What's worse - Codex Creep or 'Economy Creep'?

[Denzark]

Poll time:

2 thing wind me up a bit at the mo. Codex Creep. I don't want this to be a thread debating its existence, so I will define: The effect that has force weapons or smoke launchers doing 2 different things, 2 types of invulnerable for storm shields, IG payers admitting they field at least 30% units in the same points cost. All these factors that mean in the whole, it is usually better to have the latest 5th ed codex. This is real

But also, Economy creep. GW have the Shampoo Warlock, as their CEO/president/whatever. Now all of a sudden, the game changes to make you need troops - the most numerous things. Listen to IG players - quite pricey to make an army. Planetstrike - need masses of plastic buildings - city fight do the same. Special characters - whereas before you might give your SM captain or guard sergaent a spanky paint job, now you can buy a £10 metal figure to unlock a special ability. Seems to me that to influence the market returns some rules/weightings/games balance has changed.

All in all I find economy creep irritating more irritating - again not debating the benfit of my favourite plastic crack company getting back in profit but I hate the thought of market influences becoming more and more prevalent in game direction.

Your thoughts?

[Aldramelech]

I have to say that coming back to the hobby this year after a seven year break I was quite shocked by how much the hobby had changed. Games workshop were being accused of what you call economy creep even back then and I have to say that its very real. Now before I left I never played 40k (Id played it back in 2nd edition a couple of times) I was a committed WFB player but even I can see that you need to spend a hell of a alot more and paint a shed load of more figures then you did back in 2002.

Lets not forget that whilst you need to spend alot more on figures today, that also means spending alot more on paint, brushes, glue, green stuff, bases etc. etc. and I suspect this is where the big profit margins are.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't hate GW, Ive go no real problems with their being a business and needing to please shareholders, but I do have an issue with the length of time between Editions.

Editions now seem to be driven by trying to squeeze as many £/$ out of everybody rather then a need or desire to improve the rules. This is wrong! Leave the rules alone. If you want to bring out new products, Fine, but stop messing with the game itself.

[N0rdicNinja]

Economy creep is by far worse, and as the years go by it's been getting worse and worse, not only are rules designed around the selling of more and more products the price of said products goes up by a couple bucks pretty much every year consistently. >.>; I swear I think the price of my Immortals has doubled since I started playing back in 3rd. o.O;

[deadmanwade]

Codex Creep and Economy Creep have been going on since the beginning. Each new book has new and better stuff in it and that will cost you more money. To be honest, I have found the newer books to be balanced against each other and its just some of the older books that need bringing into line. By all accounts the DE still kick ***, they just have a very limited choice of which (ugly as sin) units to do that with.
Admittedly when Apoc came out there were a lot of good deals. 10 Leman Russ tanks for the price of 6??? My friends and I bought some sets together and split the savings. I'm still trying to put together all the IG infantry I got from the Cadian Company boxed set. I'm hoping and praying GW will do something like that again. I still have a few square inches in the corner of my room to fill.
Starting from scratch you've really got to choose a small army, know exactly what you want and shop around to get the best prices. Even with many online dealers offering less discounts there is still the option of ebay.
Once you have your army, just add bits to it when you need to. I'm now in the position with my armies that I just need to buy the 2 or 3 new kits for each release to have everything in the dex. (e.g. Valks and the new hellhound variants for my guard).

[Aldramelech]

Ebay is the mighty weapon against this. I just thank god for all those 14 year olds who get tons of GW for Christmas/Birthdays and 2 months later decide they don't want to do it anymore! lol

[imperialsavant]

Poll time:

2 thing wind me up a bit at the mo. Codex Creep. I don't want this to be a thread debating its existence, so I will define: The effect that has force weapons or smoke launchers doing 2 different things, 2 types of invulnerable for storm shields, IG payers admitting they field at least 30% units in the same points cost. All these factors that mean in the whole, it is usually better to have the latest 5th ed codex. This is real

But also, Economy creep. GW have the Shampoo Warlock, as their CEO/president/whatever. Now all of a sudden, the game changes to make you need troops - the most numerous things. Listen to IG players - quite pricey to make an army. Planetstrike - need masses of plastic buildings - city fight do the same. Special characters - whereas before you might give your SM captain or guard sergaent a spanky paint job, now you can buy a £10 metal figure to unlock a special ability. Seems to me that to influence the market returns some rules/weightings/games balance has changed.
SNIP****

Your thoughts?


Actually there are now 3 different rules for Storm Shields! The new SM Codex, the older SM Codexs E.G. B/ Templars (only 4+ allowed against C/C) & the Daemonhunters (4+ in C/C against only one opponent per turn!)

On economy creep yes, I agree you need to field more Troops with the new rules edition & yes you get more IG in Platoons for less points etc. Fortunately I tend not to field many Special Characters in my 4 Armies & I use the Models I already have as my Armies do not come from SM Codex & I dont use any IG SCs except Pask. :rolleyes:

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I have found GW seems to be leaning more towards giving us what we want, no matter how retarded an idea it might be, for the sake of money. The Imperial Guard didn't need 20+ tanks, for example. It's nice to have and I'm sure every guard player is loving it, though. Why? Well it's because the army plays more like its fluff reads. Which should be the ultimate goal of every army's design, really. Write the stories and then create the abilities and rules to go with those stories.

The Space Wolves codex is another really great addition, as I expect the Tyranid codex to also be. For what it's worth, too, it seems to me that GW is offsetting the gross sales from armies like the guard by making some elite armies less piecy to buy. My entire space wolves army at 2000 points as I've planned it, for example, is going to cost me less than $500 total easily, but the list numbers up at 86 models of differing types.

Compared to the 12,000 points of Space Marines I own already this is a pittance; it probably cost me over $500 dollars just for the core of my army (due to the need to buy other kits for parts...old devastator squads...etc). The way they have packaged the Space Wolves is awesome and there are only three box sets really, but all of them are super-versatile and bursting at the seams with useful parts. I will only need 5 boxes to make 3/5 of my army; the rest is rhino chassis and a drop pod.

I personally do not feel that GW altered the game to increase sales. You guys undercredit their brilliance, for what it's worth: if they wanted to screwjob the game to make more money there are much more effective ways to do it then to create the balanced ruleset we got for fifth edition. The troops thing isn't there to sell more troops (though it does, and it's a bonus), it's there because in 4th edition people would take SM armies of 2 five man scout squads and no tactical marines and it made no frigging sense. I think this rule was brilliant personally; it fixed a LOT of broken lists (Nidzilla jumps to mind) and spared us all a lot of annoyingly obvious min-maxed builds to wade through.

Of course, I make no secret that I am behind the company 150%. They are a lot of other ways they could rake in the cash; any time GW wants to they can make a rule that all terrain must be Citadel terrain, all dice must be GW brand dice, and all models must be built from 100% GW brand parts and all conversions are forbidden, for example.

My bottom line: The changes are making the game better, not worse, and if the company that makes the game I love stands to gain a bit from it in the process...well I say good on them. If they managed to make the game better AND improve their profits at the same time...then that is a huge plus for all of us who play this game.

