say they get placed before deployment, rather than before the rest of the terrain (something I don't really understand anyway...). Most of the Tournaments I have played have been sub-2k anyway, so multiple FOCs wouldn't have been an issue, but again it is a simple matter of writing into the rules pack that only a single FOC is allowed if you want a 2k tournament. At the 2k Tounries I have been to, very few of my opponants actually had a full 2000 points (usually around 1996-1999, making calculating victory points as per 5th a little more tricky unless you had a calculator), so shouldn't have been entitled to second FOC anyway.


as the starting sooner goes . even if the terrain stays the same for every game and isnt deployed by the players , you still have to roll every effect for each game . w40k takes longer then 5th now . that happens when you start runing single rolls to maxmize wound allocation/saves.

I'm not sure what you mean by every effect? Are you talking about Mysterious Terrain? If so the TOs could say that all features are the same (so all woods are of the type you roll when someone gets close to the first) as that is in the rules, or could simple say that no terrain pieces use the mysterious terrain rules. Not my own preference, but a perfectly acceptable solution for where timing is tight.

As for 6th ed taking longer; I haven't found that. Admittedly, my first game at only a thousand points did take me two and a half hours, but I also hadn't checked the rulebook before hand, so had to look everything up for almost every action either of us took. I didn't chose to do it by choice, the FLGS manager suggested we try to have the first game because I have always been vairly quick to pick up on the rules etc. Since then though, my games have taken about the same amount of time (baring some set up because of the specific rules for a campaign I am taking part in). At least, I have had 5th Ed games take a lot longer at the same points values, and others that have gone a lot quicker.

Maybe that is just my observation, and most people are taking longer, but it isn't something I've heard anyone mentio0n at my FLGS.


but you remember that eldar, tau , sob [WD dex] , nids , chaos , demons do exist right ? that there is more to the game then loyalist marines and IG match ups .

4th ed codex, 4th ed codex, WD as you said, 4th ed codex (potentially with flyinf MCs), 4th ed codex (potentilly with flyinf MCs) and a wierd one with flying MCs who are about as bad as flyers anyway. Only the Sisters actualy make your point. Lets face it, that list struggles at tournaments anyway and the addition of a flyer wont change that. I'm sure when/if they get a full codex they will get some form of Eccleisiastc nutcase kamikhazi pilots. Until then, Alled guard give them the option to take two of the best fliers in the game.



you know if big tournaments are 100+ people plaing , smaller ones are 50-60 sized [dozens of those in europe every month] and god knows how many shop tournaments , you cant say that it is a small minority . unless small is anything other then 50,9999999999999999999%.

Yep, all true (though I'd say most of the smaller ones are about 30-50.) However, many of the people who attend thos tournaments are a) going to more than one/all the above, so don't be too hastey to count them twice, and b) the majority of those players take fairly normal, balanced list and are not the small minority to whom EG is referring to. Maybe skim off the top 5-10 players at most of those tournaments (more like 30 at the big events) who are really pushing the limits of what can be done with a list, taking each rule to the Nth degree and truely min/max their armies and using them with absolutel precision... they are the small minority. And they are often many of the most vocal bloggers, or the people bloggers base their tactics, lists and artticles on when the players themselves aren't interested in writing for the masses.

Even if you count up all the players who attend more than one tournament a year, they will add up to the tens of thousands. Maybe even hundreds of thousands. Total Hobbyests around the world easilly falls into the millions. You can see that by the numbers signed up to the GW and FW news letters, byt the sales of WD and by the number of people on forums like this who don't even play very often, but love to build and paint fantastical models to a level most of us could only dream of. To call the tournament scene 50.999999999999% of all the people who play 40k is a gross overstatement. If it even approaches 25%, I would honestly be surprised.



how many times per day do you play when preparing for a big even ? oh wait you guys generaly dont do that , only the minority does it . saying fluff gamers put the same work in to the game as tournament gamers is like saying dudes that play football every weekend , do the same work as dudes that are in a youth league.

