Unbound, What GW Wants You to Buy

[DrBored]

Has anyone else seen this crap?

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-40-000

Big fat armies with little descriptions for... whatever.

RIGHT THERE, THERE'S A SAIM-HANN ARMY, AND THE DESCRIPTION EVEN SAYS TO DENY YOUR OPPONENT EVERY OBJECTIVE.

Wow. Just wow. A whole line of Space Marine tanks for 800 USD?
An otherwise legal army of Tau that just has an extra Hammerhead and Sunshark?

I mean, at least with this, it seems like GW is making the price of a full army really transparent. You can quickly see what you get with these bundles and how much it'll cost you to get all of it in one shot. Kind of telling. A lot of people outside the hobby would gawk at such prices and wonder if we're sane at all.

I'm just amazed, as each description says to 'unlimit' yourself from any restraints, only to put forward.. well... things that aren't really all that great? Special? Ingenious?

I dunno. What do you guys think of this development?

(PS. If the link doesn't work, go to the GW main page and click on the second animated bubble, after the flash gitz at the top)

[Mr Mystery]

How dare they try to sell stuff. When will Plcs stop chasing profits? Will this madness never end?

[Caitsidhe]

What do I think? :) I think for a company that doesn't make competitive rules, its marketing strategy seems aimed at competitive players.

[daboarder]

I think I just threw up a bit.....

I guess now we know the abusive aspects of the game are a feature not a glitch

[deinol]

Hey, I'm just happy they started giving discounts on bundles. (Not that I verified the prices on these.) I really don't think you need to read too much into these "Unbound" bundles, web bundles are easy for them to make. It's like that entire Space Marine Chapter they put together a while back. Something for the web team to do when they are bored.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

tbh, iv always wanted to play a "pure canoptek" army, but id rather they did it properly and make up proper troops and hq choice ect for it, the bundle doesnt really appeal to me.

[kharne690]

What's funny is I already own a canoptek army. Every model but the 20 immortals are robot bugs!! I think I might have a vid of it on YouTube.

[daboarder]

Hey, I'm just happy they started giving discounts on bundles.again (Not that I verified the prices on these.) I really don't think you need to read too much into these "Unbound" bundles, web bundles are easy for them to make. It's like that entire Space Marine Chapter they put together a while back. Something for the web team to do when they are bored.

Fixed it for ya ;)

[Mr.Pickelz]

I was really hoping GW would throw something Orky up there that would hint at new codex configurations.. :(

[eldargal]

****ing hell people, every one of those armies is thematic and consistent with the armies themes.

'GW are letting me field even more of a thematic Saim Hann army than before, those money grubbing barstuds!'

[Cutter]

I think I just threw up a bit.....

I guess now we know the abusive aspects of the game are a feature not a glitch

They want you're money DB, not your approval, friendship or gratitude.

You should try to stop taking it so personally, they don't.

+

But thanks for the link, it was hilarious, in any currency.

[legalsmash]

@ OP: Oh no, big armies! Let me get my tinfoil conspiracy hat.

I am by no means a fanboy or GW apologist, but complaining about bundles is retarded... you look at bundle, decide what you like, then go onto ministomp (tm) or other related sites and buy at a 20%+ discount.

I've said it a million times, if you have not figured out a way to buy GW products legitimately at discount (not china knockoffs, but the actual products, just not at retail) you are seriously mentally deficient or just a glutton for punishment.

They do this to take advantage of parents wo just want to click once or kids with no damned sense who will impulse buy bro.

As for the actual boxes, the saim hann one is really nice, though I'd prefer the nightspinner tanks to the falcons or maybe some units of shining spears in there in lieu of one of the fire prisms or both falcon. If they added in a fifth fire prism and a third falcon, you'd have three apoc formation in there

The space marine one is ok imho, but I'd prefer three crusader configured tanks to the godhammer one in there... Also, I doublt youd need THAT Much AA, and I think those come a single tank to the unit entry. Also, three apoc formations in there.

I'm not a humongous fan of hte legion of nightmares solely due to being monogod and (despite my love of khornflakes) the least in game beneficial god... I'd be cool with it if the possessed got arm flamers ala dawn of war, then you'd at last have some templates to use. Also, I'd take another demon prince over a helldrake anyday.

Still haven't gotten one and I am happy with that fact.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

What do you mean "going back to what they used to have", all the boxes you can buy in stores are discounted. That never stopped. The Scions one is, the Space Marine Strikeforce is (along with Ultra), the Hammer of Cadia is... all those army boxes from last Christmas were discounted, which is why you can't find one for love nor money anymore.

Most of the Web Bundles (or One Click Collections or whatever) haven't been discounted, but those are different things. If you can buy it in a box, you're getting something free.

[Erik Setzer]

Something for the web team to do when they are bored.

I just gave them something to do. I noticed part of the site wasn't working right (and immediately spotted why) and I sent them an email telling them the problem and where it starts so they can fix it more easily.

But I also work on a web store in my own job, and used to build ecommerce sites for people at my old job, so that kind of thing bugs me from a professional level. It's not exactly site-breaking, but come on, if you care about your work, just fix it...

(If you're wondering the issue, it's that the links from the front page to "Da best Orkses" and "40K Best Sellers" end up breaking the sorting and view functions on those respective pages. Simple fix, but something that should be caught in testing. Though I doubt their investors are as anal about that stuff as ours...)

[DrBored]

lol, this thread decayed fast.

I just find it hilarious that GW would even bother to put such massive fat bundles together. I mean, how many people do they foresee would buy any of these? You're shoehorned into a specific army at that point, and if you want any variation on it, you gotta either buy the kits separate or invest even more to get those extra models you want. I just don't see the point of such massive, specific bundles like this.

I mean, there are so many different ways that you can put together an army made up of Space Marine tanks. I personally would go with more Predators, while another person might only want Land Raiders. Who would want that specific bundle that GW is pushing?

Personally, I'd rather see GW have an 'Unbound Bundle Discount' where, if you buy 500+ dollars of models within a single faction, you get a discount. I think that'd get people to start new armies, invest more money, and promote varied game styles a lot more than pushing specific bundles that only specific people might actually invest in.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

"I just find it hilarious that GW would even bother to put such massive fat bundles together."

Costs almost nothing to put together. The couple of sales you might get are worth the effort.

[Rob-O]

The Phil Kelly’s Unbound Swarm tyranid bundle made me chuckle, if you spend just £6 more you can get 101 more minis. :eek:

[daboarder]

The Phil Kelly’s Unbound Swarm tyranid bundle made me chuckle, if you spend just £6 more you can get 101 more minis. :eek:

really? hmmm I could use more nids.....NO must resist!

[Harley]

****ing hell people, every one of those armies is thematic and consistent with the armies themes.

'GW are letting me field even more of a thematic Saim Hann army than before, those money grubbing barstuds!'

GW are not "letting" you field anything you already couldn't in a fluffy game.

If running a thematic army was your goal, with a narrative in mind then surely you didn't need a rulebook or bundle to aid that. Narrative players can just say to a reasonable partner "Hey, I'm going to run this theme army instead of the standard FOC, ok?" that that would be that. Did you really need the rule book to tell you to play what you want?

It's the competitive players that want balance who are the ones who wish to play by the book that no longer can effectively now that it's broken by Unbound.

Sorry but if GW's just washing down to "do what you want" and "here's some expensive books with artwork and game ideas" then why not just show up to 40k with your $10 bucket of plastic army men and say it's your IG army, the models shouldn't matter if the game is all about being thematic and fluffy with narrative.

[eldargal]

Changing the rules to let people field whatever the **** they want is the very ****ing definition of letting you field anything you want. The fact that maybe you could do it before in friendly games is ****ing irrelevant. Especially in a fanbase that get the vapours and have to lie down when someone suggests maybe you could use your initiative and houserule something.

I mean you are literally responsing to 'Hey, GW are giving us more freedom to do what we want' with 'Nah-uh, we could do that before if we ignored all the rules'.

It goes both way, if you could play theme armies before by coming to a sensible agreement with your fellows then you can bloody houserule Unbound so it isn't a problem can't you? Or if your gaming circle is as enlightened as all that it won't be a problem because fluffy players would choose armies for fluff not brokeness.

[Charon]

According to the rules you still need consent to field unbound. Big change...

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Where does it say that?

[Path Walker]

Where does it say that?

Page 116 "players must agree hoe they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use"

Doesn't just specify Unbound, but can be extrapolated to Lords of War, Spam Lists, whatever you don't enjoy playing against.

[John Bower]

Where does it say that?

Towards the back of 'The Rules'. Basically anything has to be agreed on prior to the game by both parties, that includes super heavies, FW stuff, Unbound lists etc. It's pretty well always been that way but now it's in black and white is all. It was done I think partly to shut the FW crowd up from saying.. Ah it's 40k approved I can just rock up with it and table you on turn 2. Well, no, actually you can't, so stick that OP stuff back in the case and do a decent list that I at least have a chance against.