[Denzark]

I have found GW seems to be leaning more towards giving us what we want, no matter how retarded an idea it might be, for the sake of money. The Imperial Guard didn't need 20+ tanks, for example. It's nice to have and I'm sure every guard player is loving it, though. Why? Well it's because the army plays more like its fluff reads. Which should be the ultimate goal of every army's design, really. Write the stories and then create the abilities and rules to go with those stories.

Saying the players want the armies to play like the fluff - you mean the fluff where 85% of marine armies have Hestan in them?

The Space Wolves codex is another really great addition, as I expect the Tyranid codex to also be. For what it's worth, too, it seems to me that GW is offsetting the gross sales from armies like the guard by making some elite armies less piecy to buy. My entire space wolves army at 2000 points as I've planned it, for example, is going to cost me less than $500 total easily, but the list numbers up at 86 models of differing types.

I can't see evidence or believe that the GW we all love/hate is 'loss leading' on elite armies, like Tesco does with cheap bread (or Walmart for my colonial cousins) whilst ramming me over the cost of Dolmio

Compared to the 12,000 points of Space Marines I own already this is a pittance; it probably cost me over $500 dollars just for the core of my army (due to the need to buy other kits for parts...old devastator squads...etc). The way they have packaged the Space Wolves is awesome and there are only three box sets really, but all of them are super-versatile and bursting at the seams with useful parts. I will only need 5 boxes to make 3/5 of my army; the rest is rhino chassis and a drop pod.

Yes the boxes are more flexible. Doesn't mean better value for money - RTB01 was quite flexible thank you very much.

I personally do not feel that GW altered the game to increase sales. You guys undercredit their brilliance, for what it's worth: if they wanted to screwjob the game to make more money there are much more effective ways to do it then to create the balanced ruleset we got for fifth edition. The troops thing isn't there to sell more troops (though it does, and it's a bonus), it's there because in 4th edition people would take SM armies of 2 five man scout squads and no tactical marines and it made no frigging sense. I think this rule was brilliant personally; it fixed a LOT of broken lists (Nidzilla jumps to mind) and spared us all a lot of annoyingly obvious min-maxed builds to wade through.

I know Goatboy has lightened up recentyl but no way has 5th ed stopped min-maxing. Talking of sense, troops only being able to hold objectives makes no military sense. We talk about Special Forces seizing objectives and moving on - but they HOLD them for a sufficient period for the troops to get there - a game doesn't represent a period longer than this IMO. Since when did parking a devastator squad in cover not secure an objective - or even worse, in apoc - a titan? Worse security than a single eldar guardian?
Of course, I make no secret that I am behind the company 150%. They are a lot of other ways they could rake in the cash; any time GW wants to they can make a rule that all terrain must be Citadel terrain, all dice must be GW brand dice, and all models must be built from 100% GW brand parts and all conversions are forbidden, for example.

This rule already happend in GW tourneys excepting conversions - which are allowed as long as they have sufficient GW parts.

My bottom line: The changes are making the game better, not worse, and if the company that makes the game I love stands to gain a bit from it in the process...well I say good on them. If they managed to make the game better AND improve their profits at the same time...then that is a huge plus for all of us who play this game.

I agree with you some of the change is better. And yes I have no objection to them making profits etc. But it is not being done on the side - I am convinced that game design is being influenced by economics and its not just a beneficial convenience. I am happy with balance but not decisions made because of economics.

[S0ULDU5T]

I have found GW seems to be leaning more towards giving us what we want, no matter how retarded an idea it might be, for the sake of money. The Imperial Guard didn't need 20+ tanks, for example. It's nice to have and I'm sure every guard player is loving it, though. Why? Well it's because the army plays more like its fluff reads. Which should be the ultimate goal of every army's design, really. Write the stories and then create the abilities and rules to go with those stories.

The Space Wolves codex is another really great addition, as I expect the Tyranid codex to also be. For what it's worth, too, it seems to me that GW is offsetting the gross sales from armies like the guard by making some elite armies less piecy to buy. My entire space wolves army at 2000 points as I've planned it, for example, is going to cost me less than $500 total easily, but the list numbers up at 86 models of differing types.

Compared to the 12,000 points of Space Marines I own already this is a pittance; it probably cost me over $500 dollars just for the core of my army (due to the need to buy other kits for parts...old devastator squads...etc). The way they have packaged the Space Wolves is awesome and there are only three box sets really, but all of them are super-versatile and bursting at the seams with useful parts. I will only need 5 boxes to make 3/5 of my army; the rest is rhino chassis and a drop pod.

I personally do not feel that GW altered the game to increase sales. You guys undercredit their brilliance, for what it's worth: if they wanted to screwjob the game to make more money there are much more effective ways to do it then to create the balanced ruleset we got for fifth edition. The troops thing isn't there to sell more troops (though it does, and it's a bonus), it's there because in 4th edition people would take SM armies of 2 five man scout squads and no tactical marines and it made no frigging sense. I think this rule was brilliant personally; it fixed a LOT of broken lists (Nidzilla jumps to mind) and spared us all a lot of annoyingly obvious min-maxed builds to wade through.

Of course, I make no secret that I am behind the company 150%. They are a lot of other ways they could rake in the cash; any time GW wants to they can make a rule that all terrain must be Citadel terrain, all dice must be GW brand dice, and all models must be built from 100% GW brand parts and all conversions are forbidden, for example.

My bottom line: The changes are making the game better, not worse, and if the company that makes the game I love stands to gain a bit from it in the process...well I say good on them. If they managed to make the game better AND improve their profits at the same time...then that is a huge plus for all of us who play this game.

Awesome post, agree 110%. In regards to this:


Talking of sense, troops only being able to hold objectives makes no military sense. We talk about Special Forces seizing objectives and moving on - but they HOLD them for a sufficient period for the troops to get there - a game doesn't represent a period longer than this IMO. Since when did parking a devastator squad in cover not secure an objective - or even worse, in apoc - a titan? Worse security than a single eldar guardian?

Special forces DO NOT hold objectives. THEY DO NOT. Period. Special Forces are surgical fighters trained to take objectives, equipped usually quite lightly (comparativly) and then they get the **** out! Just becuase special forces are disciplined enough to hold objectives in the most pressing of times does not mean that it makes logical sense or that was what they were trained to do.

What military sense does it make to leave a titan on an objective instead of on the hotspot? Military doctirine states that as long as that titan is killing the enemy on the front, it's leaving nothing behind it.

I'm not going to argue wither the parallels between real-life and the 40k world are realistic and if you have some disagreements about wither a devastator squad should hold an objective then fine but I do ask that you do not assume to know comprehensive military docterine and then use it erroronuesly to try and prove a point. Furthermore, on a side note, devastators can't hold objectives becuase they represent a support unit and are also unequipped to hold an objecitve which is why they don't usually do so well when they're the only ones trying to do so in a 40k game.

[Aldramelech]

Awesome post, agree 110%. In regards to the other poter and thinking that making troop choices the only option to hold points was a bad decision: Special forces DO NOT hold objectives. THEY DO NOT. period. Special Forces are surgical fighters trained to take objectives, equipped usually quite lightly and then they get the **** out! Just becuase special forces are disciplined enough to hold objectives in the most pressing of times does not mean that it makes lgocial sense or that was what they were trained to do. End of story of that note.