I'm happy to say I fall roughly into both catagories. For a few of the torunaments I have been to, I have played a game evey day and 4 or 5 games a day at the weekends for the better part of a month leading up to the big day. I have also spent over a hundred hours painting a single miniature for display, and as much time as I prepare for a tournament writing up, tweaking and perfecting a Campaign rules pack, with as many pages of fluff/background material as rules, missions etc to inspire my friends to create and theme their armies for the event. I have army lists where every model has a name and basic background, with Characters havinglong and illustrious/diabolical histories. I have also created costumes for certain events to tie in to what was going on.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/197651_927559394242_1853193263_n.jpg
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa258/BR_Calix/Inquisitor/gamesdayuk2.jpg

I'd say I put a fair amount of effort into being both a competitive tournament player and a Fluff player. Equally I know people who consider themselves tournemnt players who never actively change their gaming when a tournament comes up and just play their normal list (and do fairly well) and even a 'friend' for want of a better word who never actually plays a game outside of a tournament, but always manges to place. And 'Fluffy players who put in every bit as much time and energy creating a really fluffy army that looks amazing, and can be six, seven or more thounsands of points of exquisitely painted and converted miniatures. StraightSilver's Macragge PDF are a perfcect example of a non-tournament army that has been honed and tweaked to perfection, probably more so than 99.99999% of tournament armies, just using a very very different way to set the goal of perfection.

[Wildeybeast]

Thanks for that Soton, saved me the job of calling nonsense on what jeske is saying yet again.

[Mr Mystery]

Tournament Practice eh?

Well, that's the thing I find ruins my own hobby experience the most. Why? Well, I tend to stick with what's printed in the rulebook as being the rules you play the game by. Yet on occasion, I'll be setting up, and my opponent will announce this is to be a 'practice' game, and that I shouldn't be using special characters, or that my army breaks comp, but they'll play me anyway. W. T. F. Did you....did you just inflict your own hobby on me? Don't do that dude. Pick up games should be played by the rulebook. Sure, if you've arranged the game and given prior notice then anything goes, but just rocking up to the shop and demanding I play by your version of the rules? Sod off mate.

And what sort of rules bending drivel have detracted from my game? The aforementioned constant bloody droning about special characters being used, and how you shouldn't. Gibberish about comp, and why I should play by comp (comp makes no sense, I'll be back on that in a second). Worse? Set up one game, my Savage Orcs versus High Elves. Lord on Wyvern is stuck 6" behind a Forest, intending to Waaaaagh! in the first turn and have a 50/50 chance of a first turn charge, straight into his Lvl 4 Mage. Now being on a Flying Large Target, according to the rulebook what I can see, I can charge. And boy could I see the Lvl 4 Mage. So I Waaagh! and off I go, 6", right up the woods. Then comes declaring charges. Which I do. Only to be told 'sorry, you can't. Trees are infinitely high, we play by Tournament rules here'. Well, thanks for telling me *after* set up you colossal bellend.

But worse happens. My armies tend to be 'win big, lose big' affairs. I think it's a quirk in my psychological make up. When they work they tromp all over the enemy, and it certainly helps that I'm pretty damned good at the game. Yet I find Tournament players less likely to be gracious losers. After a particularly hard slog of a game, where a risky, sneaky charge has collapsed my opponents centre, and I've had the wit to capitalise on this rout nothing makes me want to punch my opponent more than hearing 'Ugh. You diced me' Yes. Of course. Silly me. My victory had bugger all to do with any kind of skill I might have in the game, and it's all down to me having lucky rolls. Clearly you cannot be defeated with tactics. Or perhaps saying 'that wouldn't have happened if your army was comped'. ****. OFF. If you enjoy comp and that, awesome, feel free to enjoy it. But assume that it is the correct way to play the game, and you're just going to get on my wick all bloody game.

Now. Comp. I do kind of get what people are up to with this, in that the idea is for it to restrict or discourage some of the more boring lists out there. But all it does is change what an abusive list consists of. Without set armies, comp achieves *nothing* so please stop claiming it to be the solution to all gaming woes. The other argument that it encourages diversity in the various armies is also flawed, as you've just removed potential builds from the game. Now it might just be my local crowd (and let's face it, that's the same for everyone, we only know what we know) are a bunch of elitist gimps when it comes to Tournaments, but if they're representative then I have no interest in following in their foot steps. I will use my Special Characters if I choose. I will field *any* build the books allow in any game I wish.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Oh My (George Takei Voice)!!! Dear God Soton, that is...just...dude! I'd love to have a drink with you. I bet you are a hoot! I might want to leave the door open a crack though.



https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/197651_927559394242_1853193263_n.jpg
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa258/BR_Calix/Inquisitor/gamesdayuk2.jpg

[the jeske]

freaking sand storm killed internet <_< .