[Charon]

Where does it say that?

Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Sure, but that applies to everything, not just Unbound. Equally you could say you have to ask permission before running a Battle-Forged army. All they're saying there is that the people playing the game should both agree to the kind of game they want, and how they're going to go about it. Are we using points values? Are we using supplements? An Altar of War mission? A custom scenario? Which is everything from short chat finishing with a nod and an "I'm okay with that" up to tournament restrictions.

So what you say is technically correct, but only in the sense that "you should talk to your opponents" and "nobody should be forced to play a game they don't want to" are now enshrined in the text.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Sure, but that applies to everything, not just Unbound. Equally you could say you have to ask permission before running a Battle-Forged army. All they're saying there is that the people playing the game should both agree to the kind of game they want, and how they're going to go about it. Are we using points values? Are we using supplements? An Altar of War mission? A custom scenario? Which is everything from short chat finishing with a nod and an "I'm okay with that" up to tournament restrictions.

So what you say is technically correct, but only in the sense that "you should talk to your opponents" and "nobody should be forced to play a game they don't want to" are now enshrined in the text.

Much like it was in WFB in their last edition, where in one of the early pages it literally uses the words "these rules are a framework" followed by (now paraphrasing because I can't be bothered to go get the book from upstairs) "make sh*t up and have fun."

[Charon]

Sure, but that applies to everything, not just Unbound. Equally you could say you have to ask permission before running a Battle-Forged army. All they're saying there is that the people playing the game should both agree to the kind of game they want, and how they're going to go about it. Are we using points values? Are we using supplements? An Altar of War mission? A custom scenario? Which is everything from short chat finishing with a nod and an "I'm okay with that" up to tournament restrictions.

So what you say is technically correct, but only in the sense that "you should talk to your opponents" and "nobody should be forced to play a game they don't want to" are now enshrined in the text.

So in short, nothing has changed.
If I wanted to play "unbound" in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th I just had to make sure what type of game my opponent and I wanna play.
If I want to play "unbound" in 7th I just have to make sure what type of game my opponent and I wanna play.

Its really just a marketing gag. Before 7th: You can do anything you want if you and your opponent can agree to the terms. Response: Ok.
Now: You can do now anything you want if your opponent is ok with it! Response: Best thing evaaarr!

[Cap'nSmurfs]

That was technically always the case, yes. There's loads of classic battle reports with no FOC or themed armies or whatever; variant rules and so on. It's always been in there somewhere: the rules are a template for you, modify them as you wish. I remember playing what was essentially a pickup game against a guy who was using a Slaaneshi Apocalypse formation with his Chaos Space Marines (cult list). Wasn't balanced for the regular game; still played him, because why not? He'd converted all his stuff.

There is a change: because Unbound is in the main ruleset, then it'll be a more commonly accepted way of doing things. Previously it's the sort of thing restricted to close gaming groups, events, the sorts of people who make up scenarios with their regular opponent, etc. GW events will allow Unbound lists, and so on.

Of course it's marketing. They're a toy soldier company. They make money if you buy toy soldiers. Everything they do is geared towards selling you toy soldiers; this should not be hitting with the force of revelation, y'dig? We haven't unearthed arcane truths or deep conspiracies here.

"You can do now anything you want if your opponent is ok with it! Response: Best thing evaaarr!"

Do you honestly think that's a fair characterisation of the response?

[Harley]

Exactly my point. You could always do whatever you wanted if your opponent consented. What competitive and organised event players want is a structure that is more conducive to organized play, which the current book doesn't offer. Currently to avoid stupid quadruple detachment lists you have to hold all sorts of house rules in place, at which point why should I even bother buying the 7th edition book? That's right... I didnt, and neither will many other long time players. GW missed out big on this edition. There's 0 reason a player can't just print out a single page of 6th to 7th ed changes, use their old wound tables etc and follow the guide lines of their local club/store/event.

[Path Walker]

Exactly my point. You could always do whatever you wanted if your opponent consented. What competitive and organised event players want is a structure that is more conducive to organized play, which the current book doesn't offer. Currently to avoid stupid quadruple detachment lists you have to hold all sorts of house rules in place, at which point why should I even bother buying the 7th edition book? That's right... I didnt, and neither will many other long time players. GW missed out big on this edition. There's 0 reason a player can't just print out a single page of 6th to 7th ed changes, use their old wound tables etc and follow the guide lines of their local club/store/event.

Maybe because the company don't care to make a game for competitive/organised event players? They want a casual, fun game played by groups of friends. They didn't miss out, they did exactly what they wanted to do.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Warhammer Fantasy is run as a tournament game just fine; it's accepted that various edits to the rules will be made for the purposes of tournaments. Why can't we do the same, or accept the same, with 40k?

If competitive players want a structure for organised events, what GW is saying is: cool. Do it.

[Harley]

The problem is that 40k is a permissive rule set. It doesn't need to tell you everything you can't do in the game, only that which you can. That is how most rules work in any game. They tell you what you can do and you find ways to play and succeed within the boundaries of this permits. These boundaries are what makes games fun, exciting and competative. Whether you like it or not, 40k is a competative game by definition because you compete against other players to win, unlike solitaire or D&D where you play by yourself or in parallel with other players to achieve a goal.

By placing the boundaries of the game in the hands of the player, GW is betraying the basic element of a competative game. They create a setting which is in conflict with it's self and lacks cohesion. Further more it displays lazy game design because the burden of ballance is also left to the player. In any such a setting, some players will be left feeling alienated because the boundaries are not clear and after being set may disproportionately favor one player over the other. The idea of the rulebook as a social contract to create fun game play breaks when you do not clearly establish unbiased and fair boundaries within that contract.

As an example, this week I would Ike to drive to a new game store I learned recently of and meet new people. I have no idea what kind of lists or models to bring because the rulebook, although the same from store to store, no longer offers me a clear guide on what to expect from player to player. Furthermore, I could find that my choice is frowned upon despite seeming reasonable to me and I could end up unable to play at all! I could call the store ahead of time to ask but it is most likely that the staff of a store which caters to many games isn't going to know the detailed instructions and outs of list building for its regular visitors. This immediately puts me off from wanting to play 40k as much as I used to in 5th edition where I would readily drive an hour or two if it meant there was a lot of 40k being played at a local.

[Path Walker]

By placing the boundaries of the game in the hands of the player, GW is betraying the basic element of a competative game.


They've not betrayed anything because they've never tried to make a competitive game. Which renders everything else you said kind of moot I'm afraid. Most people didn't like 5th, it was too bland and not fun, you need to get to grips with that, you're in the minority with that.

[Harley]

They've not betrayed anything because they've never tried to make a competitive game. Which renders everything else you said kind of moot I'm afraid. Most people didn't like 5th, it was too bland and not fun, you need to get to grips with that, you're in the minority with that.

Actually GW used to run global sanctioned competative tournaments. I have played in them. Also by definition 40k is a competative game where you play to defeat an opposing player. It's not like D&D where you play in a pre-established setting to achieve a common goal as a team.

Also 5th edition was very popular but had the unfortunate luck of being released at the onset of the largest economic downturn since the 1930s. Do you have any data to back up your claim that it wasn't? No?

What you're saying is that 7th edition doesn't change anything for players who already ran heavily houseruled casual narrative games but alienates competative and organised play gamers. That's ok? Sorry I disagree.

[Path Walker]

Actually GW used to run global sanctioned competative tournaments. I have played in them. Also by definition 40k is a competative game where you play to defeat an opposing player. It's not like D&D where you play in a pre-established setting to achieve a common goal as a team.

Also 5th edition was very popular but had the unfortunate luck of being released at the onset of the largest economic downturn since the 1930s. Do you have any data to back up your claim that it wasn't? No?

What you're saying is that 7th edition doesn't change anything for players who already ran heavily houseruled casual narrative games but alienates competative and organised play gamers. That's ok? Sorry I disagree.

They also ran, and continue to, non-competitive story based events and friendly tournaments, the stopped competitive events because they didn't like the atmosphere it was creating for their game.

40k has always been an RPG, a mass combat RPG yes, but an RPG, down to having a Games Master originally, sorry but they're the facts, you can try and link 5th edition to he economic downturn, but thats not a fact, thats a correlation you've made.

40k isn't and was never supposed to be a balanced, competitive game, you need to accept that, its not a competitive game, you can try and play it like that but you'll have to change it, now more than ever.

Anything that alienates overly competitive people is good, they're not good for the hobby in my opinion, they put people who would otherwise love to play the game getting involved. There are games more suited to what they want, they should go and play those. Now people can play whatever they feel like and not have to worry about someone telling them they're wrong.

