Well, Orks win another Grand Tournament. This is not a surprise. Orks field 45 Lootas. These units have the range of the board. These units average 30 strength 7 hits a turn, or a dead marine squad a turn. At strength 7 they can also penetrate most light armor. And that still leaves 1000 other points of Ork infantry and special units to deal with.

Now, just maybe an 11 Immolator army could survive long enough to get some flamers on the Ork troops. Armies from other codices may be able to 'cower in their landraiders' hoping the megaklaws don't get them. Maybe ORk armies will be paired against ORk armies in the first rounds of tournaments so some other army can sneak through. Maybe tournament organizers will start putting down some LOS blocking terrain to make the Lootas move before they unleash their torrent of doom.

Or maybe the Ork codex has really broken the game. Who wants to play against this 'bleep' all the time?

Maybe the new Space Marine codex will pose some as yet unidentified problem for the Orks. Drop Pod assault doesn't sound like it to me though. Yes, you can drop down and rapid fire three poor ork units. Then guess what, they kill your three drop pods and the kill points are even. Hope you can find some cover to hide behind if there are Lootas left.

Who knows, maybe the flaming Redeemers with some POTMS will negate the entire army. But right now, I'm not seeing why I should go to a tournament.....

Signed,

Disheartened

Im pretty sure Neil had 30 Lootas, not 45.

Besides, he and Marc Parker are close friends and worked on their lists together.

In the picture Redbeard posted of Neil's army it had 30 lootas.

I talked to Jervis a bit on Saturday, after the gaming of the day was over.

I asked what sort of playtesting did they do, what sort of process was involved (I'm a software developer, and there are many many parallels between game development and software development, so I'd think they could benefit a lot from the sorts of process type things that we go through with our QA cycles), and what was their thought about 'extreme' builds.

He told me, unapologetically, that they don't test extreme builds, that they don't care about tournament gamers when they write the rules because we only account for 5% of the gamers out there, and that they had no interest in developing better rules for tournament play. we tournament players should "understand that [we] exist on the far fringes of the hobby", and that we should expect problems related to this. Quoted/Paraphrased.

The emphasis in their testing was, in Jervis's words, about whether they had fun, and was focused on the sorts of armies that you see in W.D. battle reports. He said that he doesn't believe anyone who says one army always wins or can't win, and said that he believes that the 'unbeatable' build actually only wins about 55-60% of its games, and that the army that can't win actually only loses about 40-45% of its games.

And, I brought up how other game companies (WotC, Eurogames, video-fighting games) have managed to achieve systems that work for both casual players and tournament players, and he replied that they're just not interested. That as a game developer, he wants to write games that show you how to play the game the way that they do, and that their failure is a failure to communicate to us how they play, not actually a failure of the rules. He even said that they don't even look at FAQs when they playtest in the studio, because they all 'just know' how it is suposed to be played.

So, yeah, disenheartened to be sure. It's one thing to note that things don't work well. It's another to be told by the lead developer that, not only do they not believe there is a problem, but that even if there was, they wouldn't want to fix it. They want a game that you play in your basement with a beer or two, not a game that works in a competative environment.

And then, he said that they encourage people to write stuff about what changes they've made to how they play. Which seemed almost like an invitation to the competative community to come up with needed changes... almost. I'm sure GW's legal team would squash it.

I always think that tourney gamer = fringe is hysterical. Im building 2 armies purely for tourney play right now.

For the casual gamer, I see the same minis and paint jobs he had 10+ years ago.

I honestly dont see us being so small a market share.

I'm noticing myself that while I am a casual player I look to tournament players to learn the rules better and to see what actually wins games. I hate that these rules have so many damn holes in them. I hate to have to crack open a rulebook or break out in a straight up dispute over some stupid little rule. I play casually but for the moment the crap rules have driven me into a slight hiatus. I just wish they would look into this instead of shrug it off all the time. Yes your selling models, yes the rules help sell those models. A completely crappy rule set will send your market share into the ground.

Redbeard wrote:

He told me, unapologetically, that they don't test extreme builds, that they don't care about tournament gamers when they write the rules because we only account for 5% of the gamers out there, and that they had no interest in developing better rules for tournament play. we tournament players should "understand that [we] exist on the far fringes of the hobby", and that we should expect problems related to this. Quoted/Paraphrased.

It's nice to hear from the source that GW doesn't care about better rules.

The emphasis in their testing was, in Jervis's words, about whether they had fun, and was focused on the sorts of armies that you see in W.D. battle reports. He said that he doesn't believe anyone who says one army always wins or can't win, and said that he believes that the 'unbeatable' build actually only wins about 55-60% of its games, and that the army that can't win actually only loses about 40-45% of its games.

I don't get this. If you aren't testing the extreme builds then why test? And their reasoning is they don't test this stuff because players shouldn't be playing this way. Well take that anyone using 9 oblits and 2 lash princes. You are all bad puppies.

And, I brought up how other game companies (WotC, Eurogames, video-fighting games) have managed to achieve systems that work for both casual players and tournament players, and he replied that they're just not interested. That as a game developer, he wants to write games that show you how to play the game the way that they do, and that their failure is a failure to communicate to us how they play, not actually a failure of the rules. He even said that they don't even look at FAQs when they playtest in the studio, because they all 'just know' how it is suposed to be played.

In my opinion their way of having fun sounds fething stupid. Oops, I mean I guess I won't use obliterators anymore to show what a great person I am.

And their attitude towards FAQ's makes GW sound like a cult to me.

So, yeah, disenheartened to be sure. It's one thing to note that things don't work well. It's another to be told by the lead developer that, not only do they not believe there is a problem, but that even if there was, they wouldn't want to fix it. They want a game that you play in your basement with a beer or two, not a game that works in a competative environment.

Well like you said Redbeard, there are plenty of other companies that already make solid competitive games.

Also, you've completely discouraged me from buying any new models, and my wallet thanks you.

Who knows, maybe the flaming Redeemers with some POTMS will negate the entire army. But right now, I'm not seeing why I should go to a tournament.....

Mikeguth, there are three ways you can react to the situation:

1) The Beat 'Em Approach. Play against that kind of army and gain experience against it.

2) The Join 'Em Approach. If you think the build is that strong, start fielding it yourself.

3) The Pragmatic Approach. Ask yourself, did you regularly win your local RTT's before? Did you regularly find yourself on the top ten tables at GT's before? If not, then nothing has changed.

Two things-

One- I've never seen a tournament with enough terrain. Two hills and a tree is not terrain. Even the blah-blah in the rules encourage at least a quarter of the board should be covered or else your in for a dull shooting match.

Two- Jervis Johnson has got the right take on what is at best a hobby.

we tournament players should "understand that [we] exist on the far fringes of the hobby"

I believe the British term for this would be to say that's a load of BOLLOCKS!

If we are the fringe gamers then why are the absolute biggest highlighted events that Games Workshop runs called "Grand Tournaments"!

I don't see any "Grand Only Friendly Games Days", "Grand Painting Days", Grand Model Building Days" now do I?

Do they honestly believe that the biggest draw to their events is so that people can pay exorbitant ticket prices for the privilege of shopping for their products? Apparently they in all honesty do! Just wow. Those comments are just so short sighted it amazes me.

It's not the casual gamer who buys large amounts of product. The casual gamer buys his stuff off E-bay and makes his tanks out of foam core and other model kits because he won't pay out his ass for something he only plays "casually". It's the hard core committed guys who drop the money on this stuff, and they want to play serious games against other people who have made the same commitment to the hobby as well! If you spend thousands of dollars on models, books, paints, and scenery it feels good to be able to take them into a serious competition.


Now to re-focus back to the Orks: Yeah, I was saying they are broken since the first time I saw their new Codex armies being played in a tournament. I am not surprised they are dominating tournaments, and I think they will continue to dominate tournaments.