Well, thanks for telling me *after* set up you colossal bellend.
is there any other way when plaing against non closest family/friends?

I will give an old example here. Imagine your a Russian at a UK GT. Imagine it is the start of 3ed . Imagine your getting DQ from the tournament for having a non WYSIWYG army [in the 2ed or 3e game not the first one] , because "your 2ed orcs are armed with bolters/bolts pistols and not shotas" . that expriance taught me that all the stories[happened to my friend we both were at that GT] about friendly play/western guys doing it for fun/non WAAC[term didnt exist back then] was a lie and that the game is played the same way everywhere , only when we see something broken say that this will happen in games and you western guys say it is bad and wont happen [and then it still does] .



4th ed codex, 4th ed codex, WD as you said, 4th ed codex (potentially with flyinf MCs), 4th ed codex (potentilly with flyinf MCs) and a wierd one with flying MCs who are about as bad as flyers anyway. Only the Sisters actualy make your point. Lets face it, that list struggles at tournaments anyway and the addition of a flyer wont change that. I'm sure when/if they get a full codex they will get some form of Eccleisiastc nutcase kamikhazi pilots. Until then, Alled guard give them the option to take two of the best fliers in the game.
how are nids a 4th ed codex 0_o ?




going to more than one/all the above, so don't be too hastey to count them twice,
not every place is UK[small island lots of shops and tournaments] or US[huge *** country where long distance travel , for an euro dude , is the norm] some countries have 4-5 big tournaments max sometimes less. If you drop from 2-3 then your suddenly facing 4-5 months of doing nothing . I mean technicly you could just be testing and trying to go to small tournaments [but again am not sure I your noticed , but some comunities from different shops/clubs dont like each other well so playing there is not always an options].
And for small tournaments droping of 8-10 people may mean death . A 100+tournament losing 20-30 people ? that happened durning the chaos dex/nid dex era too. some tournaments stayed some died . But when a 50+tournament loses one shop/club community then it may as well be turned in a league .



Personnally I don't see why Allies need to be banned, but keeping terrain static does make sense to me. After all, the rulebook includes having the terrain set up for a narrative, rather than rolling for how much and taking turns placing terrain anyway. As for fortification, just say they get placed before deployment, rather than before the rest of the terrain (something I don't really understand anyway...). Most of the Tournaments I have played have been sub-2k anyway, so multiple FOCs wouldn't have been an issue, but again it is a simple matter of writing into the rules pack that only a single FOC is allowed if you want a 2k tournament. At the 2k Tounries I have been to, very few of my opponants actually had a full 2000 points (usually around 1996-1999, making calculating victory points as per 5th a little more tricky unless you had a calculator), so shouldn't have been entitled to second FOC anyway.

and am not saying they should . Am just saying that different communities respong in a different way to a new edition . Remember when 8th WFB started ? cut slots , no specials , no terrain rules . Not every big tournament had all of those , but almost all I remember removed myst terrain . As the 2k thing goes .GW wants us to play 2k [or 1999] armies with flyers , ally , more psykers need more points then 1500 . the problem is that double FoC buffs armies that dont need buffing and does little or nothing for weaker ones . + in the first few months it promotes armies with dex that are more flexible[aka again those that are better]. A SW player may not have 30LF [he probaly has 15 RL and 6Las unless he magntized the weapons] but he will have 15 and some landspeeders , or vindicators . A chaos player will dont have 18 oblits , but he will also have no FA at all[because it sucks ] few if any elites . So he will build army that is sub optimal [and he wont buy 9 oblits so short before new FAQ and new dex]. There is no balance in any table top game , but rules should not buff the better armies durning transition period . because it either ends with people playing 3-4 armies[and then fewer people come to tournaments] and other armies dont get played . Or people with weaker armies just dont switch to the good armies and stop playing[and most importantly dont start playing] w40k . That is bad no matter if someone plays or doesnt play tournament . No matter how one judges the size of the tournament community.