I suggest you read up on the SAS action at Mirbat my friend. Or maybe the French Foreign Legion at Dien Bien Phu. US Marines at Khe Sanh. British Paras at Arnhem. Royal Marines at Port Stanley. Fallschirmjäger on Crete. I could go on and on........

A huge part of Special Forces Training is and always has been the organizing and execution of a credible defense. The whole concept of Airborne Forces was the taking and holding of valuable objectives.

Never read such an ill informed post in all my time on this forum.

[S0ULDU5T]

I suggest you read up on the SAS action at Mirbat my friend. Or maybe the French Foreign Legion at Dien Bien Phu. US Marines at Khe Sanh. British Paras at Arnhem. Royal Marines at Port Stanley. Fallschirmjäger on Crete. I could go on and on........

A huge part of Special Forces Training is and always has been the organizing and execution of a credible defense. The whole concept of Airborne Forces was the taking and holding of valuable objectives.

Never read such an ill informed post in all my time on this forum.

And I suggest you see military service and special forces training before listing specific examples which have underlying conditions that forced people to do certian things they might not otherwise have done. A huge part of any military trianing is defense, it does not mean that all are equipped to do so equally.

[Miggidy Mack]

I noticed that as well. While guard armies CAN be more expensive they can also be pretty cheap using Veterans as troops or buying a good number of battle force boxes.

The Space Wolves are ridiculously cheap by comparison however. All of mine have been purchased from brick and mortar retailers. Much of my stuff is "13th company" themed, so I got other bits to convet. I've purchased so far:

($90) Battle Force
($35) Space Wolves
($50) 2 Assault Marines
($50) Space Wolf Terminators
($30) Drop Pod
($60) 2 Rhinos
($70) 2 Space Marine Tac Squads
($30) Devastators
($35) 1 Chaos Marines
($50) 1 Chaos Terminators

That's a TON of stuff at first glance, $470 bucks worth. A friend gave me some left over Dreads from AOBR so I have a couple converted dreads too. All in all, however, I'm looking at over 2k that I've built and I haven't even touched either drop pod OR the scouts. On top of that I have enough to make 3 more terminators, 3 more Grey Hunters squads and so many special weapons and bits that anything I buy will get stretched by about 75%. Hell the Long Fangs squad I built has 11 guys just so I have plenty of weapon options to choose from!

I feel like I got quite a steal while building the army.

[Xas]

Since the mid of E3 when I started with 40k everything has grown better for the players and the game is gradually getting more fun.

there is too much things to list them all but in the grand sheme of things I cannot speak of anything that has changed for the worse.


E4 and the apropriate codicies made most units playable (albeit some where and othrs now are subpar. compared to the E3 versions they are still golden and the gap between good and useless has shrinked extremely. for a good example of this gap see the DE codex and compared wyvern to harpies :) ).

it suffere from min-maxed lists that created a feeling that those units which where a bit subpar or overpriced were useless and in generall allmost no army wanted to field more than 2 min siced troops.


E5 and its dexes made the armies play and feel like their supporting fluff.

space marines are good alrounders and have acess to many exotic gear and extreme specialists but have to act smart (something 80% of the players dont get) against more numerous oponents.

imperial guard features quantity over quality and can drown the enemy in targets and hammer them down with massed firepower from their troops and support.

space wolves are like they should be: everyone a brave warior who bests a normal ultramarine/codex astartes marine in close quarters. on the downside they haven't updaed their armories and combat tactics since the heresy so they lack all the shiney toys and newer types of specialists.

orks are the orks from novels. you can build all between a green tide, bot assoult and speedfreak clan. they work but with the green horde your hardest point is to not get outmaneuvred (just what allways happens in the novels if the orks loose).



and on the issue of money....
since I started 40k both cinema tickets and drinks at bars and clubs have doubled in price while GW stuff has barely changed much (metall minis got up around 50% but plastic only about 20%).

it hasnt stopped people from going out or going to the cinema so I gues we shouldnt complain too much...

[Miggidy Mack]

That's true, never thought of it that way.

When I started a box of 10 marines was $25ish dollars, now they are $35. At the same time a movie near me was $6, now it's $11. Tickets have gone up more than GW!

[SandWyrm]

I suggest you read up on the SAS action at Mirbat my friend. Or maybe the French Foreign Legion at Dien Bien Phu. US Marines at Khe Sanh. British Paras at Arnhem. Royal Marines at Port Stanley. Fallschirmjäger on Crete. I could go on and on........

A huge part of Special Forces Training is and always has been the organizing and execution of a credible defense. The whole concept of Airborne Forces was the taking and holding of valuable objectives.

Never read such an ill informed post in all my time on this forum.

And the British Paratroopers at Arnhiem bridge lost that battle because the allies couldn't get their regular army troops to them in time to exploit their success. Thus illustrating why troops are scoring and special forces are not. Only the regular army troops have the organizational structure and logistics chain to hold on to something after they've taken it.

[Denzark]

That's true, never thought of it that way.

When I started a box of 10 marines was $25ish dollars, now they are $35. At the same time a movie near me was $6, now it's $11. Tickets have gone up more than GW!

Really young whippersnappers. When I started £2.99 would get you 5 assorted metal minis for marines - including spec weapons. Now it's £7.85 for 2 spec weapons. I'll let you work out the exact percentage but your money now spent- then on that ratio got you 5 times the minaitures.

Or look at the legendary RTB01 marines. Coming out at £9.99 for 30. Now £19.55 gets you ten. So back then would have got you 60 - 6 times the miniatures.

Or what about the 3 rhino box - £9.99 against £17.60 for 1 rhino now.

I shall now change into caps for emphasis.

I AM NOT DEBATING THE VALUE OF GW. I AM HAPPY TO PAY FOR MY PLASTIC CRACK AND HAPPY FOR THE COMPANY TO BE IN PROFIT. I AM HAPPY WITH THE OVERALL BALANCE OF 5ED. I CONTEND THAT ECONOMIC DECISIONS HAVE LED TO SOME CHANGES IN RULES IE TROOPS ONLY SCORING (= BUY MORE TROOPS), REDUCTION IN POINTS OF STUFF (=BIGGER ARMIES = MORE MONEY). AND I DON'T LIKE THE BANKERS LEADING THE DESIGN.

[Denzark]

And the British Paratroopers at Arnhiem bridge lost that battle because the allies couldn't get their regular army troops to them in time to exploit their success. Thus illustrating why troops are scoring and special forces are not. Only the regular army troops have the organizational structure and logistics chain to hold on to something after they've taken it.

The whole defence lasted 9 days. Against Panzers. Are you suggesting that a 7-turn max is supposed to represent more than 1 day?

If we use your analogy then the panzer units were the ones who won the arnhem battle - oh sorry is that tanks 'scoring' then?

Regular army troops - are you saying the anti tank platoon attached to an infantry battalion (devastators) doesn't get put into defensive positions to hold objectives?

[EmperorEternalXIX]

Since the mid of E3 when I started with 40k everything has grown better for the players and the game is gradually getting more fun.

there is too much things to list them all but in the grand sheme of things I cannot speak of anything that has changed for the worse. I appreciate that I am not alone in this sentiment.

[wittdooley]

The whole defence lasted 9 days. Against Panzers. Are you suggesting that a 7-turn max is supposed to represent more than 1 day?