Admittedly though, this does remind of Warhammer Fantasy many years ago when the Chaos army was nearly unstoppable.

Well, Orks win another Grand Tournament. This is not a surprise. Orks field 45 Lootas. These units have the range of the board. These units average 30 strength 7 hits a turn, or a dead marine squad a turn. At strength 7 they can also penetrate most light armor. And that still leaves 1000 other points of Ork infantry and special units to deal with.

If that stupid 7 land raider list ever gets popular that may balance the environment a little bit. But probably not.

Jervis is kind of an idiot that doesn't really understand the underpinnings of a functioning game environment but he has a few things right. If you pay too much attention to the tournament format you end up with a situation similar to that found in Warmachine/hordes. A balanced game that functions very well in a tournament environment but isn't very fun to play outside of it. Even wizards of the coast has a known set development process where it releases essentially 2 different sets per expansion. Mixing more interesting casual cards with powercards that will exist in the extended tourny formats. It's an intentional imbalance within the design to cater to both segments of its population.

It's not the casual gamer who buys large amounts of product. The casual gamer buys his stuff off E-bay and makes his tanks out of foam core and other model kits because he won't pay out his ass for something he only plays "casually". It's the hard core committed guys who drop the money on this stuff, and they want to play serious games against other people who have made the same commitment to the hobby as well! If you spend thousands of dollars on models, books, paints, and scenery it feels good to be able to take them into a serious competition.

While you may buy more than the casual gamer, the casual gamer outnumbers the traveling tourny goer fifteen to one.

Look at the UK fantasy GT results, Daemons have 7 out of the top 10 places, and no-one's surprised.

Jervis is quite wrong about having fun. I take my army to the friendly local game store. Look, a new opponent, what've you got, oh, ORKS. Gee, you'd win automatically, anyone else. "Oh, hello, what've you got, oh, ORKs also, gee, not much of a game." Oh, a third new player-wanna play, I have Chaos marines, oh, you've beaten 10 Chaos Marine armies and don't want to beat another one. Wonderful, why don't you guys just play with yourselves", get the message?

There are plenty of historical miniatures games that have both competitive balance and fun, starting with the warhammer derivatives like warhammer ancient battles and flames of war. Too bad my son really likes the 40k models and science fiction.

Dear Dr. Thunder-I've had plenty of experience against Orks. The question is, if the top calibre players can't do better than a draw against Orks in the last two Grand Tournaments, then is there really any army build which can beat them?

DARKNESS-you're part of that wreckingcrew team, Orks, course, have many nasty builds, the Lootas are just the tip of the iceberg. Your crew may play Orks perfectly, but you can't prove to me that the Ork codex isn't broken by continually winning with Orks. Quite the opposite. Come to the Baltimore GT and beat some Ork armies and I will sing your praises-otherwise you're just good players with the broken codex.

Maybe there are three types of players.

1 - Casual - Buy stuff off E-bay, doesn't care about the boards he is playing on.

2 - The hobbiest - The guy who likes the minis for what they are, loves playing with painted armies, using offical mini's in a friendly setting. Wants to play on boards with good terrain.

3 - The Tourny goer - The uber competitive, who seek out the broken and challenging.

I can see GW catering mostly to the #2 guy. These guys spend the money, regardless of what is put out. They actually buy the weak units just to have them (just in case).

mikeguth wrote:

Dear Dr. Thunder-I've had plenty of experience against Orks. The question is, if the top calibre players can't do better than a draw against Orks in the last two Grand Tournaments, then is there really any army build which can beat them?

Doom and Gloom. :S

Lots of armies have had time at the top. Nidzilla was there for a while, so was Mech Eldar and Mach Tau, and SAFH Marines.

40K is a continually shifting game. Even if Orks were unbeatable, which I don't believe they are, sooner or later something will change that will unseat them. It is the nature of the game.

I consider myself pretty hardcore as a warhammer player. I've been playing since around my tenth birthday, I've played all the major Warhammer games and all the specialist games, I've got two armies over three thousand points right now. I don't really consider tournaments a part of my hobby, nor do the vast majority of my friends. I've played all of three or four, and the experience left a sour taste in my mouth. Competive, rude and arrogent players obsessing over minute details and caring only about the hot builds is frankly a bit pathetic. It's a game. It's supposed to be enjoyed. I know I'm not one of that sort of gaming in the first place, as despite the obvious tactical drawbacks, I rank my troops up on the field because it looks awesome, and I play mechanized space marines because it's really really fun, but, damn.

I still win a lot of games. I lose a lot too. And you know what? I really, really enjoy myself. So do the people I play with, so do the people watching the game.

Then, I watch tourney guys freak out over each new list, whine every single time a new army or edition comes out, constantly threaten to 'leave the hobby' if things don't go their way, then have the nerve, the fracking nerve, to tell me I play the game wrong, and that I'm not a "true fan".

We play a game decided by random number cubes. Tactics and strategy and uber-lists and whatever take you as far as the table edge and turn one, and after that it's in the hands of fate and nobody else. Trying to pack your mathematically optimized lists and 'winning is everything' mentality into the game is maybe the reason you don't enjoy it, far beyond and above any broken lists and cheap builds. Munchkin play is condemned in role-playing games, but power gaming is seen as some sort of ultimate goal in GW games for some reason. Really, it's just sad. Win, lose, whatever, enjoying yourself is the most important part. If Orks are always going to win, FINE. Play Orks if you NEED to win, and know you're going to have to switch when the new hot crap is out. Get frustrated? Maybe you're just in the wrong damn hobby.

They may not play test and provide feedback on the extreme army builds, but I can tell you now that some of the external play testers certainly do.

I wouldnt quite take Jervis' words at face value, he's pushing a new angle - and exaggurating for effect. Also keep in mind he probably gets asked the exact same questions at every event he goes to, and is, i imagine, really quite tired and grumpy with answering them !

Still, external play testing has probably seen the last of its days thanks to the pretty regular leaks I imagine :(

The thing I find amusing about Jervis' comments is that he admits to not playtesting extreme builds, but then turns around and says that they'd only win ~60% of their games. How would he know, unless those games were played? I mean, if he said, "we ran a bunch of games with two lash princes and 9 oblits and they only won 60% of their games, so we left the options in there", I'd at least understand that there is a method. But to simply take as a given that broken lists aren't that effective just seems sloppy.

The point is that he just isn't considering the powergame-tourney scene as far as general rules design is concerned. What he means by his percentage is probably just that anyone can build an uber-army, but someone can also just counter-build it.

In a tournament you have to field for all comers, and you can't 'counter-build' except that you might know what is popular. It has nothing to do with enjoying the game. Swooping hawks may be poop, but they're great models with fluff and all of that... You know, the background is just as big a part of this franchise. You're the ones who got sucked in.
I didn't start playing this game to pwn people. The expression didn't even exist back then. If someone came and said they were going to pwn me twelve years ago I would have taken their jaw off. That's how you deal with TFG.

I hate all of you. Have a nice day

As a tourney gamer I find this perception of tourney gamer= power gamer thing horrifying. I have had a handful of bad opponents in nearly a decade of tourneys. And only truely met 2 Power Gamers. However, my games at the FLGS are about 50/50 on bad opponents. And its not isolated. Thats 3 cities, 2 states, and 7 stores.

As a Chaos player, I can tell you that Lash Princes with Oblits have seen their day. Many, but not all armies have anti-psychic abilities that neuter the Lash. Never try it against Eldar for example, it is a dice throw against most marines. Lash has a 24 inch range, which means that the Lashing Demons are usually left out in range of any number of enemy heavy weapons after they get their lash off. Doesn't work against Grey Knights very well either.