Competitive player seem to think they know all about the rules and yet, when they're faced with the idea of having to tweak the rules to play how they want to, they run in fear.

[Charon]

They also ran, and continue to, non-competitive story based events and friendly tournaments, the stopped competitive events because they didn't like the atmosphere it was creating for their game.

40k has always been an RPG, a mass combat RPG yes, but an RPG, down to having a Games Master originally, sorry but they're the facts, you can try and link 5th edition to he economic downturn, but thats not a fact, thats a correlation you've made.

40k isn't and was never supposed to be a balanced, competitive game, you need to accept that, its not a competitive game, you can try and play it like that but you'll have to change it, now more than ever.

Anything that alienates overly competitive people is good, they're not good for the hobby in my opinion, they put people who would otherwise love to play the game getting involved. There are games more suited to what they want, they should go and play those. Now people can play whatever they feel like and not have to worry about someone telling them they're wrong.

Competitive player seem to think they know all about the rules and yet, when they're faced with the idea of having to tweak the rules to play how they want to, they run in fear.

As long as you try to fulfiil your mission and try to hinder your opponent on fullfilling his mission, this game is competitive.
Im always amazed how some people seem to think that fun, balance and story are diametral opposites.
Competitive players are not alienated by this edition. Why should they be? WaaC players are not alienated. They got lotz of toolz for moneyz to bash other people now.
Players who want to experience the same tense moments and the same rich background as it is displayed in the books are alienated. Cause the rules do no longer provide a healthy game atmosphere for narrative fluff armies.

Also you throw around a lot with the word "fact" without providing any source for your "facts".

[Harley]

They also ran, and continue to, non-competitive story based events and friendly tournaments, the stopped competitive events because they didn't like the atmosphere it was creating for their game.

yet you just claimed they never had competative events. Sorry if you can't acknowledge when you are proven wrong and back up your claims with facts then find another conversation.

As I and Charon have said, the game is by definition a competative game where two players compete against each other to win within the boundaries of the game.

@Charon, well we can't seem to agree on the subject except that this edition does indeed alienate a portion of the fan base and that it is not a good thing.

My concern is that I can no longer enjoy the game the same way I used to due to these new rules. Add to that the fact that Sisters are my primary army who have no flyers, psykers or monstrous creatures to keep up and I feel like, why should I bother playing anyore?

[LostAlone]

The problem with Unbound is that it creates an even bigger barrier between people who want to play for fun, and people who just want to win. It has been pretty bad for a pretty long time now, but this is just another layer of it. As it was at least the 'fun' people were still picking units in the same way as the 'win' people. Balance has never been perfect (and often not even good) but at least there was some sense of parity between different army books. Min maxing has always been a problem in the game, but still we all had the same rules to work with.

Now... Well, no you don't.

If I show up at a FLGS with just a codex army list, I'd like to know that the random guy who said 'Sure, I'll give you a game' brought an army that is broadly compatible with the army that I brought. Maybe he did. Maybe he's playing unbound but it's a fun list that's not mathhammered into perfect minmax perfection, but maybe it is. I don't know. And now it's in the big rule book. It's totally acceptable to bring an unbound army to a random gathering now and if people refuse to play you then THEY'RE the jerk because it's in the rulebook, and sure you spent forever collating only the most egregiously busted stuff from across the game into one army but those other guys should at least play the game! I mean, you came all this damn way to get a game, but no-one'll play you even though it's totally a legal army.

Unbound is essentially a get-out-of-*******-free card. That's the truth of it. It says that if you want to only play to win then other people pretty much should just man up and let you pound on them for a few hours even if it's not fun for them because it's in the book. It's legal. You aren't a jerk for creating an army like that, or for assuming that other people would let you play with it. Because it's in the book now.

And why is it in the book? So that GW can sell more minis. It's not to change anything in the game at all. It functionally changes nothing about the game. But it does let GW point to that one clause and convince people that they do need another four land raiders, that they absolutely can use them in any random game. It's in the rules that you can do that now. You should give us another few hundred dollars. Essentially, GW doesn't like the idea of people ceasing to buy the same models over and over just because the FOC only lets you use 3 squads of whatever. So put an extra few lines in the rulebook, and suddenly you too can badger your parents to buy you yet more tanks, yet more dudes.

It's a bad rule that's bad for the game, it's bad for the community and the benefit is in GWs pockets at the expense of us all having fun.

As a parallel to Unbound - Look to MtG. In both 40k and Magic you make your army/deck at home to a set of rules, then you show up and play the game later. Magic has 'formats', deck building rules that limit what cards you can build a deck with. You tend not to organize a game of magic the way that you would a game of 40k, but before you break the cards out it's accepted that you ask the format, so that everyone is working within the same rules and the game is fair. Everyone has access to the same things. Of course lots of people play without those rules, they just want to slam some cardboard around with their friends. And that's cool. It can be lots of fun. It's totally not in the rules (which are EXTREMELY comprehensive) but you can play however you like as long as everyone agrees. I can't ever remember someone showing up with an older, much MUCH more powerful deck to a casual night and expecting people to play him. I've seen people say 'Oh I only have a vintage deck with me...' and sometimes people say 'Let's play anyway!', but no-ones ever showed with one of those old, busted decks and just assumed that was what everyone else was playing too. And even if they weren't playing to those rules, they should still play him anyway and let him beat up on them. It's clearly not a level playing field, and the rules explicitly say you can't do that if you are following the rules.

Why do I bring that up? Because putting a line in the rules to allow these things that were already being done with house rules means that people can, and will, assume that it's ok to show up with an uneven playing field. Simply by including it in the rules you sanction it. You make it ok to do that in normal play. Plenty of people who were already insufferably competitive will never bring another army except that one and put other people into a situation of either playing a game that's not fun or fair, or just going home and not playing 40k. And when you've put aside an evening to play and make new friends after months of hard work on an army, and especially when you have a job and a life and your free time is limited, just going home feels horrible. So does getting shanekd by some jerk who doesn't know what fun is. And that kind of stuff is what makes people want to quit the game.

[dawnofthedead]

Lostalone, great job quantifying the problem. 6th and 7th editions have killed off most of the 40k in my area. We had a big community too. Unbound was totally unnecessary for the game. You could use house rules for the same thing and not cause problems for pick up games. Been around since rogue trader days and have seen it all. Unbound is IMHO a money thing for Gw and not for the betterment of the game.

[Harley]

...

Best first post ever.

[Lord-Boofhead]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slMub4NtrSk

[Power Klawz]

A lot of the problems in this thread can be solved by basic communication techniques. Setting up a public online forum, for example, will allow you to discuss what sorts of games people are interested in playing prior to any sort of gaming event. (Be that an impromptu tournament style gathering, or just Friday night at your FLGS.) You can set up games in advance and let everyone know what sort of army you're bringing and what sort of gaming experience you're looking for.

With limited points values (say 1500 or under) its pretty easy to bring several different army configurations with you and play any number of different games. Bring your beardiest list for "that guy" and your fluffiest list for those "other guys." Play to the level of your opponent and you're sure to have a better time, if not an actually fun time.

All this rabble rousing about WAAC vs. competative vs. fluff players is utter nonsense. Just be an adult and play with your plastic army men responsibly.

[Harley]

A lot of the problems in this thread can be solved by basic communication techniques. Setting up a public online forum, for example, will allow you to discuss what sorts of games people are interested in playing prior to any sort of gaming event. (Be that an impromptu tournament style gathering, or just Friday night at your FLGS.) You can set up games in advance and let everyone know what sort of army you're bringing and what sort of gaming experience you're looking for.

With limited points values (say 1500 or under) its pretty easy to bring several different army configurations with you and play any number of different games. Bring your beardiest list for "that guy" and your fluffiest list for those "other guys." Play to the level of your opponent and you're sure to have a better time, if not an actually fun time.

All this rabble rousing about WAAC vs. competative vs. fluff players is utter nonsense. Just be an adult and play with your plastic army men responsibly.

What Forum? Like Dakka, BoLS, Warseer, Heresy? Or like the one GW used to have but took down? Or should I make my own?

I can name 10+ game stores in South East Michigan with table space for 40k, not counting the actual Games Workshop here and I'm also part of 4 Facebook groups just for 40k in South East Michigan... and it's STILL hard to organize a game coherently and I know I'm not the only one who runs into that. Also "Friday night at your FLGS", it's almost impossible to tell what day of the week people are playing but Fridays are actually one of the days I can honestly say I almost never hear anyone organizing on due to other weekend events. Your suggestion that it should be easy and simple is optimistic but ultimately dismissive and patronizing.

And that's with veteran, organized players. What about noobies who now have to wade through even more red tap just to learn how to play and find a game. These new changes to the FoC are just discouraging to all of us who don't play regularly with the same 5 people on the same day at the same place (which is a lot of us).