If we use your analogy then the panzer units were the ones who won the arnhem battle - oh sorry is that tanks 'scoring' then?

Regular army troops - are you saying the anti tank platoon attached to an infantry battalion (devastators) doesn't get put into defensive positions to hold objectives?

Can't we all just agree that real life situations in no way, shape, or form represent the world of surgically enhanced Goliaths that is 40k?

[Brass Scorpion]

Ditto on the "everything is better now" comment. I think the models and the game itself are more fun now as a whole than ever. As for Codex and economy creep, GW is merely feeding a passion that was already there. Most hobbyists I know have huge amounts of product and hobby backlogs, GW now simply provides more formal acknowledgement of us nutters with expansions like Apocalypse. Those expansions, however, in no way prevent the smaller gamer or collector from enjoying themselves. There are simply more options now available for enjoying GW's models.

[DarkLink]

And I suggest you see military service and special forces training before listing specific examples which have underlying conditions that forced people to do certian things they might not otherwise have done. A huge part of any military trianing is defense, it does not mean that all are equipped to do so equally.

First off, cool it. You sound as if he insulted you or the military or something.

Secondly, he has a point. You can look throughout history and see countless times when one single dude held the line or the hill or the fort against all odds, regardless of his training, rank or position. There's no logical reason to assume that this doesn't happen in the 40k universe as well.

In fact, a fair bit of the fluff from the SM 'dex is about how "X" hero held the breach in the wall against waves of enemies for days straight without reinforcements.

The point is, in reality, it doesn't matter who is on the objective. All that matters is that when the dust settles someone is on it.

Now, 40k is not based on reality. It is a game. So we don't have to worry about weird justifications for this and that. All we need to do is say 40k is the way it is for gameplay balance reasons.





I have to agree with Emperor Eternal's post. GW gets a lot of undeserved hate, and frankly I would probably do stuff a lot like they do it if I were in their position. They're not perfect, but considering how much work is involved in all the modeling and writing for all their various game systems, I'd say they don't do a bad job.

[Miggidy Mack]

Why does everyone keep comparing modern armies to 40k?

Patton never used his tank brigade to defend a city from insects the size of volkswagons.

Lieutenant Colonel Adan never lead his 7th Armored Brigade against metal men rising from the sand to flay their skin with beams of green light.

Stanislaw Maczek's Flying Company was not 8 foot tall super men on motorcycles with sidecars carrying guns capable of melting through a bank vault.

Reinhard Heydrich's SS did not have laser machines guns on their back, nor did they drop out of low orbit.

And now that I have proven my formidable ability to read the Wikipedia list of military commanders I'm going to go write up everything I just said as the most awesome alternative history story ever.

Wait what was my original point?

[S0ULDU5T]

Secondly, he has a point. You can look throughout history and see countless times when one single dude held the line or the hill or the fort against all odds, regardless of his training, rank or position. There's no logical reason to assume that this doesn't happen in the 40k universe as well.

*Sigh* The military does not train or condone the practice of a "single dude" holding a line. You have watched way too many movies. There are those that are trained and prepared/equipped to hold a defensive position and special forces are not it. Just becuase there are numerous accounts in history of men flying into space does not mean I will sprout wings from my *** and burst through the atmosphere - to make it more clear, to draw from all of recorded history to find a special list of isolated events with conditional circumstances does NOT prove that it was ever meant to be that way nor was it the most practical course of action. I am sorry to inform all of you military historians that the reason that you can find a special list of these incidents is becuase they are, in FACT, not commonplace thus historicly noteworthy otherwise no one at all cares. To make THIS point more clear, If a plummer shows up to fix my toilet, no one cares. If McGuyver shows up to fix my toilet, I'm writing a friggin' book about it, etc.

It is not the purpose of Special Forces to hold objectives, and if the utmost dire of circumstances would compel them to do so then it is an exception and not the rule. Period.


Why does everyone keep comparing modern armies to 40k?

They don't exactly, the point branched off into a real-life arguemnt which was mostly my fault becuase it is a pet-peeve of mine so I do apologize. I have already stated that, although I agree with the current GW rules, that I really didn't care about any parallels between 40k and real-life just as long as people at least had their rea-life facts correct.

[Lerra]

It is not the purpose of Special Forces to hold objectives, and if the utmost dire of circumstances would compel them to do so then it is an exception and not the rule. Period.
Fair enough, but when tyranids are pouring over the hill and 2/3rds of my army is dead, circumstances are pretty dire! If only I could convince my elite troops to make an exception just this once . . . ;)

[S0ULDU5T]

Fair enough, but when tyranids are pouring over the hill and 2/3rds of my army is dead, circumstances are pretty dire! If only I could convince my elite troops to make an exception just this once . . . ;)

lol, well for this I cite the famous battle at Little Round Top where Chamberlan held off a whole army of tyranids that attempted to take the hill. Cheeky bugs. Well, realisticly speaking if special forces are present and 2/3 of the operational forces are dead there are numerous things they will do (bug out, buckle up, etc) but I doubt any of those things would be to feel more compelled to hold said objective becuase you have to remember that they wouldn't be trying to hold it until turn 6 so they could win, they would be holding it to keep it and if a force wipes out 2/3 of your operational capacity then the mission outlook is grim. In any case, just a prime example of how we shouldn't make parallels from the 40k world to the real world. Chamberlain really did kill tyranids though...wrote a poem about it...I promise....read it on wiki.

[Aldramelech]

And the British Paratroopers at Arnhiem bridge lost that battle because the allies couldn't get their regular army troops to them in time to exploit their success. Thus illustrating why troops are scoring and special forces are not. Only the regular army troops have the organizational structure and logistics chain to hold on to something after they've taken it.

The fact that they were only supposed to hold for 24 hours and actually held for nearly a week is niether here nor there I suppose? :rolleyes:


And I suggest you see military service and special forces training before listing specific examples which have underlying conditions that forced people to do certian things they might not otherwise have done. A huge part of any military trianing is defense, it does not mean that all are equipped to do so equally.

Oh I think I know what Im talking about my friend, thank you very much.

[S0ULDU5T]

The fact that they were only supposed to hold for 24 hours and actually held for nearly a week is niether here nor there I suppose? :rolleyes:

Correct. No one said Special Forces weren't good at what they did, even if it doesn't involve their primary function. My earlier facts still stand.


Oh I think I know what Im talking about my friend, thank you very much.

I'm sure you think you do - and I'm not your friend, thank you very little.

[Aldramelech]

Correct. No one said Special Forces weren't good at what they did, even if it doesn't involve their primary function. My earlier facts still stand.



I'm not your friend, so roll your eyes away from me and call someone else ignorant becuase to me you just seem silly, thank you very little.

Ok, have it your way.

I know what I'm talking about because I have direct experience.The only silly person here is you because you plainly have absolutely no ****ing clue what your talking about. Jog on sunshine!

[S0ULDU5T]

Ok, have it your way.

I know what Im talking about because I have direct experience.The only silly person here is you because you plainly have absoulty no ****ing clue what your talking about. Jog on sunshine!

You wouldn't be the only one whose had expereince with Special Forces training, except mine took place in the military and yours probably in the back of some short bus.

[Aldramelech]

Really? Whatever..

[Denzark]

@Souldust.