I'm happy to say I fall roughly into both catagories. For a few of the torunaments I have been to, I have played a game evey day and 4 or 5 games a day at the weekends for the better part of a month leading up to the big day. I have also spent over a hundred hours painting a single miniature for display, and as much time as I prepare for a tournament writing up, tweaking and perfecting a Campaign rules pack, with as many pages of fluff/background material as rules, missions etc to inspire my friends to create and theme their armies for the event. I have army lists where every model has a name and basic background, with Characters havinglong and illustrious/diabolical histories. I have also created costumes for certain events to tie in to what was going on.
I was thinking in general . I mean I hate painting , my wife is a profesional painter[pro for me is something who can live out of stuff he does] , I have to paint[aka spray] my models , but that doesnt mean I do as much work as she does. From time to time I sculpt stuff[mostly heads and shoulder pads or nids stuff] , but I am no Scibor . Same with gaming , people preparing to win tournaments play against goldfish builds , against builds they know other people will play , they check who is going to be at the tournament [what teams , what players , what armies they may play] . That is a lot of work put in to gaming . A avarge job dude who plays w40k at weekends does not do that.

[Renegade]

Jeske, can you state where GW say you must play at 2k points, because the only reference I can find is that normally games are played between 1500 - 2000 pts. The rule book doesn't say you have to take allies, but you do have the choice if you want and the same goes for fortifications.

JJ has stated more than once that the rules are not intended for serious play (i think it still states in the rule book that you should role a dice if neither side can agree on a rule), and GW do not expect people to only play what are thought to be the 'best' codex options.

So as far as the company is concerned, if you're playing seriously and building lists that are meant only to clobber your opponent, you are doing it wrong.

[magickbk]

The biggest problem is that you can't please all the people all the time.

Back in 3rd Edition, there were a ton of Codexes, and a lot of White Dwarf and Chapter Approved army lists. TOs complained because the variety made it difficult for them to check all the player's lists for accuracy. The result was that most TOs banned all the White Dwarf and Chapter Approved lists. This was back in the day before the tournament scene here in the US went "professional". Grand Tournaments were a great time for everyone, not just the WAAC players. The TOs back then would make a ton of changes to the rules to make the game more "competitive", and the current competitive atmosphere was developed. It is no coincidence that GW dropped most of their tournament support in today's competition environment - they were no longer fun for everyone.

I liked the pre-competitive world, and it annoys me that most 40K forums I visit have a tendency to slant in the direction of competitive play. I have a long commute to work, and a 4 month old baby at home, and on the occasion that my friends come over and we play a game, I just want to have fun (and quite possibly a beer). This doesn't mean I don't play to win the mission during a game, I want to play a hard-fought game, but having fun doesn't equal winning.

I also understand that there are people who want to play competitively, and I think they should be allowed to. It is up to the competitive community to refine the missions and terrain rules or ban Allied Detachments and fortifications and anything else to 'level the playing field'. Ultimately 40K is not Chess, and you can never have a completely even game unless everyone is required by TO rules to bring a pre-selected Space Marine list, and have symmetrical tables.

Variety is what makes this game great, and it is different everywhere the game is played. It is a fact that in my small group, we may go 5 years with no one using a Space Marine army. Imagine a world of all Xenos! It makes for an entirely different game than what you read about online.

[Mr Mystery]

The biggest problem is that you can't please all the people all the time.

Back in 3rd Edition, there were a ton of Codexes, and a lot of White Dwarf and Chapter Approved army lists. TOs complained because the variety made it difficult for them to check all the player's lists for accuracy. The result was that most TOs banned all the White Dwarf and Chapter Approved lists. This was back in the day before the tournament scene here in the US went "professional". Grand Tournaments were a great time for everyone, not just the WAAC players. The TOs back then would make a ton of changes to the rules to make the game more "competitive", and the current competitive atmosphere was developed. It is no coincidence that GW dropped most of their tournament support in today's competition environment - they were no longer fun for everyone.

I liked the pre-competitive world, and it annoys me that most 40K forums I visit have a tendency to slant in the direction of competitive play. I have a long commute to work, and a 4 month old baby at home, and on the occasion that my friends come over and we play a game, I just want to have fun (and quite possibly a beer). This doesn't mean I don't play to win the mission during a game, I want to play a hard-fought game, but having fun doesn't equal winning.

I also understand that there are people who want to play competitively, and I think they should be allowed to. It is up to the competitive community to refine the missions and terrain rules or ban Allied Detachments and fortifications and anything else to 'level the playing field'. Ultimately 40K is not Chess, and you can never have a completely even game unless everyone is required by TO rules to bring a pre-selected Space Marine list, and have symmetrical tables.