Your comment about point values portrays exactly what GW wants us to think. If you want to play 1500 points now, you are expected to bring 2000, so you have room to juggle lists. It's not about making the game better or giving people more options (that they already had in friendly games), it's about selling more models and more rule books. No one is trying to fault them for trying to promote sales but do it in a way that benefits everyone like balancing the game, making it easier to learn and organize games and communicating with your customer base to learn their opinions.

[Thaldin]

My old LGS (before it had to close) used Google Groups to arrange our weekly Monday night games. We had a pretty active group though that would schedule 6 to 8 week long "campaign/battles", then someone else would step up and schedule something new to try for 6 to 8 weeks and so forth and so on.

[Power Klawz]

I used to live and game in Southeast Michigan (about 4 to 5 years ago.) and never really had any issues. Just showed up and plopped some dudes on the table. Used to go to the GW store a bit though, not sure if they're still open or if they've been reduced to 1 man shops by this point.

I am being dismissive and patronizing because... well because that's the only warranted response. You have a world of advanced technology at your fingertips to make scheduling easier than its ever been in all of human history, and its free! But you'd rather complain about how impossible synchronizing gaming desires is using the very technology that would make your complaints irrelevant if used constructively.

Truly and amazingly ironic in my estimation.

Also I've never seen anything inherently wrong with having a large collection of miniatures, its part of the appeal of the hobby for most. I don't have an issue bringing 2000 or even 3000 points worth of stuff with me to play some games, hell if only just to show them off.

Why would I even be in this hobby if I didn't want to collect and paint cool miniatures?

Am I supposed to feel slighted because GW wants to sell me more of the stuff that I want in the first place?

[Eldar_Atog]

I am being dismissive and patronizing because... well because that's the only warranted response. You have a world of advanced technology at your fingertips to make scheduling easier than its ever been in all of human history, and its free! But you'd rather complain about how impossible synchronizing gaming desires is using the very technology that would make your complaints irrelevant if used constructively.

Truly and amazingly ironic in my estimation.

[REMOVED BY MOD]

The issue is not technology. It's child's play to set up a facebook group for a store so that people they can check in and see if someone wants to play a game.

The issue is communication. A large segment of the gaming population does not know how to communicate well with other people. Oh, they know how to write a post on a forum but they don't know how to listen to other people. Gaming, much like video games, has typically been the haven for geeks who never understood how to interact with other people. I've lost count of how many times I've seen 2 grown *** men arguing over the stupidest things at a 40K table. They didn't know how to interact with each other because almost all their personal interactions was through internet and not face to face interaction.

You also have the problem of self esteem. There is a sizable chunk of the gaming community that only manages to feel good about themselves when they have completely destroyed someone else. They have a dead end job, poor/no marriage, parental/spousal abuse, bullying, etc. They don't want to communicate... they only want to elevate themselves at the expense of other people. The Extra Credits people touch on this a little bit with their Harassment episode.

If you don't have to deal with these types of issues, that's great. Your play group is emotionally healthy. Don't assume that every person has that luxury.

[dawnofthedead]

I used to live and game in Southeast Michigan (about 4 to 5 years ago.) and never really had any issues. Just showed up and plopped some dudes on the table.

It seems to me that about 4 or 5 years ago you would have been playing 5th edition and would not have encountered any of the problems we are talking about. I never had any problems with pick up games back then either. In my area people just don't talk about setting up games. They are either to busy or just can't commit to be somewhere at a giving time and nite. It is a random crew each time. Also the large community we had has shrunk a lot in 6th. Your suggestions just don't work for every community.

[Caitsidhe]

The evidence I can give is purely anecdotal, but it is all true. During 5th Edition (a mere two years ago) I could walk into my local LGS any day of the week with my stuff and get a pick up game with someone. There was always someone there to play. The dawning of 6th Edition put an end to it. Now, I have to schedule a game if I reliably want one. To put this further in perspective, when 6th was released everyone around town was at their LGS and several final 5th Edition tournaments were going on. Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, was there and waiting for midnight to get the books. That didn't happen with 7th Edition. One LGS ran a small tournament and I think three people showed up. There was interest but no excitement. To put it in further in context, most people were out playing 6th the next day and many discussions abounded. Then, the pick up games started drying up. You could still get games at a tournament, but pick up games were a thing of the past. Now 7th has been out for a few weeks. Only a handful of the regulars have even played it yet. They intend to play it. They just haven't been in a rush. What does that tell you? :D

[Power Klawz]

The issue is communication. A large segment of the gaming population does not know how to communicate well with other people. Oh, they know how to write a post on a forum but they don't know how to listen to other people.

This is hilarious because you simultaneously explain the issue while embodying it. This has been my entire point in my past few posts.

I think its a pretty fair assessment that GW has dropped a lot of balls as of late. (and by "dropped balls" I mean made a lot of game design decisions with their wallet instead of their heads or hearts, and by as of late I mean the previous decade or so.) but at its core its basically the same creature, a game you play with friends using miniature representations of futuristic space monsters.

What has fundamentally changed is the world, and thereby the people who play the game. We're all older now and kids growing up in today's world aren't exposed to the same sorts of things we were. There is something to be said of growing older but not more jaded in that it is a rare skill, one most of the people on this site do not possess.

In order to maintain the passion for something like wargaming you have to expend effort. Its like any long term relationship, be that marriage, personal education or golf. You have some ups and downs, the world creeps into your private affairs and sometimes things just fail catastrophically and its too late for you to fix it. A lot of you seem like you're in divorce proceedings with wargaming, but I will tell you that I have gleaned this much wisdom from life to this point: no divorce is ever one sided.

You can fuss and bluster all you want about poor marketing and design decisions by Games Workshop, but that will never bring back any joy you might have experienced while immersed in this hobby. The only thing that can bring that back is time, effort and a positive outlook. If you lament the imminent death of your pasttime you'll have to lay a lot of the blame for its demise at your own feet, wouldn't it be more productive to do what you can with what you have and try to have some fun?

I think its more than likely that the whole enterprise has been unkindly influenced by the sorry state of the modern world economy. People have less money, GW has less money and so GW makes ever more drastically untoward maneuvers, its a vicious cycle that will inevitably fall to entropy.

My suggestion isn't that you should go shell out a thousand dollars on new stuff just because, my suggestion is that you try to have fun with the hobby instead of crying over spilled milk.

[Thaldin]

This is hilarious because you simultaneously explain the issue while embodying it. This has been my entire point in my past few posts.

I would be careful here, because there is a distinct point between being able to walk into a store and just get a game because so many people are playing and enjoying it and being forced to setup a game ahead of time in order to be able to play.

I definitely see both sides of this... as I was part of a LGS with an active online presence, it did make it easier to get a game... but the need to have that online presence was because less folks were actively gaming on the designated 40k night.

[Power Klawz]

I will say that this forum is likely a terrible place to try and come to any useable solutions or conclusions, I very rarely see it rise above a common place to toss little spitwads of hate into the digital aether and hope they hit an unwary passerby in the face. The narrow topicality of the hate is intriguing if only for its novelty, but the level of discourse is akin to those fictionalized high school hallways filled with lockers and overbearing jocks who exist only to torment those deemed weaker than themselves by the unskilled screenwriters who created them.

[Harley]

I don't think anyone here is crying over spilled milk. We just like to discuss 40k when we are not playing, building or painting out models.

That said I am really glad there is a game shop opening right down the road because I don't have to plan my entire day around getting in a game of 40k anymore as I did when the shop was an hours drive.

[daboarder]

I will say that this forum is likely a terrible place to try and come to any useable solutions or conclusions, I very rarely see it rise above a common place to toss little spitwads of hate into the digital aether and hope they hit an unwary passerby in the face. The narrow topicality of the hate is intriguing if only for its novelty, but the level of discourse is akin to those fictionalized high school hallways filled with lockers and overbearing jocks who exist only to torment those deemed weaker than themselves by the unskilled screenwriters who created them.

Hey, maybe actually making an attempt to get involved yourself might help?

I rarely see any of those willing to post such sentiments actually willing to contribute themselves.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45735-Maelstrom-Missions-Lets-Make-Em-Narrative

[Power Klawz]

I rarely see any of those willing to post such sentiments actually willing to contribute themselves.

Personally I'd say its mostly your fault, you are exceedingly belligerent and make any effort made to elevate the level of conversation futile. You're not alone in this of course, but you are a major contributor to the general malaise of stagnant hate-funk that lingers around this place and makes any attempt at polite interaction a dubious prospect.

Case in point, your second sentence in the thread you linked is appended by a snarky little assault on some nebulous group of "facebook trolls" whom you've deemed to be irrelevant to the conversation.

[daboarder]

Personally I'd say its mostly your fault, you are exceedingly belligerent and make any effort made to elevate the level of conversation futile. You're not alone in this of course, but you are a major contributor to the general malaise of stagnant hate-funk that lingers around this place and makes any attempt at polite interaction a dubious prospect.