Oblits, like every other infantry are dogfood for Ork Lootas. You take an average of 30 hits from three units of Lootas, which is 5 unsaved or 2 dead Obliterators a turn. They shoot further than your plasma cannons...

Oblits also suffer instant death from melta weapons and Lascannons. Gee, Landraiders have twin linked Lascannons. Which leaves you with hiding your Oblits, or trying desperately to deep strike with them to get first crack at some of the nastier targets out there. Once they land, they're no better than Terminators.

Jervis lives in a fantasy world where everyone plays nice and doesn't care about winning, just admiring the pretty figures and rolling some dice and making random moves-since winning isn't important.. Why have 90 pages of rules then? Why have a points system?? Why not just let everyone bring what they want and decide if it 'looks fair'....

Why is it bad for business if a codex is broken? Obviously, no one buys anything BUT that particular army. So, I bow down to the inevitability of Ork victory, and every time any customer at my friendly GW store asks, I'll tell them, just buy Orks, nothing can beat them. Hope that helps GW sales.

In Sweden it is common to use the "comp-system", i.e. that the tournament organizer will release a list of units that are restricted and not to be used excessively.

For example:
In a warhammer tournament bringing more than two Ratling Guns for your skaven army will seriously hurt your tournamnet score. If a Lizardmen army where to bring a Slann to a tournament they would have serious trouble to win it due to point reductions from the "comp system".

Since GW skips all QA from a tournament perspective maybe it is time to wrap their rules in a tournament version. Comp is one way to solve this.

Dear Open Sketchbook,

Let me ask, if you played chess which would you enjoy more, playing someone at your level, or playing Nigel Short over and over again? Want to shoot some hoops? Rather play against me or an NBA star? Part of gaming to me is feeling competitive, that there is a chance.

I also don't buy your argument about a game with dice. 40k has so much dice rolling that averages will win out, compare to mechwarrior where a single dice roll could decide the game.

I give in, the Ork Codex is NOT broken; the only reason they are winning is because the wreckingcrew team are such skilled players compared to everyone else, and I'll just wait a few years to play until Eldar get Dire Avengers with 48 inch range S 7 Ap 4 troops at 15 points each.....

Why bother waiting for Dire Avenger Lootas when you can just run dual jetlocks?

mikeguth wrote:Part of gaming to me is feeling competitive, that there is a chance.

Yes, but whose job is it to make sure you feel like you have a chance?

Are other players supposed to bring their B game, or are you supposed to improve your A game?

mikeguth wrote:Well, Orks win another Grand Tournament.

I'm not seeing why I should go to a tournament.....

So? Who cares?

Then don't... If you don't have a compelling reason, then don't do it.

Redbeard wrote:I talked to Jervis a bit on Saturday, after the gaming of the day was over.

He told me, unapologetically, that they don't test extreme builds, that they don't care about tournament gamers when they write the rules because we only account for 5% of the gamers out there,

And, I brought up how other game companies (WotC, Eurogames, video-fighting games) have managed to achieve systems that work for both casual players and tournament players, and he replied that they're just not interested.

It's another to be told by the lead developer that, not only do they not believe there is a problem, but that even if there was, they wouldn't want to fix it. They want a game that you play in your basement with a beer or two, not a game that works in a competative environment.

Good for Jervis!

I don't think it's Jervis' responsibility to cater to the tournament 5% at the expense of the casual 95%, and rightfully so. Apocalypse is a perfect example of this, whether people want to admit it or not.

It's fair to note that WotC is a pure rules company, and so are video game companies to a lesser extent. They don't sell their rules separately as an adjunct to their primary profit-driving product. GW's product is miniatures, and rules exist merely as a way to help move miniatures. What you are proposing is in effect for WotC to re-focus heavily on MtG Miniatures (flopped, cancelled) or WotC gaming stores (flopped, closed & sold).

I agree with Jervis that, from his perspective, there isn't a problem, and if there is, it only affects 5% of the total gaming population, a population that cannot ever be satisfied, so isn't worth wasting time over. And even if GW did write air-tight rules, it wouldn't matter, because then the tournament crowd would whine over minutiae in balance.

If 40k isn't suited toward tournament play, meh, so what. GW would do just fine if the tournament players went away tomorrow. The idea that casual players like myself don't generate significant spend is nonsense. I'm into GW for easily thousands. And I know I'm not alone in this regard.

Typeline wrote:I play casually but for the moment the crap rules have driven me into a slight hiatus.

Are you kidding me?

5th Edition has, bar none, the clearest, tightest ruleset that GW has ever produced for 40k. There are very few problems or grey areas. They even gave guidance about cocked dice, for pity's sake.

You may not like that rules changed, or the direction things changed, but that is very different from saying that there are actual problems with the rules. Almost certainly, if you were to enumerate your issues, in all likelihood, the problem would lie with your comprehension and preferences than something inherent to the 5th Edition ruleset.

Swordbreaker wrote:If we are the fringe gamers then why are the absolute biggest highlighted events that Games Workshop runs called "Grand Tournaments"!

It's not the casual gamer who buys large amounts of product. The casual gamer buys his stuff off E-bay and makes his tanks out of foam core and other model kits because he won't pay out his ass for something he only plays "casually".

If they weren't so highlighted, the guys with an irrational need to "win" would have to find some other way to address their inadequacy issues? Male "enhancement" pills, perhaps?

*I* am a casual player. I have something like 20k points worth of 40k spread across several armies/Codices, and quite a fair amount of other stuff. None of this is foamcore or "other model kits".

ShumaGorath wrote:If you pay too much attention to the tournament format you end up with a situation similar to that found in Warmachine/hordes. A balanced game that functions very well in a tournament environment but isn't very fun to play outside of it. Even wizards of the coast has a known set development process where it releases essentially 2 different sets per expansion. Mixing more interesting casual cards with powercards that will exist in the extended tourny formats. It's an intentional imbalance within the design to cater to both segments of its population.

While you may buy more than the casual gamer, the casual gamer outnumbers the traveling tourny goer fifteen to one.

Exactly so. WotC deliberately includes cards that are totally unplayable from a standard Touranment perspective, and the Tournament players are OK with this. They either try to "break" them if the effect is strong, or they just ignore them and move on. In 40k, however, players seem to demand that all units be equally playable, despite GW only including some units for thematic reasons.

Per Jervis, it's closer to 20:1. Personally, I doubt very much the OP as bought more than me.

open_sketchbook wrote:I consider myself pretty hardcore as a warhammer player.
I don't really consider tournaments a part of my hobby, nor do the vast majority of my friends.

I really, really enjoy myself. So do the people I play with, so do the people watching the game.

Get frustrated? Maybe you're just in the wrong damn hobby.

QFT!

proximity wrote:I wouldnt quite take Jervis' words at face value, he's pushing a new angle - and exaggurating for effect. Also keep in mind he probably gets asked the exact same questions at every event he goes to, and is, i imagine, really quite tired and grumpy with answering them !

I don't think Jervis needs to exaggerate very much. But all in all, Jervis was pretty polite in telling the tournament crowd to pound sand...

________

Grindah wrote:In Sweden it is common to use the "comp-system", i.e. that the tournament organizer will release a list of units that are restricted and not to be used excessively.

Since GW skips all QA from a tournament perspective maybe it is time to wrap their rules in a tournament version. Comp is one way to solve this.

Comp has its own problems. In Sweden, you're depending on the TO to have a perfect understanding of the metagame, and the metagame resulting from his restrictions. Not very likely.

Usually Comp simply means a different set of winners. In general, it's just as well to have the players score comp, or ban whatever combinations made top 10% in the last tournament.

mikeguth wrote:
I give in, the Ork Codex is NOT broken; the only reason they are winning is because the wreckingcrew team are such skilled players compared to everyone else, and I'll just wait a few years to play until Eldar get Dire Avengers with 48 inch range S 7 Ap 4 troops at 15 points each.....