Variety is what makes this game great, and it is different everywhere the game is played. It is a fact that in my small group, we may go 5 years with no one using a Space Marine army. Imagine a world of all Xenos! It makes for an entirely different game than what you read about online.

Ditto in my local area. Out of 8 or so games with my Necrons, I've played against Marines precisely once, and I smashed his face in (why her parked his Landraider in front of 20 rapid firing Necron Warriors I will never know!)

Also, The Jeske. Regarding your point regarding a Russian gamer..well, 3rd Edition specifically stated that due to the change in who was armed with what, to use 'counts as'. WYSIWYG came a bit later, and applied specifically to Special, Heavy and Close Combat Weapons, to prevent a power sword happening to be a far more useful in a given situation powerfist, and vice versa. As for when you should tell your opponent about changing the basic rules of the game? How abouts whilst planning the game? With opponents consent, do whatever you fancy. But when you're using house rules these need to be discussed and agreed before the game is accepted. Hell, my old Dark Elf army wouldn't pass muster for any comped Tournament (2 Hydras, Dragon, Manticore, 4 Chariots....) so to suddenly inflict that upon me, yeah. Not so cool. And if you're wondering, this army dates from 2003/2004, well before the Hydra's became super-filth. It was a 'proving a point' army' designed to prove the Internet Hyperbole isn't based in fact. Same as my old Saim-Hann army.

[SotonShades]

Oh My (George Takei Voice)!!! Dear God Soton, that is...just...dude! I'd love to have a drink with you. I bet you are a hoot! I might want to leave the door open a crack though.

Cheers mate. Always up for a drink. Admittedly the chainsword is not mine. Originally it belonged to THQ for the release of Space Marine, but after a small tour of the UK stores, it is now residing in Warhammer World somewhere. Still on display though.

Some lucky -*Censored by the Inquisition. Though for the day; Purity of speach brings purity of the minds. Burn the Impure!*- got to have their photo's taken holding this beasty AND the Slayer Sword!

Still... The plasma pistol is mine. And it glows and flashes ;)

@ Jeske


If you are playing against an opponant, and want to play anything other than the word of the rulebook (such as the infinitely tall trees as per some tournament rules) as was in the phallic object reference, you need to make sure you discuss it with your opponant during the set up of the terrain and deffinitely before deployment, not after your opponant has started making moves and declaring charges. Equally, Mr Mystery should have discussed the terrain, but the default is by the rulebook, not by tournament rules.
ah yeh, Nid's aren't a 4th ed codex. My bad. Still, the original point I believe was that there were 5th Ed codexes without flyers. Nids have Flying Monstrous Creatures, and don't have vehicles so can't really have normal flyers. On the brightside they can do Vector Strikes against flyers, so should easilly be able to punch through them.
Uk ans US sales account for approximatel 70% of GWs business, and it would be safe to assume approximately the same amount of the player base. I'm not saying that GW should ignore the other 30% by anymeans, but standard business practices mean when that amount of your market meaurabley behave one way, you can make a generous assumption that the rest will behave in a similar way.
As for local clubs not liking each other and not being able to play there, that I do understand. Currently I am plessed living in a city with a fantastic crowd in the local GW, a fantastic gaming community at the main university, a fanstatic gaming community at a independent stockist and 2 very prominant GCN clubs who meet on different days... all withing about three square miles of each other. There is also a certain amount of overlap between each of those groups and everyone gets on really well. Also we are less than an hours drive from Warhammer World. One year ago though I was in a small city, with a small GW that could barely support the regulars there for gaming (most of whom played a less than correct version of the rules and many who were proper WAAC players). If you weren't in that gaming clique, you wouldn't get a game. Other clubs in the local area? Nope. Nearest tournaments were 2, maybe 3 a year and enough travelling time that it liimited us as to which we could actually attend if any.
Just because we do have more options overall does not mean we all have access to all those options. Especially as travel around the UK is among the most expensive in the world (per km or mile) thanks to the way our tax system works. Again, I'm not saying it we have it harder than our europian neighbours; the distances involved to/from a tournament are staggering, but just because you can't get to a tournament doesn't mean you can't play. Just because you don't get on with another local club/store doesn't mean you can't play. GW publishes a ton of advice (including localised for various areas around the world) for helping you find games and set up clubs for yourself.