Case in point, your second sentence in the thread you linked is appended by a snarky little assault on some nebulous group of "facebook trolls" whom you've deemed to be irrelevant to the conversation.

^ Point made

As to the comment on "facebook trolls" my point was the same, They should actually join the conversation (Or actually start a positive one) instead of just *****ing and moaning about the conversation existing.

[Thaldin]

Personally I'd say its mostly your fault, you are exceedingly belligerent and make any effort made to elevate the level of conversation futile. You're not alone in this of course, but you are a major contributor to the general malaise of stagnant hate-funk that lingers around this place and makes any attempt at polite interaction a dubious prospect.

Case in point, your second sentence in the thread you linked is appended by a snarky little assault on some nebulous group of "facebook trolls" whom you've deemed to be irrelevant to the conversation.

At this point, everyone knows that such "trolls" on the internet exist. These are people who thrive on the fact of taking shots at others, tossing insults, and baiting folks. So daboarders comments about "Facebook Trolls" is pretty valid.

Now I would hope it's obvious that people who attempt to actually contribute or discuss topics aren't actively considered in this group. I see a lot of back and forth here between folks, some I agree with, some I don't... but for the most part it is open discussion (with occasional temper flares, but they seem to get ironed out)...

Let's take your point about "not coming here for a solution or conclusion"

I agree that an online presence for a LGS is a possible solution to help people get games...
I disagree that it is a complete solution to get games...

Reasoning...

Yes, technology allows a lot of communication and back and forth. It makes it easier to coordinate and setup meetings and such...

BUT

Not everyone has the skill sets or time required to do such things (setup forums, manage them, etc)
Not everyone may have what is needed to actively use these means of communication (or want what is needed)
We can't apply a single solution to a problem that is global and varies from shop to shop.


It is very easy to say "Just do this", but implementing that thing and getting everyone in that game shop on board for that is a very different thing.

[Harley]

Good points Thaldin.

And, as this entire thread was begun to suggest, having Unbound as an option in the BRB doesn't help with any of these problems. If people want to run 10 Riptides then good for them but it shouldn't be sanctioned in the book as vanilla because at this point you really have NO idea what you are getting yourself into when you walk into a game store for a pick up game of 40k compared to say 5th edition.

I think what eventually needs to happen is an independant organisation needs to make a consolidated standard format, FAQ and errata for organised play aside from what little GW produces. They could provide judges and sponsor events as well as offer guidelines and standards of play. That way you can show up somewhere and like Magic The Gathering, simply ask to play a format and know what to expect.

[Lord-Boofhead]

What Forum? Like Dakka, BoLS, Warseer, Heresy? Or like the one GW used to have but took down? Or should I make my own?

Set up a FB page for 40K players in your area? We have one where I live and we use it to organise games promote tournaments and have rules discussions.

[REMOVED BY MOD]

[Lord-Boofhead]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktbhw0v186Q

[Charon]

Also M:tG doesn't work like that and never has. formats are only relevant for tournies and there are like ten different types anyway.

Actually it does and some of them are even international. I never played a single tourny in my active M:tG time but was aware of the common formats. I also never ever encountered a player who built his deck just by the "mainrules".

[Mr Mystery]

I do....

But yeah, local MTG scene round my way had their first Tournament on Sunday, which sadly I missed, on account of waking up horrendously hungover 10 minutes before the start....

They were using a set format. Can't remember which off the top of me head, but it allows stuff from Mirrodin onwards, with a few banned cards.

[Harley]

Set up a FB page for 40K players in your area? We have one where I live and we use it to organise games promote tournaments and have rules discussions.

[REMOVED BY MOD]

If you even bothered reading people's posts before commenting on them (in presumably rude ways since they have all been moderated) you would see I mentioned I am already in four 40k groups for South East Michigan on FB. :rolleyes:

And yes, MTG formatting is very standardized and Friday Night Magic is the most successful organized (non-electronic) regular gaming event I've ever heard of. The shop nearby regularly gets in 50-150 people on a weekend, just playing MTG. And of course there are tons of people who play every other day of the week. At a tourney, just for one small store they can bring in 100-300 people.

It's great when you can just show up, even on a non-organised day and say "Lets play Standard formatting" or "Who wants to play Vintage format?" and instantly be on the same page with everyone else. It also makes it much easier for new people to get in the game. You can read more about it here: http://www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/resources.aspx?x=mtg/tcg/resources/formats-sanctioned

How hard would it be for GW to make a web page like that and say "Limited formatting consists of 1500 points, 1 Battleforged detachment and 1 additional or allied detachment. Maelstrom cards are in place and players roll regularly for mission and deployment type."

Unfortunately that doesn't happen with 40k, but it should. Instead of feeling like a United Nations negotiator every game, deciding first your point values, then Battleforged or Unbound, number of detachments, Maelstrom cards or not, Lords of War or not etc... you could just say "Let's play Limited format" and instantly know what was involved.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate for MTG. I quit playing 12 years ago because plastic models are more appealing than cardboard but I see how much fun MTG players have, the huge community and it's success and I can't help but feel like 40k is really missing out on something there.

[The Girl]

Also M:tG doesn't work like that and never has. formats are only relevant for tournies and there are like ten different types anyway.

Former MTG judge here (yeah, I'll qualify that)... you can't play the game without a format; it tells you what you can and can't use in the game; how many cards you can have in a deck and how the deck is built; how the cards can be used; etc. It's a rule set. Rule sets are always relevant. It's a game. Games have rules by definition. You can call Apocalypse a 40K format if you really want to. It is a version of 40K, the format guidelines tell you how to play.

Also: if y'all want to keep this going in this direction I'm ok with it (because I'm really helping to keep it on topic). I'm just going to have to move the thread to the Oubliette because of how it's veered.

[Harley]

The Girl, how did that work when you were judging, were the events organized by WotC themselves or were you hired by an independent organization which ran sanctioned events for WotC?

I'm wondering why a similar set up couldn't exist for North American 40k that could help standardize the game and bring players closer together. I think it could be really beneficial for the community to provide specific formats of play which could eventually be used in large GTs and daily play. It seems like something that is really needed now that GW is really taking the game down the rabbit hole with list building.

[The Girl]

I worked in an FLGS; the store hosted sanctioned legacy and booster drafts three to four days a week. In order for a tourney to be sanctioned (therefore count in rankings) there has to be either a registered organizer or a judge (of any level) present. The point of the judging system is to guarantee the sanctioned rules set out by Wizards are followed, and results are reported to DCI correctly. The judging program is more about DCI reporting than creating a common rule set - Wizards does a decent job at doing that off the bat.

What keeps all of it in a neat, organized package is DCI. DCI is a regulated beast (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/welcome). The database and tournaments are bank rolled by Hasbro. They offer reward programs for players, judges, and stores that participate - both cash and product. There are incentives beyond a sense of community at play... the international tourney pay out is around $45k. In my experience a lot of players won't participate if the event isn't sanctioned. The community builds around reward - you go to a store to win things, and meet people in the process.

If you're talking a reporting system like DCI.... the closest we've come is the GW run GT system. RankingsHQ tried, but you can't trust a self reporting system and, well, it flunked. It takes central steering, organization, and agreement. I'm not sure that can be done without a manufacturer stepping in and building infrastructure. The 40K rules are there, GW publishes them the same way Wizards does... and the community can't agree on the how to interpret and use them. I'm not really sure if an independent project would get off the ground in the current climate.

Do I think it's a good idea in theory? Yes. I do. But... funding is an issue, and I'm not sure if the community could manage building/managing such a thing without it imploding.

[Caitsidhe]

There are quite a few of us who advocate creating an organization which sets the standards for such events, adjusts rules, etc. in the same format as national organizations which regulate other sports/hobby competitions. Whether or not Games Workshop is involved or not is irrelevant. Such an organization would have to have reporting, standards, and a means to deal with issues. The primary purpose, in fact, is to deal with game balance problems in a fast and timely manner. It would also track rankings.

[The Girl]

Bankroll is very relevant - manufacturers have the money to drop, and the incentive because systems like this are sales drivers. DCI's success is due to the fact that it's run by Wizards.The system is paid for by participation through purchase. Participation is encouraged by rewards that cost the manufacturer a trivial amount.

Building and keeping a database, building the reporting software, creating the network it takes to connect those two things or someone that can enter data by hand, judge training, etc all costs money/product. Where will that come from? Love of the game? RankingsHQ was run with this model, and did something less complicated than you're proposing. Membership fees? Look at a thread discussin how much the game costs; folks aren't going to pay beyond what they need to play the game. Membership can't be compulsory. TOs won't make it compulsory, either... that would cost registrations and money.