There is an outside chance that you are a 40k playing blade. there is an outside chance that you actually know what a blade is - even US SF would know this British term.

What is more likely is that if you have any experience of Special Forces at all it is through flipping burgers for them in the cookhouse at Fort Bragg.

Now I would fall over and die if you are or have been military and the highest rank you have held, and amount of time on deployed ops (and I don't mean eating Ben and Jerrys in Oman or Saudi I mean real ops) average out at higher than myself and Mr A. Who is quite right in sugesting you adopt a speed somewhere between a walk and a run, and exiting stage left.

[Denzark]

Ditto on the "everything is better now" comment. I think the models and the game itself are more fun now as a whole than ever. As for Codex and economy creep, GW is merely feeding a passion that was already there. Most hobbyists I know have huge amounts of product and hobby backlogs, GW now simply provides more formal acknowledgement of us nutters with expansions like Apocalypse. Those expansions, however, in no way prevent the smaller gamer or collector from enjoying themselves. There are simply more options now available for enjoying GW's models.

I'd like to quote the Dark Mechanic from his Satellite of Love, to bring this thread back on track.

Now i can debate military doctrine all day - I am 6th continuous generation military, to put that in context an unbroken chain of my family has served, stretching back to a time before the US had even freed slaves or beaten up the south.

But i am not trying to draw parrallels between 40K and real life.

I will freely agree that after 19 years of playing I find 40K in a really good shape by now. What I don't like is this balance being shaped by a desire to shift miniatures ie troops choices. Watch as Necrons/DE cost less points for more individuals. At the end of the day 45% (to date) of people on this poll think economy creep is worse than codex creep and we've seen how much gnashing of teeth that causes.

[Aldramelech]

The whole argument is quite subjective anyway. Alot of the units in question are not directly comparable to SF anyway.
I would say that many fall under the category of "Specialized" units. Imperial Guard Storm Troopers for example are not what I would call Special Forces, they are specialized assault infantry, which is not the same thing. Space Marine Devastators again are not "more elite" then Tactical Squads, their just more "specialized". I see no problem with either of these being used to hold objectives.

The only reason they are not allowed to is not some quasi military theory cooked up by GW, its to stop people having "silly" army lists (as they saw it) and to sell more core option models (Which happen to be the new plastic, very expensive to set up, blimey we need to recoup on this investment PDQ, models)

[Xas]

if you guys think not-troops not holding objectives is silly, how would you prevent people from building min-max armies (or at least give them a deciding dissadvantage)?


I've come with a nice refinement of the current system (which partially also comes out of frustration of the curent fad of contesting stuff with a single landspeeder or empthy rhino which is also silly in my book).


The system runs around victory points (can be represented by coloured dice, pieces of glass or poker coins) which you accumulate during a game (so snatching objectives at the end of the game isnt as important as actually holding them). Balance here is on d3+2objectives, modifications can be made for the 2 objectives game (like doubling the points if you hold your oponents objective).


For every turn you have a non-scoring modell (non troop) within 3" and the oponent has no modells within 3" you earn 1 point.
For every turn you have an embarked scoring unit within 3" and the oponent has no or only non scoring modells within 3" you earn 1 point.
For every turn you have a disembarked scoring unit within 3" and the oponent has unscoring, or embarked scoring modells within 3" you earn 1 point.
For every turn you have a disembarked scoring unit within 3" and the oponent has no modells within 3" you earn 2 point.

This is checked at the end of each player turn and only the active player can earn points.

At the end of game there is one conclusion phase where both players can score and which is worth 2*/3* (dont know which would cause more thrilling games) the points.


With this system you could still have a single hero capturing the flag on the hill (but he has to be done with his work killing all the enemies) but only the troops are assumed to have the proper training of makeing use of the devices that are faught about even during enemies beeing present.
this special ability of troops might or might not have resemblance in real live but it can be assumed that commanders of the 40k universe wouldnt field "inferiour" troops if they wouldnt have any positiv points about them (and the general "beeing cheap bodies" is not well represented even in E5 dexes, for this to make an impact I think they would have to be another 20% cheaper so you'd rather take troops than the more dedicated combat units).

[Denzark]

Currently, when I play apoc, we go with apocalypse reloaded suggestion which is, as apoc was designed to be used in conjunction with 4th ed, it offers you a chance to use old scoring rules ie half strength, not immobilised etc. we also go with the cumulative scoring it suggests.

So yeah, I like this suggestion. Although at the moment my mucker and I are using the 2ed victory points table and mission cards drawn at random - anything for some variations.

[SandWyrm]

The whole defence lasted 9 days. Against Panzers. Are you suggesting that a 7-turn max is supposed to represent more than 1 day?

If we use your analogy then the panzer units were the ones who won the arnhem battle - oh sorry is that tanks 'scoring' then?

Regular army troops - are you saying the anti tank platoon attached to an infantry battalion (devastators) doesn't get put into defensive positions to hold objectives?

The way I look at it is this: After the battle is over, who's going to be left to hold on to the objective?

Not the special forces, who will be flown back to base, re-equipped, and sent out again on the next op. Or the fast-attack/heavy support choices, who will be driving off to wherever the action is hottest. It's the regular army troops. And if there's not enough of them left, they'll fall back to someplace where there is enough of them to pose a credible barrier to an enemy attack. Where they're expected to hold out long enough for the heavy hitters to be shifted over to their position in order to help out.

Beyond that, it's a great game mechanic. Easily one of the best things about 5th.

[SandWyrm]

I appreciate that I am not alone in this sentiment.

No, you're not alone at all. I too, remember the days of 5-figure blisters for $7.50. But the game itself HAS gotten loads better since then, the figures too. And the new 5th-Ed Codexes ARE pretty darn good.

My only real complaint is GW's near complete lack of community support. FAQs are slow to come out and incomplete. Codexes go un-updated when all it would take is a few PDFs as a stopgap to a full rewrite for each army. And standardized Tourney rules, player ranking systems, and missions are non-existent. GW should be doing everything they can to support the 40k community and encourage competitive play, not leaving it to sites like BoLS (and others) to do all the hard work for them in a piecemeal fashion.

[Denzark]

No, you're not alone at all. I too, remember the days of 5-figure blisters for $7.50. But the game itself HAS gotten loads better since then, the figures too. And the new 5th-Ed Codexes ARE pretty darn good.

My only real complaint is GW's near complete lack of community support. FAQs are slow to come out and incomplete. Codexes go un-updated when all it would take is a few PDFs as a stopgap to a full rewrite for each army. And standardized Tourney rules, player ranking systems, and missions are non-existent. GW should be doing everything they can to support the 40k community and encourage competitive play, not leaving it to sites like BoLS (and others) to do all the hard work for them in a piecemeal fashion.

Hang on. You're liking the production values, the figures - so the stuff GW is developing into bigger profit streams. You're not liking the fact that this takes the designers away from support to the community (a few stopgap PDFs) which would make no profit for GW at all.

Funny that - I'm talking about the influence economics has on GW creative direction and now so are you.

Ker-CHING! :)

[Miggidy Mack]

The guys who write the rules are not sculptors and model engineers. The two are separate groups. To make awesome new models doesn't take any time/effort from the guys who write the rules. Except maybe that awesome new models need rules.