As for tournaments losing players; I hold the TO responsible for that. If they can't hold a tourny that works with the rules of the game, then they can't hold a tourny that works. The problem I've seen with most of the ones that have died was that they tried to stick rigidly to systems that worked for older editions, or even different games, rather than thinking of what makes the current game in question work and organising their tourny for that.

Ok, so you are saying that not eveery player for each race will have an optimal list straight away because of the rulebook change? Exactly like when a new codex comes out and somethings get better or worse, so players have to change their mind as to what an optimal list is and often start their collection again or adapt it? except in this instnace it is happening to everybody. If they don't want to adapt their collection, they have to find an optimal list from what they have. Again, I count my self blessed that I can produce most options for most of the 3 armies I have for up to six or seven thousand points sized games. I know not everyone can do that. Again, maybe I am blessed but since 6th dropped I have seen every army played at my FLGS aside from sisters (and the usualy sisters player is on holiday). People who quit because they play "weaker" armies, have issues that go far beyond the gaming board. I know it isn't fun for most people when they percieve that they will lose every game automatically, butthjey could always ask their opponant to swap armies for a game, or mix it up with doubles games, play scenarios were oneside has a significant numerical advantage etc to see them through until they get a new codex. One of my mates plays Tau and Eldar, and has for a few years. Yes he moans sometimes they aren't too great, but he still has fun with them. And somehwo kicks me in the proverbial with them far too often :P

so when you made a specific point about fluff gamers not putting in as much effort as tournament gamers, you meant you don't put as much effort into painting your tournament army so you can spend more time playing games than your wife does so she can make a living painting miniatures?

[PhoenixFlame]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, they never were.

Stop forcing a false dichotomy.

Better writing benefits everyone, better rules benefit everyone.

Yep this. ^

The idea that a weaker game system somehow benefits "casual" or "fluff" players boggles the mind. Writing a rule set in a competitive game (which is what 40k is by simple definition of terms, crossing my fingers here no one makes me off track the thread but literally posting definitions) that's contrary to competition is just poor development. Having a "professional" (tho I think the dichotomy, and thus terms, is/are totally inaccurate) aka well balanced rule set doesn't do a thing to detract from fun fluffy play.

The only players I've seen who "can't" play fluffy in a competitive rule set are those who who'd rather min-max their lists rather than play fluffy. Who 'can't unsee' a broken combo and since they know it's there can only decide to use it.

I run a 13th Co. list, and while I try out other lists for varieties sake that's the one I keep coming back to.
And I play tournaments, in fact many of my most enjoyed games are tournament play, that's also a great space to meet new players who you can catch pick-up games with (at least it has been for me). You absolutely can play a fluffy army and play outside the meta in a tournament and still be competitive.
I know because I've done it. Do some lists have built in weaknesses because of their adherence to fluff? Sure. But the only way you can write a rule set wherein that is no longer true is to write a rule set wherein it no longer matters what lists each player brings to the table. And if you don't want that to matter then why play the game at all? :confused: (You can still paint modules and read the fic, so why spend the time to field an army if what army you field is functionally irrelevant? ).

How "competitive" or "gamey" a specific match is will always have a lot to do with who you're playing, you can take the most competitive (aka balanced) rule set in the world and have a perfectly casual game with a buddy. Taking a weaker rule set and having a competitive game with someone is harder, taking a weaker rule set and having a game (casual or competitive) with someone new who due to the weakness in the rules doesn't understand them in the same way you do... well that's often quite hard as well.
The more vague, imbalanced, or random a rule set is the harder it makes playing games with someone new on balance (mileage of course varies).

Now in general I don't think 6th is a huge problem, in fact many of the things seem pretty well executed (based on the limited exp I've gleaned at this early point). But there is one glaring flaw, and I'm going to reiterate that yes it's glaring and yes it's a flaw, is the extra injection of unnecessary random elements into the base game rule set. Past a minimal point random just further and further disconnects the game events from player choice rendering a less engaging and thus less enjoyable experience.
This reduction in player choice doesn't make fluffy play and more accessible, in fact in a game which contains armies like Orks (and to a somewhat lessor extend Daemons) it makes fluffy play less accessible by diluting some of the flavor of certain armies.