Where is the bankroll going to come from? Manufacturers are the most likely and logical option, and would be more successful than a group of unpaid volunteers. They also have the ability to create a defined structure, mass organize, and market. I'm not sure you're seeing exactly how complicated this is outside of a local group. Organizing unpaid individuals to do a task (esp a group that is as divided as gamers are) is difficult and it has a higher potential to fall apart.

I don't think it's a bad idea... it's just really hard to implement without proper monetary backing.

[Harley]

Thanks for taking the time to give a very informative response TG.

Yes, I believe something DCI would be excellent for Warhammer in general and agree that without monetary backing it would be impossible or fail quickly. Essentially it is very similar to what I currently do now for automotive supplies which is run logistical supplier parts support. You have many different locations with data that must follow a specific quality process, is invoiced/input, shared with the customer and business, is output in order fulfillment and payments. It's definitely not cheap if it's anything like our set up. You're looking at paying a support person at least $10 an hour, plus per diem of ~$45 and $0.55 per mile travel in addition to lodging. More experienced individuals make around 30-40k a year in addition to the above expenses. It's essential to take decent care of these workers because you can't afford the downtime of constantly retraining replacements. That doesn't cover the overheard, materials etc.

I'm not sure if DCI has similar expenses but their operation can't be much cheaper. GW could potentially partner with a business which could offer them these services but it would be a huge commitment, one which would ultimately be beneficial but which they are probably unwilling to do.

[Caitsidhe]

Oh, I agree that monetary backing would be required, I just don't have any faith in Games Workshop's involvement. I actually think people would be willing to pay membership dues if they were low and helped them track rankings, resolve standards, and so on. Hell, it almost sounds like a good Kickstarter campaign.

[Harley]

Oh, I agree that monetary backing would be required, I just don't have any faith in Games Workshop's involvement. I actually think people would be willing to pay membership dues if they were low and helped them track rankings, resolve standards, and so on. Hell, it almost sounds like a good Kickstarter campaign.

As was said though RatingsHQ already tried this, and not even people were willing to buy a membership/donate. Also since there isn't an established standard, ratings weren't reliable. Some tourney's use W/L, some use victory points, some comp while others don't and the rules are different for them all. Then how can you be certain they are even accurate results?

It would only ever work if there was an established regulatory body and standards of play with officially licensed judges present to report results.

It's kind of crazy that a game where a pack of cards costs $10 can accommodate this but another where a single unit may cost $100 and take weeks to paint is so disorganized.

[Caitsidhe]

As was said though RatingsHQ already tried this, and not even people were willing to buy a membership/donate. Also since there isn't an established standard, ratings weren't reliable. Some tourney's use W/L, some use victory points, some comp while others don't and the rules are different for them all. Then how can you be certain they are even accurate results?

It would only ever work if there was an established regulatory body and standards of play with officially licensed judges present to report results.

It's kind of crazy that a game where a pack of cards costs $10 can accommodate this but another where a single unit may cost $100 and take weeks to paint is so disorganized.

They did try it but they didn't approach it correctly. For this to work it would require:

1. A Kickstarter campaign to generate funds to be setup correct and the membership packages would provide things for the people getting on board.
2. It would involve contacting all the major Event Organizers and getting them involved and giving them a say. Without them this doesn't work.
3. A hash out of the Council would be arranged, regions created, the whole works.

RatingsHQ was a good idea but it didn't really tackle the issue head on. It made the assumption up front that getting the various TOs to agree and work out terms was impossible, i.e. herding cats. I, on the other hand, think a regulatory body coming from the most active and luminary people in the hobby can work and that such people are quite able to come to terms, compromises, and get things done. People who can run tournaments and large events, know how to get things done. Most of them that I have met are extremely capable and pragmatic people. The benefit of doing it as a Kickstarter is that you will see up front whether you have the funds and support from the player base or not.

Most people will pay for a membership if they feel it truly grants them fair value. The more people involved the greater the value for everyone. I believe it can be done. I've seen things like it done successfully before. I'm not going to pretend there isn't hard work involved. There is. The person (or people) who setup the Kickstarter campaign and draft the original bylaws and so on have to accept that they might work their ***** off but once the regulatory body is generated that their own say in things may very well be limited. That is the nature of this kind of beast. The people coming in who will govern on such a Council will have done none of the front loaded organization and work but will be getting the benefit of leading going forward and using said organization. Most people are lazy and want a package deal. This runs from the bottom up. I suspect that if someone created the organization, a complete, reasonable set of bylaws, the perks of membership, and so on, that people would sign on if the package is reasonable. That would be enough to get things going. The only question is do we have some individuals willing the shoulder the front load?

[Harley]

Good points but something I've found most people don't realize about a large website is it's not about the upfront cost but the need for constant support which takes a lot of time and money. WotC's has full time proffessionals which are paid to upkeep their data, website, and provide support. This is why RankingsHQ just couldn't continue. You can read more about the difficulties they met here http://baddice.co.uk/daily158/ which didn't end up working out and eventually led to their closure.

There unfortunately just isn't enough support without the backing of the manufacturer. Also there are so many different formats and compt systems. Getting every big tourney's like Adepticon, Nova, Las Vegas & Bay area opens, FoB, every state's particular GT to agree upon a format seems nearly impossible without the manufacturer providing said format. To create a standard you need qualified judges present at all sanctioned events. I can't stress enough that the only way to really make it work is to have qualified judges present to report data, otherwise it loses legitimacy and people won't respect the system. If they don't respect it, they won't use it and you wind up shut down like RankingsHQ.

I just can't see it working without the continued backing and partnership from the manufacturer. Even if you earned tens of thousands of dollars with a Kickstarter, organized formatting and rankings are just a hobby within a hobby, unlike DCI who's actual job it is to create a structured community for MTG.

[Patrick Boyle]

As was said though RatingsHQ already tried this, and not even people were willing to buy a membership/donate. Also since there isn't an established standard, ratings weren't reliable. Some tourney's use W/L, some use victory points, some comp while others don't and the rules are different for them all. Then how can you be certain they are even accurate results?

It would only ever work if there was an established regulatory body and standards of play with officially licensed judges present to report results.

It's kind of crazy that a game where a pack of cards costs $10 can accommodate this but another where a single unit may cost $100 and take weeks to paint is so disorganized.

A pack of cards costs $10, sure, but they probably cost even less to produce than minis do, and do you ever see how many of the things people buy at a time? Every time a new set comes out it's booster boxes that go off the shelves, not individual packs, oftentimes multiple boxes. And unlike 40k where you're usually only buying if it's your army or one you play, it's every magic player at every release.

[Harley]

A pack of cards costs $10, sure, but they probably cost even less to produce than minis do, and do you ever see how many of the things people buy at a time? Every time a new set comes out it's booster boxes that go off the shelves, not individual packs, oftentimes multiple boxes. And unlike 40k where you're usually only buying if it's your army or one you play, it's every magic player at every release.

True and lots of pro players buy cards worth hundreds a piece. A single MTG deck of 60 cards can be worth thousands of dollars. The constant influx of new cards also keeps players buying more of them. To stay up to date you have to buy into the latest set or be unable to participate in booster drafts and popular formats. Meanwhile in 40k you can just keep using the same old models you have had for years.

Personally I don't understand how someone can justify spending thousands on cards, but if they get enjoyment out of it that's what matters.

[LostAlone]

A pack of cards costs $10, sure, but they probably cost even less to produce than minis do, and do you ever see how many of the things people buy at a time? Every time a new set comes out it's booster boxes that go off the shelves, not individual packs, oftentimes multiple boxes. And unlike 40k where you're usually only buying if it's your army or one you play, it's every magic player at every release.

It's both more and less complex than that.

In the past few years there has been a big push towards booster drafting and the other 'limited' formats (ie the ones that requires brand new, sealed packs to play). That's just this year filtered through to the highest levels of magic at the Pro Tour where there are no longer single format events anymore, if you want to be a champion you have to draft. I'm not a huge fan of that but it's hard to argue that change hasn't been mind bogglingly successful for WoTC. It's not the only reason why the game has exploded in the past few years - It's always been big, but something like that past four sets have broken sales records. WoTC has also pushed things like tournament coverage and have definitely been on a roll with evocative, flavorful universes to play in.

The point is that when you see people buy a box of boosters, that's enough to do one draft with 8 people, with 12 packs left to give as prizes. Almost no-one buys packs just to crack them and get the gooey mythic rares. Almost everyone drafts, because that way you crack the packs and also get games. Someone buys the box, but everyone they draft with tends to kick in.

But still, WoTC makes some genuinely hilarious amounts of money from Magic so it's not directly comparable to 40k, definitely not in this day and age where the 40k scene has dried up a lot. It would be extremely hard for GW to start build the systems now that WoTC has been running for over a decade.

