Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: I sincerely doubt this is going to be a move towards tournament play. GW has made it abundantly clear that they think tournament play is the antithesis of their design philosophy.
Then they've probably looked at the turnout that FFG, PP and Corvus Belli are getting for their events and the way those companies are growing when GW really aren't and had a rethink.
It's been said time and again, but a clear, concise, balanced rule set with regular revisions and updates based on player feedback hurts nobody. It's incredibly easy to disregard whole sections of the rules for narrative purposes, the reverse is much harder.
The turnout that Corvus Belli gets for "their" events isn't because of Corvus Belli or its rules sets, unless you're talking about in continental Europe and the UK--because outside of Europe? It's all run by their "WarCors", the people who serve as the face of the community.
CB makes a couple of appearances stateside for major events, but that's all--and even then the WarCors basically did all the legwork.
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: I sincerely doubt this is going to be a move towards tournament play. GW has made it abundantly clear that they think tournament play is the antithesis of their design philosophy.
Then they've probably looked at the turnout that FFG, PP and Corvus Belli are getting for their events and the way those companies are growing when GW really aren't and had a rethink.
It's been said time and again, but a clear, concise, balanced rule set with regular revisions and updates based on player feedback hurts nobody. It's incredibly easy to disregard whole sections of the rules for narrative purposes, the reverse is much harder.
The turnout that Corvus Belli gets for "their" events isn't because of Corvus Belli or its rules sets, unless you're talking about in continental Europe and the UK--because outside of Europe? It's all run by their "WarCors", the people who serve as the face of the community.
CB makes a couple of appearances stateside for major events, but that's all--and even then the WarCors basically did all the legwork.
And PP's are run mostly by Pressgangers. What's your point?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: I sincerely doubt this is going to be a move towards tournament play. GW has made it abundantly clear that they think tournament play is the antithesis of their design philosophy.
Then they've probably looked at the turnout that FFG, PP and Corvus Belli are getting for their events and the way those companies are growing when GW really aren't and had a rethink.
It's been said time and again, but a clear, concise, balanced rule set with regular revisions and updates based on player feedback hurts nobody. It's incredibly easy to disregard whole sections of the rules for narrative purposes, the reverse is much harder.
The turnout that Corvus Belli gets for "their" events isn't because of Corvus Belli or its rules sets, unless you're talking about in continental Europe and the UK--because outside of Europe? It's all run by their "WarCors", the people who serve as the face of the community.
CB makes a couple of appearances stateside for major events, but that's all--and even then the WarCors basically did all the legwork.
And PP's are run mostly by Pressgangers. What's your point?
My point is that you can't put credit in the hands of Corvus Belli for the success of their events. They have the ITS tag and they sell ITS packs to WarCors(although really ANYONE can buy them via the webstore) and that's basically as far as their involvement with these events goes unless it's in Europe or a major US con..
I don't know PP or FFG so I didn't comment on PP or FFG.
Well, what I am hoping for is GW doing their own thing and doing it really well.
Campaign events. Goodies left right and centre, GW's own imperfect rules either ignored or changed on the spot in order to progress a game.
It sure wont be competitive, but there are loads of events trying to polish the turds that are the current 40k warhammer (now AoS) rules. Accept the limitations for comp play and you can take the scraps and award prizes for best shouted waaagh, most sixes rolled, most helpful player. Best army, best general. best tank, best MC, most succsesful gets hots rolls. Most unlucky player.........(i'll be up for that one, or most inept general).
Setting up a framework that allows/encourages volunteers to organize events that support your product is arguably better than doing it yourself anyway. Absent efforts by CB/PP to enable that, do you think they'd happen?
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: I sincerely doubt this is going to be a move towards tournament play. GW has made it abundantly clear that they think tournament play is the antithesis of their design philosophy.
Then they've probably looked at the turnout that FFG, PP and Corvus Belli are getting for their events and the way those companies are growing when GW really aren't and had a rethink.
It's been said time and again, but a clear, concise, balanced rule set with regular revisions and updates based on player feedback hurts nobody. It's incredibly easy to disregard whole sections of the rules for narrative purposes, the reverse is much harder.