When I got into 40k I learned fluff before I knew even the core rules. When I choose my first army I did so based on theme and fluffy flavor not some assessment about what was most cost effective (either in cash or list points) and when I play I play with friends as often as I play at tournaments. And most of the time when someone starts talking about how the game/rules are being made more "fluffy friendly" or "geared for the hobbyist" all I can do is cringe and wonder what's been done to make the rules more sloppy, contentious, or cumbersome (as in the case of creating artificial barriers to new players entering the hobby or playing with players you've never met before by injecting so many "this dice roll could end the game" random rules. Some random is good, much beyond a minimal threshold and it's a distraction/distraction).

I'll sum up in closing by saying this;
False dichotomy is false. I play/collect/build with fluff in mind before maximizing, and I want a "competitive" aka balanced rule set. And my sentiments are representative many/most of the consistent players in my areas (I spend a chunk of the year in two different states, so I play in more than one area even tournaments notwithstanding).

[the jeske]

Exactly like when a new codex comes out and somethings get better or worse, so players have to change their mind as to what an optimal list is and often start their collection again or adapt it?
A SW player can do that. A GK player can do that . How does a sob/nid/chaos player change his list to get better. A SW player can drop lets say rhinos/razorbacks[not all but some] load up on stuff he didnt use in 5th [pods with terminator armored WGs] or maybe go more hth heavy switching one squad of LF for TWC .
A chaos player can do what ? raptors didnt get better then csm [icons the same , no support HQs , still highcost without ATKNF , alone can actualy get hurt by fear, they got an extra i10 hit , but again they are run alone] , DP arent flying MC[well not the csm ones] , LR without POTMS are still the same level of bad(and people need lists to deal with the good loyalist ones] , the termis got a buff and can even fit in to the list at 2k but the loyalist ones still outclass them . Every moment the the chaos player builds an army he is building one with the same game play as a SW one , but without all the options .
Or the tau . same stuff used over and over again . Good stuff is ok , bad stuff stays bad [some medium stuff got weaker on the other hand . like kroots due to the outflank/infiltration change].

you want me to go over the other bad armies too?


ah yeh, Nid's aren't a 4th ed codex. My bad. Still, the original point I believe was that there were 5th Ed codexes without flyers
chaos and demons were tested and done when the DT had 5th ed ready too.



Just because we do have more options overall does not mean we all have access to all those options
your comparing enviroments where there are few clubs , fewer shops per square km then UK , harder access to FW . Thats like saying that people living in NY still dont have all the possible options in life compering to those living in Kinshasa.



Again, I'm not saying it we have it harder than our europian neighbours; the distances involved to/from a tournament are staggering, but just because you can't get to a tournament doesn't mean you can't play.
But tournaments make sure that you can play . Even if you did 0 preparations . You go play the 4-6 games[more if you score higher or go after some sort of side event] . You dont have to check shops if you can or can not play . There is no "oh sorry that you are waiting 1 hour for me , am not going to come] calls on your day when you can play. I mean I do understand that the focus group for the game is young teens , but even they have school , prep schools , sports etc. finding opponents to game outside of tournaments is a time consuming . And it is borderline hard to find opponent for new guys . I will always find someone who plays w40k , damn if am borded enough I can set up armies I own , but not a 14 y old dude that just started. Vets wont play him , cliques wont play him , shop owners want him to buy stuff and get out .


The problem I've seen with most of the ones that have died was that they tried to stick rigidly to systems that worked for older editions, or even different games, rather than thinking of what makes the current game in question work and organising their tourny for that.
you would want to play WFB with all its rules for normal games , specialy at start ? stuff gets like hydras , teclis did get cut because it was too good. Other stuff like myst terrain was not ment to be for games. GW may thing that losing units to lol effects is fun , but I know it isnt . Possessed for chaos were random . chaos players did find them fun .

I mean no one is baning flyers [which means IG and necron builds are as NPE as possible] , SW work just fine. IG have their undercosted options turned in to flyers. The stuff is still there . But giving the imperial armies a clear adventage over others [more battle brothers , more viable flyer options ] is not fun . it is not fun in tournaments and it isnt fun in normal games . the difference between those two is a normal game costs me less[gas , a few hours a big tournament is 1-2 days , a lot more gas , sometimes taking leave from work/school ].