[On topic from here on I swear]

But that point remains that the way Magic is played ensures that everyone knows what's happening coming in. That's why I brought up Magic like 5 pages ago. It's general practice at Magic groups that meet regularly for each meet to have it's own format. On Tuesday we play standard. On Thursday we draft. On Friday we play the rotating PTQ format. 40k has needed this for some time but it's gotten a little silly now, especially with GW putting some real emphasis on unbound as a genuinely acceptable game approach.

As a community we table top gamers are probably the group with the least well developed communication skills, and are extremely prone to pushing the rules as hard as humanly possible in our own favor. Having grey area around the rules gives people the chance to start at a massive advantage, and that's a hard thing for people to turn down just so someone else can have a good time at the expense of you having one. The bottom line is that most of us just want to win. I want to win when I play 40k. Of course I do. The same way I want to win when I play basically any game. I mean, games aren't fun if you aren't trying to win. Even in RPGs where people aren't actually playing against each other people are trying to 'win'. I've seen people bring busted as hell expanded universe characters into core rule book games and get seriously pissed off that they don't get to play, in spite of that being extremely uncool of them, in spite of the GM getting final say over characters and the group as a whole having a set power level that months of content is predicated on. People want to win.

Add to that the problem of spending money on all of these units for an unbound army that you wouldn't be able to play with usually. If you've spent a lot of money on repeats of unis you already have and cannot use otherwise then you absolutely are going to feel aggrieved that you can't play unbound. And people that don't want to play unbound are going to be aggrieved that you brought an unbound army. And while communication can help with that the idea of only arranging games ahead of time is hopelessly optimistic. We are not, on the whole, a punctual people. Arranging a game with a random dude off the internet is going to lead to a lot of missed connections on both ends. Even when I knew a lot of gamers and the club I went to had a facebook page that we actually used to talk about stuff, no-one arranged games of 40k or Magic. Those were the two things that just kind of happened abiently while everyone else played a pen and paper RPG. I used to bring a deck and an army because sometimes the RPG would be in a slow part or there'd be a new guy without characters and a lot of people did the same. No-one arranged it. And I don't see anyone arranging things in a more regimented way going forward.

There's nothing on the line for a lot of 40k games. Nothing except the sweet joy of victory. There's no reason not to throw tantrums until you get to use unbound, because winning is what makes the game fun for a lot of people. And in many locations people will have the choice between giving in and playing a game, or not giving in and not having a game. There's no tangible reason for the cheesey unbound people to play not-unbound. No reason at all. They paid the money for it and it's in the rule book, so it's not even unsporting now.

In 40k because GW has totally given up on balance it's left up to us as individual players to decide how much cheese we can put up with before we just stop playing. And we got nothing in exchange for that. There is no benefit to adding Unbound to the rule book. There's just a tacit admission that at the end of the day GW wants to force a casual face over a very hardcore hobby. They want the players to decide between themselves what is 'fair' in their current game.

That's just... That is not going to work and no-one is going to have fun while it doesn't work.

[Harley]

Great post LostAlone, very informative and pretty much sums up this entire thread I think.

What WotC has done with MtG is amazing. They have created a fairly balanced game (they even ban their own cards!), hire and support amazing artists, create amazing fantasy realms and release great novels about them and have brought more people into traditional gaming than any single company in history. I love how organized they are and how much fun people have playing their games.

That said... I just don't enjoy playing Magic any more and haven't since middle school. At the end of the day, collecting cards just isn't very fun imo and leaves very little room for creativity. Themed decks have to be used in certain, uncommon formats in which they aren't competitive enough and the cost of the game to keep up is just too much to justify.

Similarly, I really dislike what they did to 4th ed D&D as far as game design, especially Forgotten Realms, which turned me off from the whole thing. That isn't to say though that it isn't an amazing game system which employs an army of talented artists and promotes creativity.

I sincerely wish though that GW would pick things up and take a note from WotC on how to manage their business and games. I feel like they are a purposely handicapping themselves through stubbornness because it's easier to take the route of saying your game was never meant to balanced than making the extra effort to do so. It's easier to say you don't run events because you don't want to support competitive play than to take the extra effort to do so. It's easier to leave the burden of formatting and structure in the hands of your players rather than take the extra effort to do so. It's easier to do a lot of the things the way they do but in the end they are worse off for it. We all are.

It makes you wonder how long it will be before WoTC decides to take the big plunge and create their own big line of table top strategy game to compete with 40k. They tested the waters with Chainmale but it didn't seem in earnest.

[Path Walker]

I love Magic as a game, I have played off and on since 1996 (I prefer Netrunner, and the LCG model in general, but thats difficult to get people playing unless they already know Magic), as a quick, portable way to play a fantasy table top game, its great. But it isn't that anymore, its a very different beast now, its a tournament game played by people that want to win.

This is built in to every magic community I've ever known or seen, magic players are geared towards beating each other, the other player having fun doesn't seem to be a concern for anyone involved in playing the game.

Because of this, Magic is a very different proposition to 40K in a lot of ways, and as far as tournaments go, in that it was built from the ground up to be competitive. Its a fight to the death, one on one, its not narrative, the fluff is ancillary to most players and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense sometimes, from what happens on in a game. 40k isn't and never has been designed to be competitive in that way, yes its a fight and yes usuualy one player will win, but that doesn't mean its competitive. In D&D, the DM could could all out and try to kill the PCs, after all, they control the monsters that fight the heroes, surely if they don't beat the PCs, the DM loses? No, its competitive, but in a way were losing isn't a negative, the story that is told is far more important than who wins, this has been the idea behind wargaming, especially in the UK, for many, many years, look at the historical wargamers that predate our hobby, they don't care about balance, they want their forces to be representitive of real battles, they play how the generals they are pretending to be would have fought, they ignore metagame knowledge, just like RPG players.

40k is more like that, your army is meant to represent an army that exists in the 41st millenium, its not supposed to be an army made up of the best choices in your codex, you're supposed to use the codex to create an army that would exist in that universe, not a tool for beating your opponent in a game. Magic isn't played like that often, yes, you'll get theme decks used by some people (I've always liked Green Beast heavy decks myself because I like that style of play and the cool monsters), but they are rare in tournaments.

The mechanics of Magic are so clever and the game so tight that its hard to go wrong after all these years of experience, now and when they do mistep, which they do, they outright ban the card, no errata to tweak it, its gone from tournament lists, even if you sepnd £25 getting it from ebay last week, imagine if GW did that? Lootas are a bit too good in 40k, so they're banned from tournaments? GW won't ever do that, TOs won't either, even if it would help the balance, because thats not what 40k is about.

Also the business model for Magic suits the competitiveness, again, imagine if GW banned you from using models that were more than 18 months old? Magic does that in tournaments, if you want to play you have to keep spending, unless you're casual, and Magic almost discourages casual play with how over powering a well built deck can be compared to newbies, my friends and I decided to start playing again and had a lot of fun, until one of the group started ebaying cards and looking up deck builds, games soon took a nasty turn, its only balanced while both players are aiming at competitiveness.

40K isn't Magic, its not that kind of hobby and most players don't want it to be, there is a reason that RatingsHQ failed, competitive 40k isn't nearly as popular, it doesn't have enough of a fanbase to support that kind of international tournament scene.

If you want to tweak 40K in your local area, host a tournament and tweak it to your liking, tell your players what you're tweaking and if they play and enjoy it, it will spread, thats the only way to do it, waiting for GW to do something that they have no interest in doing (because it WON'T help them sell models) is not going to help you get the experience you want. You have to do it yourself. If you don't think its worth the effort, you're just proving that competitive 40K really isn't that important.

[Harley]

I'm sorry but you're wrong about a lot of these points. My responses in plum.


I love Magic as a game, I have played off and on since 1996 (I prefer Netrunner, and the LCG model in general, but thats difficult to get people playing unless they already know Magic), as a quick, portable way to play a fantasy table top game, its great. But it isn't that anymore, its a very different beast now, its a tournament game played by people that want to win. There is nothing stopping you from playing games on your own just for fun, with nothing on the line. I played MtG regularly from Ice Age up until Mirrodin and owned thousands of dollars in cards but never once played in an actual tourney.

This is built in to every magic community I've ever known or seen, magic players are geared towards beating each other, the other player having fun doesn't seem to be a concern for anyone involved in playing the game. And for every few competitive Magic players there are some who play at the game store on the weekdays in a relaxed setting, just for fun.