Nice sarcasm.

Part of being a Top level competetive player is recognising strong builds and using them. Of course Orks are a strong codex, and of course we ("we" meaning the WC) arent the ONLY ones using this codex with great results. So there definatly IS skill involved. Resigning any GT wins we have to a broken codex is hardly giving those who carried their armies to the top of the pile their just dues. These wins arent eeking out wins against any old player, these are massacres against even experienced players...some of which are playing Orks themselves.

Just so you know we've also got some really good standing this year with Marines, Eldar (second place gladiator, Adepticon), and various Nurgle builds (marines and daemon).

...but yea, the Ork codex is REALLY good....but hardly as game breaking as the ridiculous Marine codex looks to be, handing out 3+ invulnerable saves like candy, sternguard and 40 pt Razorbacks. Keep watching the orks...and get blindsided by the marine 'dex.

Honestly, to me the problem isn't so much Loota's, its the cover saves. An ork army with a KFF granting a 5+ cover save to 60 grots in front and a 120 boyz +extras behind with 4+ cover saves is going to be able to take any amount of firepower (short of 3 hellhounds and a ton of indirect fire blast weapons) that an army can throw at it as it crosses the board, while that same 4+ cover save isn't doing much for many other armies out there.

Another slowed symptom of Allessio's involvement in this game and not realizing the impact his ill-thought out decision have.


Also, I honestly don't know if Jervis really understands what is meant by tournament players. If its just those that go to GT's then he's probably right, but if its those players that attempt to play by that ruleset, they are probably in the majority. Most pickup games (at least at the stores I've played at) are done at the points level of whatever the local tournaments are (and those are often whatever the GT's are) and generally stick to whatever missions and rules are in place at the tournaments, and most players use what is allowed at the tournaments to gauge what armies they will or will not play.

Furthermore, I find his disdain for testing the "extreme" builds (which more often than not turn out to be not so "extreme", I've seen plenty of Holofield skimmer spam lists, double lash lists, etc) rather telling of a poor development team and managerial style, as well as their poor efforts at FAQ's *extremely* frustrating as much of their FAQ content is often worthless (either restates what is already in the book, doesn't answer the question, isn't written clearly, or answers something that nobody cared about) and there is so much left that should be addressed.

5th Edition has, bar none, the clearest, tightest ruleset that GW has ever produced for 40k. There are very few problems or grey areas. They even gave guidance about cocked dice, for pity's sake.

You may not like that rules changed, or the direction things changed, but that is very different from saying that there are actual problems with the rules.

Just because the rules are written clearly doesn't mean they don't have problems, rules that are nonsensical (oh, with area terrain, you get a cover save if you are behind the forest and between the two trees on it, but if you are just behind the area terrain and not between the two trees then you don't get a cover save, etc) or which were unnecessary or simply too heavy handed (e.g. cover saves as above, defensive weapons nerf, etc) those are definitely problems with the rules. Problems with bad writing is the editors fault.

5th ed may have a clearer ruleset (I'm not necessarily convinced of that either) but as far as quality of the ruleset (not in terms of clarity/ease of reading, but in balance and function) goes, its a giant sidestep rather than any great leap forward.

even with "WC" taking the hardest list evar. It looks like Mike and his chaos could take the circuit again.
the orks are going to get owned by the new marines.

*cackles with glee*


Can't wait to see the apologist brigade explain this one away.

BYE

skkipper wrote:even with "WC" taking the hardest list evar. It looks like Mike and his chaos could take the circuit again.
the orks are going to get owned by the new marines.

Mike is sitting with 3 people on even standing with him for top player in the Circuit.

Marc Parker (WC)-Las Vegas Overall winner
Neil Cauley (WC)- Chicago Overall winner
and
Scott Simpson (WC)-Guy with the pink polo

Not an easy three to overcome and right now he's 60 pts behind Scott, 20 pts behind Marc, and only 20 pts ahead of Neil.

All three of them are going to baltimore. (I'm assuming Mike is going) Whichever one gets first, second, or third depending will determine the outcome for the year.

My money is on either Parker or Simpson honestly. It's an uphill battle for Meucheller with him depending on BOTH Simpson and Parker to crash and burn with him needing (really) an overall win to make up the points behind Scott.

Vaktathi wrote:Honestly, to me the problem isn't so much Loota's, its the cover saves.

Not really. The expanded cover saves (along with S4 Defensive Weapons) did more to open the game up to non-MEQs than any rule change before. IMO, this is a good thing overall. Orks are just the first major beneficiaries of this, as they normally have crap saves. Guard with Cameoline are quite a bit more durable than before, almost competitive.

Vaktathi wrote:Furthermore, I find his disdain for testing the "extreme" builds (which more often than not turn out to be not so "extreme", I've seen plenty of Holofield skimmer spam lists, double lash lists, etc) rather telling of a poor development team and managerial style,

If you were to look at a Codex in development, how many "extreme" builds could you make (hint, there are typically 2 dozen units to choose from that could be taken to extremes and sub-extremes). And how many other Codices are out there (hint, it's more than a dozen). So if you look at combinations of extremes and combiinations to playtest, from a mathematical probabilistic standpoint, the very idea that GW could do this is laughable. GW tests the primary builds, and the changes to them, and that's well enough.

Besides, we have "Comp" to address extreme builds on the Tournament scene...

Vaktathi wrote:

5th Edition has, bar none, the clearest, tightest ruleset that GW has ever produced for 40k. There are very few problems or grey areas. They even gave guidance about cocked dice, for pity's sake.

You may not like that rules changed, or the direction things changed, but that is very different from saying that there are actual problems with the rules.

5th ed may have a clearer ruleset (I'm not necessarily convinced of that either) but as far as quality of the ruleset (not in terms of clarity/ease of reading, but in balance and function) goes, its a giant sidestep rather than any great leap forward.

No, it's clearly a step forward. Look at the old FAQs and problems. Now play 5th Edition. You hardly need the new rulebook, it's that good.

I don't buy this argument about rules being separate from the minis. If GW were to stop selling 40k rules, and continue selling the minis, their sales would plummet. There's no reason to buy new space marines if there's no awesome new codex to go with them.

GW needs the rules to sell the minis, soon or later they'll realize the rules actually have to be GOOD too.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

If you were to look at a Codex in development, how many "extreme" builds could you make (hint, there are typically 2 dozen units to choose from that could be taken to extremes and sub-extremes). And how many other Codices are out there (hint, it's more than a dozen). So if you look at combinations of extremes and combiinations to playtest, from a mathematical probabilistic standpoint, the very idea that GW could do this is laughable. GW tests the primary builds, and the changes to them, and that's well enough.

Bollocks. Lets take the chaos codex. Oblits were good in the last one, when you could only have one unit. UNLESS you played Iron Warriors, and then you could take 3 units. Did a lot of people play Iron Warriors? Yes, they did.

In the new codex, anyone can have 9 Oblits. Did it ever occur to GW that this would be abused? I honestly don't know. But, it seems to me that the ability to take 3 killer units plus 2 more (Demon Princes or Sorcerors) that could move your opponents units and bunch them up for the big kill is pretty nasty. I noticed this combo right away, right after I said, "You can have 2 Demon Princes?! WTF?"

Are you trying to tell me it is unreasonable to expect professional rule designers to notice stuff like this? If so I say BOLLOCKS and bs. It's what they bloody get paid to do.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Not really. The expanded cover saves (along with S4 Defensive Weapons) did more to open the game up to non-MEQs than any rule change before.