If they don't want to adapt their collection, they have to find an optimal list from what they have.
they have the 1500 lists . maybe 2k points ones . the difference is that the loyalist player will have more then 1 list ,because there will be more then one list possible out of his dex. the chaos dex had one build . sob have one build . tau have one build . nid have no build that works outside of tournaments and you still have to get lucky to dont play against counter match ups . that is also why chaos scaled bad in bigger tournaments [after you troops and HQ and oblits were taken there wasnt much stuff to take . chosen or termis were fillers . while loyalist had actualy had very good set ups for 2k or 2500]. If a GK takes his draigo wing and slams some SR in to his list , then it will work a hell lot better then a chaos player taking 12 termis more . Or a sob player taking 2 more sob squads in rhinos.




butthjey could always ask their opponant to swap armies for a game,

swamp to what . starter dude will have his 1500 army . someone witha bigger collection will carry his more optimized army maybe with 2-3 units he can switch[if he happens to have an army with those options]. but I mean you cant hope that a necron player will say "let me not used those lords/scarabs/arks/nights I want to try an old school 3ed just warrior and destroyers build , because you happen to be a noob and have a fresh bought nid army" . I have never seen a dude switch his army to a different one other then in UK. well there was this one time in berlin when a dude switched his 3ed eldar from scater lasers to star cannons , but considering he did that after playing my nids , when my friend asked to play his chaos marines [IA iron warriors] , I dont think that counts.



mix it up with doubles games,
so your opponents are two armies , you play a good army why would you want a team m8 that has a bad army ? this way not only he gets unfun time , but also you[constantly think if only he was playing something good] .



play scenarios were oneside has a significant numerical advantage
scenarios are rolled for . GL asking someone outside of a tournament to not use rule X. Its like asking if you can use FW. only time when people would say ok , is when the scenario wouldnt matter. But then it doesnt realy matter to the asking guy either.



One of my mates plays Tau and Eldar, and has for a few years. Yes he moans sometimes they aren't too grea
a vet . two armies. can ally . one army had a time when it was ok , one was the bomb in 4th . chance vet got to play them when they were good. Now tell a guy who had to start nids because his friends picked up good armies that he "just" has to wait for an update or that he should ask his friends [all are starting so models owned are those that are good] to be easy on him .



so when you made a specific point about fluff gamers not putting in as much effort as tournament gamers, you meant you don't put as much effort into painting your tournament army so you can spend more time playing games than your wife does so she can make a living painting miniatures?
not realy. I dont paint , because I cant do master class level[or rather I can but it takes me 10 times longer then my wife] and I belive that one should either master something or not do it . Fluff games dont put the time tournament games put in to the game . They dont pay as much for gas to play the game , they dont play for hotels as much to play the game , they dont play the game as offten as the tournament gamers . Not that it is a bad thing , everyone has a choice . w40k is not a system where you are either in the top 5% of the gaming community which wins or a no one . But just like tournament gamers dont do as much painting as pro painters , so do fluff players spend less time gaming .




This reduction in player choice doesn't make fluffy play and more accessible, in fact in a game which contains armies like Orks (and to a somewhat lessor extend Daemons) it makes fluffy play less accessible by diluting some of the flavor of certain armies.
remeber when the DT told us that the balancing part of losing chopa rules was getting FC and fleet durning waagghh for your whole army . what happens when fleet is no longer there , a lot of units no longer can use waagghh and the initative bonuse is gone [and suddenly your do simulatanous attacks with necron] ? its not fun . But at least the dakka makes it all better. tough luck for those who play lets say snake bite orcs or goffs .

[SotonShades]

I will give a rebuttle to this, but at the moment I am far too angry because of something else happenning in my life, and don't want to vent on the jeske unfairly. However I do not agree with most of the counter points he has made.

[SotonShades]

Actually, this week's episode of Extra Credits (http://extra-credits.net/episodes/perfect-imbalance/) makes most of my points for me.

http://extra-credits.net/episodes/perfect-imbalance/

Yes a lot of their jargon refers specifically to Video Games, but the same principles in games design apply directly to GW's rules. This topic was discussed quite a bit during my interview for the Games Developer job.

Actually, while you are there, check out the other 99 episodes of Extra Credits (http://extra-credits.net/). It will help a lot of people learn a lot about why GW has done things the way they have done things in the past (not all of it for good reasons necessarilly...)