The turnout that Corvus Belli gets for "their" events isn't because of Corvus Belli or its rules sets, unless you're talking about in continental Europe and the UK--because outside of Europe? It's all run by their "WarCors", the people who serve as the face of the community.
CB makes a couple of appearances stateside for major events, but that's all--and even then the WarCors basically did all the legwork.
And PP's are run mostly by Pressgangers. What's your point?
My point is that you can't put credit in the hands of Corvus Belli for the success of their events. They have the ITS tag and they sell ITS packs to WarCors(although really ANYONE can buy them via the webstore) and that's basically as far as their involvement with these events goes unless it's in Europe or a major US con..
I don't know PP or FFG so I didn't comment on PP or FFG.
Right, so CB just created the game that people want to play at a competitive level, and created the ITS packs, and made them available. But you want to somehow relieve them of credit because there's part of the world where someone else does some of the admin and logistics.
I know you're a compulsive corrector Kan, but for feths sake have a point to your pedantry.
It's utterly irrelevant who is doing the legwork, other games by other manufacturers are growing, and in several significant cases one could easily point to the organised gaming scene as a driver of that. Which was the spirit of the point I made, which one could easily have seen if one weren't bogged down in the minutiae of the accuracy of some extraneous facts.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Verviedi wrote: Aaand again with the "Youngblood" crap. Time to bring out the synthetic sideburns again.
Glad they're doing things like that, but seriously? Age segregation?
I think it's a very good thing. You don't want 12 year old playing against middle aged dudes with a chip on their shoulder; it's a great way to make sure the 12 year old doesn't want to play again. Conversely, I don't want to play against random teenagers who may or may not be immature and annoying. Not saying they all are, but when I was playing in high school there were a good number of people who, even then, I'd rather not play against.
We don't know. but it would be a nice thing. If the new Organised Play system includes a league or ranking, the modern digital technology makes it possible to do a worldwide board and campaign with balancing of results taking place for a large number of players.
Define organized play.
GW organized events and campaigns?
The campaigns so far were a bit lame if you ask me.
Not sure if we need Throne of Skulls back.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
wuestenfux wrote: Define organized play.
GW organized events and campaigns?
The campaigns so far were a bit lame if you ask me.
Not sure if we need Throne of Skulls back.
They still do ToS though
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/26 21:59:16
Anyone else being reminded of the WotC Encounters program? (Which helped prove, even to WotC, that 4e was not a huge success....)
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
It's still a positive move, as it will drive engagement with the player base, and I sincerely hope that it's the first step towards trying to make 40K (especially) a tight and organized enough game to warrant proper tourneys, but I suspect narrative campaigns or events very heavy on soft scores will be the order of the day, at least initially.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I think it would be great if the organised play specifically isn't (mainly) competitive as that seems to be done better by the independent tournament circuits who are willing to tweek the rules to better suit that style of play
If GW could showcase the more unbalanced, come on and just have fun, play to game rather than play to win style they obviously intend their system for it would be a good thing
and might help develop that aspect for the 'play at a store with strangers' scene
I think I'd rather GW look at their rules, see how poorly written they are for competitive gameplay and fix them for everyone, including the casual, play-for-fun crowd. That's not going to happen if 'having fun' is all they promote in organised play.
His Master's Voice wrote: I think I'd rather GW look at their rules, see how poorly written they are for competitive gameplay and fix them for everyone, including the casual, play-for-fun crowd. That's not going to happen if 'having fun' is all they promote in organised play.
His Master's Voice wrote: I think I'd rather GW look at their rules, see how poorly written they are for competitive gameplay and fix them for everyone, including the casual, play-for-fun crowd. That's not going to happen if 'having fun' is all they promote in organised play.
No problem. £65 please, new edition cost
I'd pay that for a clear, concise and internally consistent rules set. Heck, I'd buy the collector's edition to prop my left back speaker and then I'd buy the softback copy too.
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
(more)
(building)
(less)