[Denzark]

The guys who write the rules are not sculptors and model engineers. The two are separate groups. To make awesome new models doesn't take any time/effort from the guys who write the rules. Except maybe that awesome new models need rules.

No you're spot on. I imagine the board of directors dictates strategic direction, then the designers design rules based on this direction, then the sculptors make the models for these rules. Little bit of cause and effect.

[S0ULDU5T]

Now I would fall over and die if you are or have been military and the highest rank you have held, and amount of time on deployed ops (and I don't mean eating Ben and Jerrys in Oman or Saudi I mean real ops) average out at higher than myself and Mr A. Who is quite right in sugesting you adopt a speed somewhere between a walk and a run, and exiting stage left.

Given your lack of accurate knowledge regarding the field, I do not doubt the ease in which you would 'fall over and die'. Moreover, I suggest you defend yourself with actual presentable facts (that do not rely on a list of exceptions) rather than defend some half-wit and simply suggest I exit a stage with nary an arguable point presented. Clearly, your a valuable asset to whatever Taco Bell your currently employed.

Getting back to the topic, I really like the decision to make troops the only scoring units and although there was probably a bit of marketing to the decision, I would have to agree with the other posters in that it was probably the best move in 5th so probably wouldn't see it as 'economy creep' in that sense.

[Lord Azaghul]

So back OT - none of the poll options are valid if you disagree with the major premise of the thread.

[SandWyrm]

Hang on. You're liking the production values, the figures - so the stuff GW is developing into bigger profit streams. You're not liking the fact that this takes the designers away from support to the community (a few stopgap PDFs) which would make no profit for GW at all.

Funny that - I'm talking about the influence economics has on GW creative direction and now so are you.

Ker-CHING! :)

Why does Microsoft develop Internet Explorer? It's not out of corporate pride or some kind of altruistic intention. They develop and provide a web browser because it builds a market for their proprietary server and content management systems. Which is where they make a LOT of their corporate profits. Their XCode development platform is free also. But that directly feeds the downloadable games market for the XBox 360. Which is another huge revenue stream.

So, while supporting the 40K gaming community may SEEM like an unprofitable venture, that's only the case if you (like GW) ignore the effect that support would have on the greater 40K community. Which would drive additional sales of miniatures and game rules. And if they made/provided them, that support would also drive sales of League memberships, tourney rulesets, army building programs that could be used to harvest information about how their customers build lists and play the game... the list of possibilities goes on and on.

Personally, I'd be willing to pay $100.00/year for membership in a competitive league that offered a ranking system and an standardized tourney ruleset that could be used by Independent retailers to run ladder-legal games. Hear that GW? You're leaving money on the table! I know their sales guys get this. It's the design studio that needs to get it's head around the idea of a formal community.

[Aldramelech]

Why does Microsoft develop Internet Explorer? It's not out of corporate pride or some kind of altruistic intention. They develop and provide a web browser because it builds a market for their proprietary server and content management systems. Which is where they make a LOT of their corporate profits. Their XCode development platform is free also. But that directly feeds the downloadable games market for the XBox 360. Which is another huge revenue stream.

So, while supporting the 40K gaming community may SEEM like an unprofitable venture, that's only the case if you (like GW) ignore the effect that support would have on the greater 40K community. Which would drive additional sales of miniatures and game rules. And if they made/provided them, that support would also drive sales of League memberships, tourney rulesets, army building programs that could be used to harvest information about how their customers build lists and play the game... the list of possibilities goes on and on.

Personally, I'd be willing to pay $100.00/year for membership in a competitive league that offered a ranking system and an standardized tourney ruleset that could be used by Independent retailers to run ladder-legal games. Hear that GW? You're leaving money on the table! I know their sales guys get this. It's the design studio that needs to get it's head around the idea of a formal community.

And yet they are so dead set against the tournament scene. I'm not a tournament gamer and even I don't understand their attitude toward this. They seem to be trying to alienate half their market with every statement they make. Money is money, and yet they seem to think that supporting this side of the hobby is going to hurt them in some way. I don't believe for a second that idealistic rubbish that Jarvis spouts about this subject every time he makes a statement, everything they do is financially driven, I cant help but think I'm missing something here........

[Denzark]

So, while supporting the 40K gaming community may SEEM like an unprofitable venture, that's only the case if you (like GW) ignore the effect that support would have on the greater 40K community. Which would drive additional sales of miniatures and game rules. And if they made/provided them, that support would also drive sales of League memberships, tourney rulesets, army building programs that could be used to harvest information about how their customers build lists and play the game... the list of possibilities goes on and on.

You mentioned PDFs in an earlier post. I'm not aware the PDF sparked a load of extra Blood Angel sales in the way a new full codex does. Looking at other systems, I understand (admittedly from other posters and not personal experience) that this community support is something that is done well by things such as Warmachine. I'm not aware that they are getting any extra market share from GW as a result - I postulate that GW therefore wouldn't give said support because business men are in charge rather than gamers and they are quite happy having pulled from the red into a £10m profit - their profit margins are satisfatory and the extra support would marginalise these - otherwise they would do it.

Personally, I'd be willing to pay $100.00/year for membership in a competitive league that offered a ranking system and an standardized tourney ruleset that could be used by Independent retailers to run ladder-legal games. Hear that GW? You're leaving money on the table! I know their sales guys get this. It's the design studio that needs to get it's head around the idea of a formal community.

I probably would as well. If you read standard bearer the main man quite often references the wider community. Turning it into laymans terms, if it is so obvious that community support is a self licking lollipop then I am sure the sales gurus could convince the design studio - follow this simple model and think of all the extra funds you wil have for new projects ie large detailed plastic models. Or is it actually the sales gurus in charge, having brought in Mark Wells to turn the company around, who can see that the 'generate funds from the community by scratching its back' isn't necessary because they are profitable enough by making us buy more troops etc...

[psyscowasp]

They are dropping the ball on the lack of tournament support. I'll use MTG as an example, though this is from quite a few years back.

All the pro tour events are Type 2 tournaments. This means that the only usable cards are from the current 2 expansion cycles and the current core release. That's it. Most local stores run type 2 tournaments, and then things like booster drafts to support sales of new releases. What does this do? It drives sales of new product. The guys playing tournaments are picking up BOXES of expansion boosters on release day to fill out their decks with the new stuff. One of the reasons I stopped was that it ws taking me too much money to keep up with the meta game in type 2, and I had too many useless cards. But that's exactly what WotC is shooting for; more sales being driven by the tournament scene.

Now there are a couple reason why this won't work for GW in the same form. We have a much closer attachement to our models. We invest time and money converting and painting them, so we will resist anything that makes our current models unplayable. Second, tournaments aren't going to drive sales the way they do with MTG. Used to be you'd read about pro tours, and look through cards lists for the winners. A meta game would spring up around the powerful builds, and a couple specific counters. And those cards would suddenly be in demand. I made some good money predicting these trends and selling things at the right time. But 40K can't really support this. Current tourneys being stomped by IG? It isn't like everyone is going to suddenly buy an IG army and overnight FW parts to convert it. And really, those two places are how supporting tournies drives MTG sales.