The defensive weapons changes I think hurt non-MEQ armies the most, those are the ones that relied on them the most, and really hurt the viability of tanks that aren't based around a single big gun. I really don't think its done anything to improve the game. I can't remember the last time I saw an HB equipped predator or an Eldar tank that wasn't already built and painted before 5E that isn't sporting the EML/Shuricannon combo. As for the cover saves, sure they make non-MEQ armies more survivable and help to get more non-MEQ armies on the table. That doesn't mean its balanced for a 170-200+ Ork army.

IMO, this is a good thing overall. Orks are just the first major beneficiaries of this, as they normally have crap saves.

that was the point. they are supposed to be easy to kill but extremely numerous. Now they are extremely numerous and aren't exactly easy to kill either. When you kill 2 orks from 3 heavy bolters because there are Gretchin in the way, it gets rather frustrating, and massed direct fire anti-infantry weapons are much less effective than they used to be, unfairly so. Under 4th they still weren't an easy army to beat. I don't think Orks are inherently broken, but I do think that Alessio really wasn't thinking too much when he threw the 4+ cover save thing in there (although I happen to think that of most of his stuff)

Guard with Cameoline are quite a bit more durable than before, almost competitive.

I don't really think thats the way IG should have been fixed however, Guardsmen advancing across open terrain really shouldn't be getting 3+ saves just because a squad is in front of them, and then no save (for all intents and purposes when it comes to 90% of shooting) when they don't have a squad in front of them.

I also don't see why a cover saves may still be taken for scattering blast weapons by units out in the open, just because a Battlecannon shell hit farther back than it normally would doesn't mean its going to get magically blocked by whatever was in front of it.

If you were to look at a Codex in development, how many "extreme" builds could you make (hint, there are typically 2 dozen units to choose from that could be taken to extremes and sub-extremes). And how many other Codices are out there (hint, it's more than a dozen). So if you look at combinations of extremes and combiinations to playtest, from a mathematical probabilistic standpoint, the very idea that GW could do this is laughable. GW tests the primary builds, and the changes to them, and that's well enough.

How hard is it to tell the extreme builds, and how hard is it to realize that *someone* (or more likely more than one person) will abuse the crap out of that at just about every store and event? I've seen far more double Lash armies than non-Lash CSM armies at events. It's things like that that GW really should wake up and realize. I'm not asking them to playtest each and every single possible potential list, but there are some things that are just glaringly obvious (old SMF+holofields for instance) that really should just reach up and slap the designers in the face. If they think that there aren't tons of players out there using such things, they really shouldn't be in the jobs that they are.

If I had an employee that couldn't, or wouldn't look at and acknowledge such things, I wouldn't keep them around, as they would be incapable of performing their job. Simply ignoring it and labelling it a "tournament player" problem shows they don't accurately understand their customer, their market, their product, and that they have a poor understanding of cause-effect relationships.

Besides, we have "Comp" to address extreme builds on the Tournament scene...

Some armies can still make horrendously broken armies with perfect comp, typically those with excellent troops (Orks, Lash CSM, etc)

No, it's clearly a step forward. Look at the old FAQs and problems. Now play 5th Edition. You hardly need the new rulebook, it's that good.

In terms of readability and clarity, possibly, but in terms off the quality and/or making sense, not so much. Again refer to my example of area terrain, or why a ubiquitious 4+ cover save is granted that is horrendously biased (and doesn't even make sense from their description given the fluff for most armies) instead of a simple BS modifier.

Also, aside from rulebook FAQ's (since we don't have a 5th ed rulebook FAQ yet) the current FAQ's are garbage, and are mostly a copy-paste from the last edition.

I agree, they have to know people in their personal play group/club that are extreme in their army list choices. Doesn't everyone have TFG in their club or their FLGS?

Thing is, the entire thread could be summed up by saying:
"I play in a no comp environment, but wish for the benefits of comp".

If you don't like cliche builds and OTT combos being spammed, play in a comp environment. Otherwise live with it. I couldnt even dream of running 45 lootas, I wouldnt even be able to place in the top 10 at tourneys with a perfect battle score if I did. There would be 0 point even getting my figures out if I had Ghazgkull, let alone Ghaz AND mad doc. I'd be certain to get either a 0 or a 1 from my opponent.

Furthermore, you play in a system that rewards massacreing the opponent WAY too much, of course that is going to promote building the hardest army ever. If you scrape by with a fairly close win and collect all the various bonus points, and still get a max score - the prospect of an easier army becomes way more viable.

Your actual problem is NOT with the Ork Codex, it is with the tourney system you play in.

To be honest though when you talk about running dual lash princes and oblit spam, your entire argument suddenly just sounds like:
"Dear GW Games Designer,
Rock is Cheesy though Paper's fine.

Signed
Scissors"

Doctor Thunder wrote:
Mikeguth, there are three ways you can react to the situation:

1) The Beat 'Em Approach. Play against that kind of army and gain experience against it.

2) The Join 'Em Approach. If you think the build is that strong, start fielding it yourself.

3) The Pragmatic Approach. Ask yourself, did you regularly win your local RTT's before? Did you regularly find yourself on the top ten tables at GT's before? If not, then nothing has changed.

You clearly forgot

4) Complain about it on the internet.

proximity wrote:Thing is, the entire thread could be summed up by saying:
"I play in a no comp environment, but wish for the benefits of comp".

If you don't like cliche builds and OTT combos being spammed, play in a comp environment. Otherwise live with it. I couldnt even dream of running 45 lootas, I wouldnt even be able to place in the top 10 at tourneys with a perfect battle score if I did. There would be 0 point even getting my figures out if I had Ghazgkull, let alone Ghaz AND mad doc. I'd be certain to get either a 0 or a 1 from my opponent.

Furthermore, you play in a system that rewards massacreing the opponent WAY too much, of course that is going to promote building the hardest army ever. If you scrape by with a fairly close win and collect all the various bonus points, and still get a max score - the prospect of an easier army becomes way more viable.

Your actual problem is NOT with the Ork Codex, it is with the tourney system you play in.

wait wait wait.


fielding 45 loota's is 100% legal. comp scores and everything else are house rules designed to put restrictions and limits on what people bring to the table. What you are talking about has nothing to do with the Ork codex, as you said its the environment.

Here (assuming there is a problem with the ork codex, I'm not convinced there is, rather with the 5E rules however), its *your* environment thats negating the bad effects of the ork codex, not the other way around. Its your areas *house* rules that are encouraging players not to bring the nasty stuff.

If one is playing a normal pickup game against a random opponent, the only rules that matter are those of the codex, and thus if there is a problem it lies there.

If Codex's didn't have balance problems, then Comp scores wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

To be honest though when you talk about running dual lash princes and oblit spam, your entire argument suddenly just sounds like:
"Dear GW Games Designer,
Rock is Cheesy though Paper's fine.

Signed
Scissors"

[

What *you* are saying is

"dear player, Rock is broken, so just play with Paper".

Vaktathi wrote:snip.

I think you missunderstood where I was coming from.
Firstly, I highly doubt he's having this rant because of the 'pick up game scene'... He's complaining about it in the context of tournaments.

Different people want different things from this game. I'm fine with anyone bringing anything they want, as so are others clearly. I don't whine about what I think is powerful, I try find ways to overcome it. However, if I just plain didnt want to play these armies, and instead wanted to play against armies more in line with the vision of the game developers, there is allready a system in place to accomodate his needs. The rest of the world doesnt need to change just to make him happy

proximity wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:snip.

I think you missunderstood where I was coming from.
Firstly, I highly doubt he's having this rant because of the 'pick up game scene'... He's complaining about it in the context of tournaments.

Even then, the problem would still be with the codex, as Comp scores are a result of balance problems, and Comp scores affect different armies to different degrees, usually those with great Troops have the easiest time skirting these.

Different people want different things from this game. I'm fine with anyone bringing anything they want, as so are others clearly. I don't whine about what I think is powerful, I try find ways to overcome it.