Because of this, Magic is a very different proposition to 40K in a lot of ways, and as far as tournaments go, in that it was built from the ground up to be competitive Not any more than 40k which has also had tourney's from day 1. Its a fight to the death, one on one (or two on two or one on two or three on three there are actually many options), its not narrative (Yes it is, you have two Planeswalkers, they are battling with summoned creatures and tapping the mana of the location, it's only as narrative as you make it to be.), the fluff is ancillary to most players and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense sometimes (except they have tons of novels which provide a deep background, many of which are interconnected and have carried on story arcs which have literally been developing for decades, almost as long as 40k), from what happens on in a game. 40k isn't and never has been designed to be competitive in that way, yes its a fight and yes usuualy one player will win, but that doesn't mean its competitive (Except that 40k has always had sanctioned competitive tournies up until recently and their drop in support is a cop out from the manufacturer based on their inability to balance their own game). In D&D, the DM could could all out and try to kill the PCs, after all, they control the monsters that fight the heroes, surely if they don't beat the PCs, the DM loses? No, its competitive, but in a way were losing isn't a negative, the story that is told is far more important than who wins, this has been the idea behind wargaming, especially in the UK, for many, many years, look at the historical wargamers that predate our hobby, they don't care about balance, they want their forces to be representitive of real battles, they play how the generals they are pretending to be would have fought, they ignore metagame knowledge, just like RPG players (Except the entire thing is based on meta game knowledge called "history").

40k is more like that, your army is meant to represent an army that exists in the 41st millenium, its not supposed to be an army made up of the best choices in your codex, you're supposed to use the codex to create an army that would exist in that universe, not a tool for beating your opponent in a game. Magic isn't played like that often, yes, you'll get theme decks used by some people (I've always liked Green Beast heavy decks myself because I like that style of play and the cool monsters), but they are rare in tournaments. (as are themed lists rare in 40k tournaments. Comparing a sweet apple to a bitter orange doesn't disprove that some apples are bitter and some oranges are sweet).

The mechanics of Magic are so clever and the game so tight that its hard to go wrong after all these years of experience, now and when they do mistep, which they do, they outright ban the card, no errata to tweak it, its gone from tournament lists, even if you sepnd £25 getting it from ebay last week, imagine if GW did that? Lootas are a bit too good in 40k, so they're banned from tournaments? GW won't ever do that, TOs won't either, even if it would help the balance, because thats not what 40k is about. (Because the cards are already printed. Banning and Retconning are essentially the same thing which GW does ALL the time by taking a unit and retconning it's rules into something else in later printings. That isn't to mention when they take out units from Codex. Please show me which current codex contains Marbo or Pariahs or......... Squats?)

Also the business model for Magic suits the competitiveness, again, imagine if GW banned you from using models that were more than 18 months old? Magic does that in tournaments, if you want to play you have to keep spending, unless you're casual, and Magic almost discourages casual play with how over powering a well built deck can be compared to newbies, my friends and I decided to start playing again and had a lot of fun, until one of the group started ebaying cards and looking up deck builds, games soon took a nasty turn, its only balanced while both players are aiming at competitiveness. (Except that Magic has vintage and legacy formats where you can still use your old cards)

40K isn't Magic, its not that kind of hobby and most players don't want it to be, there is a reason that RatingsHQ failed, competitive 40k isn't nearly as popular, it doesn't have enough of a fanbase to support that kind of international tournament scene. (And there is a reason why Magic is, financially, doing so much better than 40k. It COULD have that kind of fanbase if GW was willing to make the needed changes to balance and support it, but that takes a lot of effort and money. )

If you want to tweak 40K in your local area, host a tournament and tweak it to your liking, tell your players what you're tweaking and if they play and enjoy it, it will spread, thats the only way to do it, waiting for GW to do something that they have no interest in doing (because it WON'T help them sell models) is not going to help you get the experience you want. You have to do it yourself. If you don't think its worth the effort, you're just proving that competitive 40K really isn't that important. (The same can be said of Magic. Go ahead and hold your own tourney with your own themed narrative rules, there is absolutely nothing saying you can't.)

Man, wouldn't it suck if GW banned a unit that I bought or made for the game! I mean good thing I can still buy a Medusa to use in my Imperial Guard codex... oh wait, I have to buy an additional $150 book to use it now and only at my opponent's discretion. Maybe I can just run it along side Marbo or Pariahs. Good thing they didn't change any of my old units and nerf them into the ground so hard I don't want to use them any more... that would be worse than banning them!

[Lord-Boofhead]

[Removed]

- - - Updated - - -


The point is that when you see people buy a box of boosters, that's enough to do one draft with 8 people, with 12 packs left to give as prizes. Almost no-one buys packs just to crack them and get the gooey mythic rares. Almost everyone drafts, because that way you crack the packs and also get games. Someone buys the box, but everyone they draft with tends to kick in.

I know guys who do just that, for Magic and other CCGs, They buy a box or 3 and they then only trade/buy the handfull of rares they don't score that way.

Trust me on this I run CCG tournies...

- - - Updated - - -


It's kind of crazy that a game where a pack of cards costs $10 can accommodate this but another where a single unit may cost $100 and take weeks to paint is so disorganized.

Because we don't want it. Why can't you get it that players and TOs don't want to be straight jacketed into playing the way YOU want us to?

[Mr Mystery]

I buy my Magic Cards by the Booster Box. Why? It's cheaper.

Plus, I have deeper pockets than my peers in terms of disposable income (we don't actually measure each other's pockets). So by Box Buying, I get all the ming and filth I want, and the rest of the guys can pick the bones out my leavings. I'm not terribly precious about such stuff.

As for GW - Remember. It's not a game. It's a Hobby. More to it than just gaming. Origins start with Warhammer, where someone thrashed out a generic rules set to let people use their collection of models and doo-dads all at the same time. That philsopohy hasn't changed (and I for one hope it doesn't).

[Path Walker]

I'm sorry but you're wrong about a lot of these points. My responses in plum.



Man, wouldn't it suck if GW banned a unit that I bought or made for the game! I mean good thing I can still buy a Medusa to use in my Imperial Guard codex... oh wait, I have to buy an additional $150 book to use it now and only at my opponent's discretion. Maybe I can just run it along side Marbo or Pariahs. Good thing they didn't change any of my old units and nerf them into the ground so hard I don't want to use them any more... that would be worse than banning them!

[Removed]

40k had tournaments run by GW yes, not from the start but in 2nd edition, but with a heavey Army Composition score and General score which bother factored in to your placings, something very different from the atmosphere of independant 40k tournaments and sanctioned Magic Events.

You are the one that wants a company (against its best financial interests, the wishes of the majority of its customer base and the shareholders) to change their products, the emphasis is therefore on you to change, not me and not GW.

Oh and they've never banned models, because they don't really have sanctioned events to do it in, and have always been open to you using models, they've changed the rules but thats it, they don't nerf things on a whim, and they are still perfectly useable. Pariahs are now just Lych Guard models, Malbro is a Catachan Sergeant, nothing you've bought is useless, hell Squats can be used with IG rules if you bought them (which not many people did, which is why they stopped selling them), Forge World is no more at your opponents whim than anything else in the game and the medusa model was always a forgeworld thing, if you bought a model, you got it from forgeworld, its not surprising they want a clear delinieation between the companies.

[marful]

Pariahs are now just Lych Guard models, Malbro is a Catachan Sergeant, nothing you've bought is useless, hell Squats can be used with IG rules if you bought them (which not many people did, which is why they stopped selling them), Forge World is no more at your opponents whim than anything else in the game and the medusa model was always a forgeworld thing, if you bought a model, you got it from forgeworld, its not surprising they want a clear delinieation between the companies.
I hate to break the news to you, but you're wrong here. Medusa's were in fact in the 5th Edition Imperial Guard Codex along with Colossus and Gryphons. Certainly they are not in the current Astra Militarum codex. GW even made a Gryphon model way back in 2nd edition (I have 3 of them), but never made a model for the Colossus or Medusas. But you're right in that they are now Forge World models only, as that is the place you'll find current rules for them.

The point is that they were part of GW's lineup and now they are not so the "clear delineation thing" isn't actually so clear as you seem to think it is. I mean there are the Gryphons, rules for the Medusa and Colossus in 5th edition, then there is the Adeptus Mechanicus Castelax battle robots that I have sitting in their original blisters, there were imperial guard landspeeders, space marines on jet bikes, eldar ghost warriors, genestealer hybrids... well, I think you get the point I'm trying to make.

And while you're right, in that GW doesn't actually "ban" models, the point Harley was trying to make is that every time a new codex comes around some models are no longer included while new ones get added. And while this is certainly awesome and good, from a fan/hobby/enthusiast perspective that there is this really cool new unit/model to buy, you can't really use the old models any more as there are no current rules for them.

The net result is is that a player can no longer use them as they were supposed to be, in the tournament circuit or casual pickup games with a random pickup player. Now I'm arguing whether this is good or bad. I'm merely pointing out that when the rules change so that either via explicit exclusion or passive omission, so that you can't use your model, card, character class, whatever, the net result is the effective ban of that thing from normal game play. And an "effective complete restriction from use" is a defacto ban.


[Removed]

[Wolfshade]

Whilst you are both entitled to your opinions, we will not suffer name calling or insulting behaviour.

This is now closed.