I will say that if there was a pro-tour esque event for 40k coming through, I'd be more likely to grab a box of terminatiors if a list I had needed them, or pick up an extra captain box to finish a conversion, but that's still small beans, and sales that GW is still going to make at some point in the future. Add to that the fact that any large-scale tournament is going to be hard to run due to the time it takes to play a single match, and the cost/return gets really small. Now I can think of some ways that they could monetize local events like this, but without putting numbers to it it's hard to say if it would be worthwhile.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

And yet they are so dead set against the tournament scene. I'm not a tournament gamer and even I don't understand their attitude toward this. They seem to be trying to alienate half their market with every statement they make. Money is money, and yet they seem to think that supporting this side of the hobby is going to hurt them in some way. I don't believe for a second that idealistic rubbish that Jarvis spouts about this subject every time he makes a statement, everything they do is financially driven, I cant help but think I'm missing something here........

Please. Tournament players would be the first to complain, and are the first to complain about everything.

40K Tournaments are generally pretty foolish to me. They aren't elimination and really generally aren't competitive so much as they are ego-driven. You win tournaments more by pretending to be nice and paying for commission paintjobs and copying downloaded popular lists than you do by being a good player/general.

Monetizing local events is one thing, but I really dislike the fact that the argument even seems viable. You want to have a tournament? Host a tournament. I don't like the way people complain GW is greedy and are money-hungry and price-gouging on one hand, but then on the other are using possible profiteering options for the Tourney scene as justification for them to add support for the one thing they like.

Where I come from a Tournament is an elimination bracket and in the end one person has defeated a major amount of the other competitors to become a champion. In 40k tournaments are not really competitive, they are more like popularity contests. The fact that I could go to a tournament and demolish all my enemies, even with a painted army and being sportsmanlike, and still lose, makes the idea of the tournament scene being about competition laughable.

To expect them to design a tournament style and host tournaments is foolish. So is this talk of 40K World Tours and how they would motivate you to buy more pieces.

I still think the Tourney Fans would be the first people to point the accusing finger if GW put on monetized events. "ooh those greedy *******s...I can't believe they charge us for these tournaments! I can't believe they force us to use these specific tournament rules!!" I don't believe for a second that the general Tourney Fan (aka Power Gamer who has no appreciation for the awesome narrative capacity of the game) would be at all pleased with any of this. And he certainly wouldn't go out and buy some more GW products -- he'd go out and find them on ebay so that he'd have time to post on Warseer about how bull**** GW's prices are.

[Aldramelech]

Like I said, I'm not a Tournament player........... I don't like the "rules" of tournaments, I don't like the way people play/act at tournaments, and with some exceptions I probably wouldn't get on with many people at a tournament. So I don't go.

But with all that said I do recognize that these people are playing "their" hobby and thats fine, each to their own.

What I was saying is that GW's attitude to this side of the hobby puzzles me. I firmly believe that the way the rules have evolved is to shift more boxes. And with this in mind I don't understand why a business that is so sales driven ( and I except that they are a business, and they do have to make money ) don't exploit it.

I am a big GW fan, I love the game and the models but sometimes I think that if the current trend continues they will price alot of players out of the market. Not so much with the price of individual items but with the sheer amount of stuff you will have to buy. Playing with 500 figures is fun, but I have a child to feed and clothe too.

[SandWyrm]

I probably would as well. If you read standard bearer the main man quite often references the wider community. Turning it into laymans terms, if it is so obvious that community support is a self licking lollipop then I am sure the sales gurus could convince the design studio - follow this simple model and think of all the extra funds you wil have for new projects ie large detailed plastic models. Or is it actually the sales gurus in charge, having brought in Mark Wells to turn the company around, who can see that the 'generate funds from the community by scratching its back' isn't necessary because they are profitable enough by making us buy more troops etc...

Yep. Look at it this way, GW spent how much developing Warhammer:Online? Probably at least $5 Million for development and server infrastructure. All for a $10.00/Month revenue stream per player.

What would it cost to set up a competitive League system? $500K? 1 Mil tops? They could then charge $10.00 per month. For a low initial investment (unlike an MMO), they start getting the same sorts of returns as the MMO. And can add services/features over time according to demand.

[Denzark]

Please. Tournament players would be the first to complain, and are the first to complain about everything.

40K Tournaments are generally pretty foolish to me. They aren't elimination and really generally aren't competitive so much as they are ego-driven. You win tournaments more by pretending to be nice and paying for commission paintjobs and copying downloaded popular lists than you do by being a good player/general.

Having just come back last month from the GW Throne of Skulls Tournament held at Warhammer World, I can tell you this is a narrow view. No Comp scores. No scores for sportsmanship. A tiered ladder so that if people kept winning they played other winners and vice versa. To qualify for the upcoming final the 40 who went through scored 4 wins, 1 draw 1 loss minimum, out of six games. Painting admittedly got 5 people wild cards but didn't efffect scores on the day and the paint jobs won't win them the grand final. No one got anywhere for being nice but there was not much ego (I was often at the losing tables though :()

Monetizing local events is one thing, but I really dislike the fact that the argument even seems viable. You want to have a tournament? Host a tournament. I don't like the way people complain GW is greedy and are money-hungry and price-gouging on one hand, but then on the other are using possible profiteering options for the Tourney scene as justification for them to add support for the one thing they like.

I totally agree with this.

Where I come from a Tournament is an elimination bracket and in the end one person has defeated a major amount of the other competitors to become a champion. In 40k tournaments are not really competitive, they are more like popularity contests. The fact that I could go to a tournament and demolish all my enemies, even with a painted army and being sportsmanlike, and still lose, makes the idea of the tournament scene being about competition laughable.

See above - not at ToS you couldn't have maybe you fellas do things different stateside

To expect them to design a tournament style and host tournaments is foolish. So is this talk of 40K World Tours and how they would motivate you to buy more pieces.

Fair one

I still think the Tourney Fans would be the first people to point the accusing finger if GW put on monetized events. "ooh those greedy *******s...I can't believe they charge us for these tournaments! I can't believe they force us to use these specific tournament rules!!" I don't believe for a second that the general Tourney Fan (aka Power Gamer who has no appreciation for the awesome narrative capacity of the game) would be at all pleased with any of this. And he certainly wouldn't go out and buy some more GW products -- he'd go out and find them on ebay so that he'd have time to post on Warseer about how bull**** GW's prices are.

this is a broadbrush generalisation not everyone I encountered was a powergamer; I played one Guard Cdr who refused to submit to the latest toys ie the 6 Valk list, and went for old school platoons with tanks. But whilst you tar a whole raft of players (ie the tournament mad ones) with the same brush you are correct I suspect in stating that this wouldn't generate revenue - probably different for a CCG scene where the plastic crack is made of paper and is cheaper and thus costs less - no £600 Forgeworld goodies.

[SandWyrm]

Please. Tournament players would be the first to complain, and are the first to complain about everything.

But we buy stuff, so what does it matter? Companies don't fear complaints. They fear silence. Complaining customers (like spouses) still love you. :)


40K Tournaments are generally pretty foolish to me. They aren't elimination and really generally aren't competitive so much as they are ego-driven. You win tournaments more by pretending to be nice and paying for commission paintjobs and copying downloaded popular lists than you do by being a good player/general.

Yep. That's why I want a more standardized system that can, over time, do a better job at running individual tourneys and allow the results to be directly comparable to games played in other regions.