Normally I agree (except when there's just some things that aren't really doable within the confines of an armies design, such as dealing with 8 T6-7 3+ and 2+sv W5/4 MC's with a mech stormtrooper IG army for instance) however there are also some things that the game designers really should have realized would get abused.

However, if I just plain didnt want to play these armies, and instead wanted to play against armies ore in line with the vision of the game developers, there is allready a system in place to accomodate his needs. The rest of the world doesnt need to change just to make him happy

The problem is defining exactly what the game developers envisioned (they may not have envisioned 9 oblits with 2 lash princes, even if they should have, but what do they define as a "fluffy/balanced" army exactly? It varies from place to place), and Comp scoring is also vastly different from place to place, and affects different armies to different degrees.

Vaktathi wrote:
Even then, the problem would still be with the codex, as Comp scores are a result of balance problems, and Comp scores affect different armies to different degrees, usually those with great Troops have the easiest time skirting these.

The problem is defining exactly what the game developers envisioned (they may not have envisioned 9 oblits with 2 lash princes, even if they should have, but what do they define as a "fluffy/balanced" army exactly? It varies from place to place), and Comp scoring is also vastly different from place to place, and affects different armies to different degrees.

I agree, but we now move into an entirely different discussion, along the lines of the merits of different comp systems, whether there should be one at all, etc. A discussion for another thread another day perhaps, not that it hasn't been done to death again and again I guess !

ah true I guess

What is the primary difference between uber-competitive lists and the WD-style lists?

SPAM! (and I am not talking about the delicious sandwich/fritter filling...)

The lists that have been mentioned as highly competitive in this thread are ork looter-spam, chaos oblit/lash-spam, eldar falcon/holo-spam (from 4th ed), etc.

If you look at most WD battle reports (or for that matter at most beginners collections) you get a mix of lots of different stuff. Obviously, WD wants to promote lots of models so it includes lots of different stuff in its reports. New gamers are encouraged to have different stuff so they can try things out.


Fixing tournaments is therefore a matter of either making spam illegal or making it fair.
Option 1: Enforce balanced armies by saying you have to take at least one elite, FA and HS choice before you can have a second of any of them and two of each before you can take a third (I have seen this done and it works quite well).
Option 2: Include at least one 'broken' unit in every new codex and let tourney players go nuts with rock/paper/scissors as they spam out their favourite unit (analogous to what some people have said about MtG).
Option 3: Do a ground-up rewrite of the codex system to ensure fairness by playtesting the crap out of every single unit in the game.

I have a soft-spot for Option 1, but I can see the drawbacks and I know a lot of tourney players would hate it.
Option 2 seems to be what we have at the minute and most people would agree it doesn't work.
Option 3 may well be the best but we all know it will NEVER HAPPEN (unless anyone has the $300M it would cost to buy GW and fancies a summer project... ).

Since it's a game, rather than a historical simulation, I don;t see the point in forcing players to use units that they don't like.

So the ideal solution would be to thoroughly playtest all units in a codex and use a combination of combat abilities, points values and FOC slots to make any possible build equally viable if used with the proper tactics.

That would work better for tournaments and does not stop players using Tau Sniper Drone spam just for fun in friendly games.

It would also remove the need for Comp scoring, which often becomes just an extra layer of metagame in the winning of tournaments.

Sadly, I doubt this will ever come about since GW don't think it's necessary and probably do not have the resources to do it anyway.

open_sketchbook wrote:I consider myself pretty hardcore as a warhammer player. I've been playing since around my tenth birthday, I've played all the major Warhammer games and all the specialist games, I've got two armies over three thousand points right now. I don't really consider tournaments a part of my hobby, nor do the vast majority of my friends. I've played all of three or four, and the experience left a sour taste in my mouth. Competive, rude and arrogent players obsessing over minute details and caring only about the hot builds is frankly a bit pathetic. It's a game. It's supposed to be enjoyed. I know I'm not one of that sort of gaming in the first place, as despite the obvious tactical drawbacks, I rank my troops up on the field because it looks awesome, and I play mechanized space marines because it's really really fun, but, damn.

QFT

mikeguth wrote:
Jervis lives in a fantasy world where everyone plays nice and doesn't care about winning, just admiring the pretty figures and rolling some dice and making random moves-since winning isn't important.. Why have 90 pages of rules then? Why have a points system?? Why not just let everyone bring what they want and decide if it 'looks fair'....

Rubbish. I play nice, and I play with my friends. Winning is the objective, but not the be all and end all. I'd rather have a fun game. I've played at FLGCs where this is also the case. I don't think I know ANYONE who plays like a powergaming tournament player (I realise that not all tournament players are beardy broken-list building powergamers, but from what I can gather on here, quite a few of them ARE). I think my sort of 'casual' gamer outnumbers tournament players 100-1, not just 15-1. Think of all the kids playing in their bedrooms with their friends, who never have any intention of going to GT

Jervis is right. We play a GAME, it's not a SPORT. Tournaments turn this friendly, casual game into something appromixating a highly competitive sport, and then complain when the rules don't work, or when people stop playing nice and taking advantage of loopholes in the list.

mikeguth wrote:Orks field 45 Lootas. These units have the range of the board. These units average 30 strength 7 hits a turn, or a dead marine squad a turn. At strength 7 they can also penetrate most light armor. And that still leaves 1000 other points of Ork infantry and special units to deal with.

And finally, to the OP. Yes, a 45 Lootas list is broken. But you KNOW that list wasn't designed for you to take 45 of the buggers, if you do this you're just abusing the army-building rules because you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to win. And that's quite sad...

So if Jervis doesn't care about balance and likes his fluffy books full of character....why then has he got rid of all the wargear options, variant lists, etc?

For example, surely the old Chaos Codex fit better within this mindset than the new one?

I don't play much 40k anymore, but boy is it nice to read people complaining about Orks being a super-dominant power game army.

10 years in the making baby!

ArbitorIan wrote:Yes, a 45 Lootas list is broken. But you KNOW that list wasn't designed for you to take 45 of the buggers, if you do this you're just abusing the army-building rules because you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to win. And that's quite sad...

Or maybe people are maxing out on looters because they REALLY REALLY REALLY love the Deathskulls fluff. It seem to me that the difference between an extreme power list e.g. maximum looters and a niche theme list e.g. maximum Storm Troopers is power not composition.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jervis is kind of an idiot that doesn't really understand the underpinnings of a functioning game environment but he has a few things right. If you pay too much attention to the tournament format you end up with a situation similar to that found in Warmachine/hordes. A balanced game that functions very well in a tournament environment but isn't very fun to play outside of it. Even wizards of the coast has a known set development process where it releases essentially 2 different sets per expansion. Mixing more interesting casual cards with powercards that will exist in the extended tourny formats. It's an intentional imbalance within the design to cater to both segments of its population.

Warmachine does have a more casual environment, I believe, which is their league
system. Well, it's really a hardcore environment in some ways, but some tourney players
seem to hate the changing victory conditions, army composition rules and terrain types,
so I'll label that hardcore casual.

The "Sportsmachine" aspect of the hobby only helps the casual players in that they do
a lot of the research we'd have learned the hard way.

But whenever I sit down across from an opponent, sometimes we negotiate how we
want to play: tourney or what-the-frick-ever. Sometimes my opponents look at me
and decide to pull the weird gimp list.

But that's beside the point.

It's unfortunate that Jervis dismisses the tourney crowd as an aberration of their
hobby. Adepticon drew its share of pure hobbyists, but I don't know how many would
have traveled far and wide to a non-competitive environment.

Redbeard wrote:I talked to Jervis a bit on Saturday, after the gaming of the day was over.