You want to have a tournament? Host a tournament. I don't like the way people complain GW is greedy and are money-hungry and price-gouging on one hand, but then on the other are using possible profiteering options for the Tourney scene as justification for them to add support for the one thing they like.

I've gone to 6 tourneys in the last year. Which, depending on who was running them, ranged from very good to really aweful. Which is why I want a more formal system for missions, terrain setup, FAQs, and the like. So that there isn''t this huge gulf between how my friends and I perform at one store vs. another. And so that there's one body that can rule on things like DeffRollas hitting vehicles, which was left to individual stores to decide during 'Ard Boyz.


Where I come from a Tournament is an elimination bracket and in the end one person has defeated a major amount of the other competitors to become a champion. In 40k tournaments are not really competitive, they are more like popularity contests. The fact that I could go to a tournament and demolish all my enemies, even with a painted army and being sportsmanlike, and still lose, makes the idea of the tournament scene being about competition laughable.

That's why I want a more competitive system. An 'Ard Boyz circuit, if you will. And a fluffier comp circuit for those who want that.


To expect them to design a tournament style and host tournaments is foolish. So is this talk of 40K World Tours and how they would motivate you to buy more pieces.

I personally spent almost $450.00 on models (a total army overhaul) to get ready for 'Ard Boyz. And I know I'm not alone. I'll spend another $150-200.00 on models in the lead up to my FLGS's next tourney this winter. I don't have to, I have a completely painted army (painted myself) that wins painting contests makes even fluff-centric players drool. But I, like many other competitive 40K players, like to experiment with new things. Once I've locked down the (fully painted) force I want for 'Ard Boyz next year, I'll start another army. And another, and another. There would be more of me if the tourney scene improved.


I still think the Tourney Fans would be the first people to point the accusing finger if GW put on monetized events. "ooh those greedy *******s...I can't believe they charge us for these tournaments! I can't believe they force us to use these specific tournament rules!!" I don't believe for a second that the general Tourney Fan (aka Power Gamer who has no appreciation for the awesome narrative capacity of the game) would be at all pleased with any of this. And he certainly wouldn't go out and buy some more GW products -- he'd go out and find them on ebay so that he'd have time to post on Warseer about how bull**** GW's prices are.

I have no problem giving GW money if GW gives me value in return. That's what I'm asking for: More Value!

I also must point out that "Power Gamers" (aka Cheaters) are a very small minority. And could be easily tagged as such or kicked out of a league if they broke the league's rules (Which is how sportsmanship should be enforced). Most competitive gamers I meet at tourneys are excellent sports and have a very good appreciation of the fluff and story of 40K. So I find it insulting to be told we're not worthy of attention just because we appreciate the game itself just as much as the fiction.

[Aldramelech]

I have a completely painted army (painted myself) that wins painting contests makes even fluff-centric players drool.

Agreed! lol

[EmperorEternalXIX]

What I'd like to see to appease everybody, is 40k: Tournament Edition. A separate rulebook that is essentially the BGB, but with the other 30-60% of it being dedicated to rulesets for tournaments, extra missions, special objective setups, unique deployments, etc.


Most competitive gamers I meet at tourneys are excellent sports and have a very good appreciation of the fluff and story of 40K. So I find it insulting to be told we're not worthy of attention just because we appreciate the game itself just as much as the fiction.It is one thing ot want attention, it is entirely another to ask the company to expend a herculean amount of its resources to host tournaments with like rulesets all over the world. That would be like if I, as a narrative/fluff fan, pointed the accusing finger at GW for not giving me enough "value" because they do not travel to every state and host fluff Q&As or painting clinics.

The company makes the game, how we use it to compete is entirely on us. People mention elsewhere in the thread that going to multiple tourneys is a gamble because of how wildly different they can be...well, sure, but...why would you want to repeatedly pay to enter a particular groups' bad tournaments, anyway? Such is the nature of the business and the game. What works should be encouraged and supported, and it will grow to become the norm. What is made of pure concentrated fail, should be the things we shun and let police themselves into oblivion.

Talking about things that GW could make extra money on, if they made a list building program and undercut AB's restrictive overpriced licensing it would be beyond successful. I really don't think the cost of renting an area, providing tables, paying writers to FAQ rules and producing possible new stuff exclusive to the tournament scene is even remotely cost effective (unless you are paying 100 bucks per person to get into a tournament...and even then there would probably have to be one every weekend somewhere just to cover the travel costs).

I agree that there should be perhaps a Tournament Edition version of the rulebook with some of the perks I stated above. Obviously if you are a tourney player you don't need the fluff section, the army summaries, etc. You either already know it or don't care. So it would probably be a relatively lesser book in the grand scheme of things. But beyond this relatively minor expenditure...I see no reason other than arrogance or selfishness to expect GW to handhold the entire tournament scene.

Apologies if any of this was overly harsh or needlessly incendiary, but I feel pretty strongly on the subject.

[SandWyrm]

GW wouldn't have to run every event themselves. Just provide a standardized tourney ruleset and missions for any given 3-month period. Local shops could qualify for running a tourney under the rules by passing an exam given to them by the sales team, and then report the results back to the on-line ladder system. Players and shops could be rated by other players to enforce sportsmanship and proper tourney prep.

Really, after the initial setup 5-10 full-time people could probably handle the whole thing on a day-to-day basis. While the company would stick to throwing 1-3 larger events per year.

As far as customer expectations go, those always change according to what the competition's doing. And given that I'm willing to pay for the service I'm asking for, it's not a case of my wanting something for nothing from GW. I just want them to step up and make more money from me.

[Aldramelech]

I really don't think the cost of renting an area, providing tables, paying writers to FAQ rules and producing possible new stuff exclusive to the tournament scene is even remotely cost effective (unless you are paying 100 bucks per person to get into a tournament...and even then there would probably have to be one every weekend somewhere just to cover the travel costs).

In England almost every club in the country does this once a year. My gaming club runs a very successful show where we have 20 odd traders, 40K and WFB tournaments and lots of participation games put on buy other clubs. We get 300-400 people through the door. Entry into the tournament is about £15 incl. entry to the show. Non players pay £2 admission.
We always make a respectable profit. Now we are a mid level club at best, in a fairly rural out of the way part of the country. The South London Warlords, England's biggest club, runs a show that uses one of England's largest exhibition centres and has thousands through the door. From February to October there is at least one of these events every month and we all try to support each other. These all make money, we wouldn't do it if it didn't.

[Denzark]

So, I'm looking at the thread of today on the main BoLS site - on tyranid rumours. Already people are throiwng around 'broken' and 'codex creep' and there has been nothing concrete. But if this 'multiple fex per slot' comes to pass, wil it be balance (to fight multiple tanks) codex creep (natural order of things) or to shift big ole plastic bugs in large numbers, ie economy creep?

[SandWyrm]

So, I'm looking at the thread of today on the main BoLS site - on tyranid rumours. Already people are throiwng around 'broken' and 'codex creep' and there has been nothing concrete. But if this 'multiple fex per slot' comes to pass, wil it be balance (to fight multiple tanks) codex creep (natural order of things) or to shift big ole plastic bugs in large numbers, ie economy creep?

Um, Yes? :)

Bugs need help in 5th. Cruddice made the tank-heavy IG codex. It's only fair that he now help balance things out.