I asked what sort of playtesting did they do, what sort of process was involved (I'm a software developer, and there are many many parallels between game development and software development, so I'd think they could benefit a lot from the sorts of process type things that we go through with our QA cycles), and what was their thought about 'extreme' builds.

He told me, unapologetically, that they don't test extreme builds, that they don't care about tournament gamers when they write the rules because we only account for 5% of the gamers out there, and that they had no interest in developing better rules for tournament play. we tournament players should "understand that [we] exist on the far fringes of the hobby", and that we should expect problems related to this. Quoted/Paraphrased.

The emphasis in their testing was, in Jervis's words, about whether they had fun, and was focused on the sorts of armies that you see in W.D. battle reports. He said that he doesn't believe anyone who says one army always wins or can't win, and said that he believes that the 'unbeatable' build actually only wins about 55-60% of its games, and that the army that can't win actually only loses about 40-45% of its games.

And, I brought up how other game companies (WotC, Eurogames, video-fighting games) have managed to achieve systems that work for both casual players and tournament players, and he replied that they're just not interested. That as a game developer, he wants to write games that show you how to play the game the way that they do, and that their failure is a failure to communicate to us how they play, not actually a failure of the rules. He even said that they don't even look at FAQs when they playtest in the studio, because they all 'just know' how it is suposed to be played.

So, yeah, disenheartened to be sure. It's one thing to note that things don't work well. It's another to be told by the lead developer that, not only do they not believe there is a problem, but that even if there was, they wouldn't want to fix it. They want a game that you play in your basement with a beer or two, not a game that works in a competative environment.

And then, he said that they encourage people to write stuff about what changes they've made to how they play. Which seemed almost like an invitation to the competative community to come up with needed changes... almost. I'm sure GW's legal team would squash it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

mikeguth wrote:

I give in, the Ork Codex is NOT broken; the only reason they are winning is because the wreckingcrew team are such skilled players compared to everyone else, and I'll just wait a few years to play until Eldar get Dire Avengers with 48 inch range S 7 Ap 4 troops at 15 points each.....

So - everyone who ran Ork's was at the top of the tourney? Or do the WC guys take it serious and play the heck out of their lists, fine tune them, and bring a winning build? Same for the Codex Toledo guys.

It's less the codex and the builds than the players. The same guys are the top tier pretty much every year - a lot like MTG. It's because they are very good players. A lot of the top end competitive players are also joining the same clubs and working on their builds/army lists together.

It's a choice you make if you are going to do the tourneys. If you want to be competitive, you need to have a hard army, that you know how to play - and beat - most if not all of the other lists - or be the one who comes up with the "unexpected" builds that no one has seen before. If you don't care so much about that - and just want to go have fun - run whatever you want that you enjoy playing - and don't expect to be on the top tables. That's why they have Sportsmanship, best army, favorite opponent, etc awards - of which I wish they did more of.

George Spiggott wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Yes, a 45 Lootas list is broken. But you KNOW that list wasn't designed for you to take 45 of the buggers, if you do this you're just abusing the army-building rules because you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to win. And that's quite sad...

Or maybe people are maxing out on looters because they REALLY REALLY REALLY love the Deathskulls fluff. It seem to me that the difference between an extreme power list e.g. maximum looters and a niche theme list e.g. maximum Storm Troopers is power not composition.

You're right - and, being a hypocrite, I have no problem with 'fluffy' spam lists, as long as they're done for fluff, not because they offer some huge advantage. Question is, how do we decide if this person loves his fluff or just loves beating people? Pretty easy if it's an entirely footslogger and roughrider 'ancient' guard army. Harder if it's some one who REALLY REALLY REALLY loves the Land Raider model...!

On the other hand, if they're competing in a tournament, they should be expected to know when an army is broken???

IMNSHO, the biggest problem isn't so much the spam-(insert favorite unit to hate here), but its a combination of a couple of other factors.

#1 - A deliberate dismissal of competitive gaming by the Studio, to justify a lax attitude towards the rules. With the result that they seem to fail to look into second, third, or longer-order consequences of rules changes. (i.e. True LOS, units providing cover saves, Kill Points, etc.)

#2 - Terrain collections built on the 40K 4 model. Area terrain was a cheap and effective way of providing LOS blockage in 4th, and is totally useless for that purpose now. But since people have been spending years building up terrain collections they're loath (and sometimes don't have the resources to create good looking 40K 5 terrain...which involves building things that are at least 4" high and completely solid so that you can't see through.

#3 - Reluctance to limit unit selection by the Studio. I believe that this is because GW is a model company, not a rules company, but essentially they don't want to do something that would restrict model sales. So they are extremely reluctant to put the (0-1) or (0-2) modifier next to anything...which leads to things like loota spam, nidzilla spam, 9-oblit armies, etc. They seem to think that the "backstory" will somehow limit players from taking these kinds of things...while overlooking the fact that in real life, military doctrine generallly involves CONCENTRATING like units together. WW1 v WW2 tank use, anyone?

To be fair, they may be operating under some kind of influence from the suits here.

I'm not sure I like where this line of thought is leading me. Which is namely that its up to the tournament community to police ourselves here...which would largely involve the return of the dreaded "composition" score.

Yeesh. Adapt and overcome already.

Thank you, Jervis.

Centurian99 wrote:I'm not sure I like where this line of thought is leading me. Which is namely that its up to the tournament community to police ourselves here...which would largely involve the return of the dreaded "composition" score.

We came up with the INAT FAQ, why couldn't we devise tourney rules?

Redbeard wrote:And, I brought up how other game companies (WotC, Eurogames, video-fighting games) have managed to achieve systems that work for both casual players and tournament players, and he replied that they're just not interested. That as a game developer, he wants to write games that show you how to play the game the way that they do, and that their failure is a failure to communicate to us how they play, not actually a failure of the rules. He even said that they don't even look at FAQs when they playtest in the studio, because they all 'just know' how it is suposed to be played.

This is the real problem.

Jervis is a good guy, and I understand his desire to avoid having 40K turn into Advanced Squad Leader. I get that. But the studio completely misunderstands its role. Their job isn't to tell us HOW to play, it's to give us the tools TO play. Yet they keep twisting themselves into knots trying to dictate the HOW -- as if their way is the one true right way, revealed by a vision from God.

Jervis, I like you, and I like 5th edition. But you're a rules designer and not the Pope.

Yeah, it's as if there's some Holy Scripture, a text by which we might know how to play The Game, some sort of book; a codex, if you will.

H.B.M.C. wrote:*cackles with glee*


Can't wait to see the apologist brigade explain this one away.

BYE

No different from the Nay-sayer Horde, of which you are at least a nob.

whitedragon wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:I'm not sure I like where this line of thought is leading me. Which is namely that its up to the tournament community to police ourselves here...which would largely involve the return of the dreaded "composition" score.

We came up with the INAT FAQ, why couldn't we devise tourney rules?

The FAQ was based on interpretations of actual rules. While subjective in the end, there
was at least a text to work with.

A community composition FAQ would be extremely idiosyncratic.

Maybe a tournament circuit could have a built-in handicap based on a specific
army's performance? So in season 1, Daemons are a higher scoring army. Next
tournament, Daemons get a handicap rating and players who bring those armies
have a penalty applied to their scores.

If you want to be specific, then army TEMPLATES could have positive or negative
handicaps applied to them. Stormtrooper army performs poorly this tournament,
next tournament it gets a +whatever. Twin lashes dominate, so next tournament
they get a -whatever.

If an army doesn't show up, keep the handicap in place until someone decides to
brave the waters again.

/randomoff

Tourney terrain and boards are generally crap. They were in third edition, and they still are. Most either have too little or too much terrain. And, now, most don't have LOS-blocking terrain, which even by the rules, they should.

I think Jervis sometimes gets a pint too many in him and says things that aren't 100% accurate and then get taken out of context.

I don't think this is news. GW has long said that they won't design the game based on tourney-gamers. I think they recognize that there are hardcore tourney gamers, which probably ten years ago, they didn't seem to recognize as a group.

Based on comments from Jervis about how they designed fifth edition - basically, they started playing games how they wanted them played and then wrote the rules - I'm not at all surprised by his comments.

Warmachine has a great tourney appeal. They also have endless errata and FAQ, "The List" of rules questions that haven't been clarified, and their own comp problems (eCaine, Thorn, Squire FTW! Kraye, Thunderhead, Strangeways or A+H - FTW!) in the form of uber-assassin lists. I have no desire to play in a WM tourney because I don't play 4-6 games a week to 'tweak' my list and know what combos to watch for (which generally consists of activating models L, M, N, O, and P in order, and short of rolling a 2 on 2d6, winning - OK, not that bad, some are pretty close). You want to complain about Orks being unbeatable - WM has a worse problem with a handful of competive top-tier warcasters and builds and the rest being the also ran's and never-were's.

Unless a tourney requires everyone to field the exact same army, this debate will always exist.

I'm just waiting for the Ork players to complain about Whirlwind-spam: SM armies hiding Whirlwinds behind LandRaiders (dedicated transports) and using the 'no cover save' ammo. And flank-marching Redeemers in White Scar armies.

I think it's well known that you can't show up at a major tourney with a battleforce army and win. Would Orks with a Warboss on foot, some shoota and slugga boyz on foot, some grotz, some bikes, and a dread be nearly as fierce? Someone fielding a SM company isn't intimidating, but Kantor, 3x Sternguard and some tacs is. There's always 'better' builds in a codex. And part of the meta-game is predicting what you'll face, not just how your army functions. Orks do well in a MEQ-rich environment. They do a lot worse in a OrkEQ environment. Did anyone think Necrons would win Ard Boyz last year? If Kirby had faced three rounds of Mech Tau with as many railguns as possible, would he have?

Redbeard wrote:I talked to Jervis a bit on Saturday, after the gaming of the day was over.

I asked what sort of playtesting did they do, what sort of process was involved (I'm a software developer, and there are many many parallels between game development and software development, so I'd think they could benefit a lot from the sorts of process type things that we go through with our QA cycles), and what was their thought about 'extreme' builds.

He told me, unapologetically, that they don't test extreme builds, that they don't care about tournament gamers when they write the rules because we only account for 5% of the gamers out there, and that they had no interest in developing better rules for tournament play. we tournament players should "understand that [we] exist on the far fringes of the hobby", and that we should expect problems related to this. Quoted/Paraphrased.

The emphasis in their testing was, in Jervis's words, about whether they had fun, and was focused on the sorts of armies that you see in W.D. battle reports. He said that he doesn't believe anyone who says one army always wins or can't win, and said that he believes that the 'unbeatable' build actually only wins about 55-60% of its games, and that the army that can't win actually only loses about 40-45% of its games.

And, I brought up how other game companies (WotC, Eurogames, video-fighting games) have managed to achieve systems that work for both casual players and tournament players, and he replied that they're just not interested. That as a game developer, he wants to write games that show you how to play the game the way that they do, and that their failure is a failure to communicate to us how they play, not actually a failure of the rules. He even said that they don't even look at FAQs when they playtest in the studio, because they all 'just know' how it is suposed to be played.

So, yeah, disenheartened to be sure. It's one thing to note that things don't work well. It's another to be told by the lead developer that, not only do they not believe there is a problem, but that even if there was, they wouldn't want to fix it. They want a game that you play in your basement with a beer or two, not a game that works in a competative environment.

And then, he said that they encourage people to write stuff about what changes they've made to how they play. Which seemed almost like an invitation to the competative community to come up with needed changes... almost. I'm sure GW's legal team would squash it.

I find it hilarious that he would admit this, at an event where the 5% of their market showed up to play in a tournament, that costs $120 to get a ticket for, probably $200+ in hotel/meals, and then another couple hundred in Air fare/gas to get to the thing. This isn't counting the cost of the army itself, which can easily eclipse all the previous things combined.

I maybe attend one tourney a year and that is only if my friends convince me to go with them. The travel and such is not generally worth the amount of fun I get from the experience. I am guessing I would fit the definition of the casual gamer, and yet I have vast collection of minis. Certainly 40k-60k of Dark Angels. Working on Death Korp and steel legion armies, Demon hunters, Snakebite (Biker) orks, Greentide orks expanding my sisters army.


The game is totally not designed for tournament play and that is one of the issues 5th was supposed to address. That and making it easier to run a tournament.

Oh awesome, another I hate GW thread.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I don't play much 40k anymore, but boy is it nice to read people complaining about Orks being a super-dominant power game army.

10 years in the making baby!

I know how you feel!

You know, either the people that play against the Ork Loota horde aren't paying attention, or they don't mind it. There's a checkbox on the Sportsmanship score for army comp. Check it if the army is what you feel is a well-represented army. Leave it unchecked if you feel it is cheesy or designed just to win tournaments.

5 pts isn't much over the course of a GT, but it can make a big difference in final placings.

stjohn70:

So if someone takes Lootas, I can ding them for not taking a "well-represented army", one that's "designed just to win tournaments". But winning a tournament means doing well on Sportsmanship.

So if someone doesn't take Lootas, should I ding them for taking a "well-representd army", one that's "designed just to win tournaments"?

Noisy_Marine wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
The emphasis in their testing was, in Jervis's words, about whether they had fun, and was focused on the sorts of armies that you see in W.D. battle reports. He said that he doesn't believe anyone who says one army always wins or can't win, and said that he believes that the 'unbeatable' build actually only wins about 55-60% of its games, and that the army that can't win actually only loses about 40-45% of its games.

I don't get this. If you aren't testing the extreme builds then why test? And their reasoning is they don't test this stuff because players shouldn't be playing this way. Well take that anyone using 9 oblits and 2 lash princes. You are all bad puppies.

What I don't get is if this is true, then why did they go to great lengths to make sure the rhino rush was no longer the tactic of choice?

@Nurglitch: it's a subjective field... ding them however you wish.

Maybe I'm just a weird case but I'm a tournament gamer who hates to have to bring a powergaming list to win. I compete in local tournaments atleast every other month (as well as run a number of them), I made it to the semi-finals of both the first fantasy and 40k 'Ard boys tournaments, and was part of the team who placed second in the '08 Boston Massacre doubles tournament. While play I in these tournaments and find the competative nature enjoyable, I find myself time and again fielding a "balanced" list and cringing every time I have to play against one of the classic "power-gaming" lists. The most enjoyable games I play are those which two balanced forces compete because it more truely reflects the skill of the players involved.

Personally I would like to see a return to the days when composition scores were part of standard scoring for RTT's. While the guidelines for scoring this catagory was not always well thought out (oh no the guard player only brought 2 troop choices? CHEESE!!), it did represent a mechanism which rewarded winning with a balanced build and bringging an army which your player would have fun playing against. While GW claims this score falls under the scope of the sportsmanship category, I have always understood it to be a seperate question. A player with a balanced force can still be a jerk, and a player with a cheesy list could still be a nice guy.

While I do not see tournaments all across the nation readopting this concept, I applaud and encourage those who incorporate it. GW is a fool for thinking that they can reencorporate this idea of balanced list play by making "only troops" scoring in standard games. Every army should be encouraged to enter tournaments no matter how cheesy, but people should be rewarded for bringing an army that their opponent will have fun playing against.

Now if only we can fix KP's my Guard might start back on the tourny scene.....

stjohn70 wrote:@Nurglitch: it's a subjective field... ding them however you wish.

Don't for get the Dong. Worse comes to worse you can always beat the other guy over the head with it. Winning is easy when the other guy is nursing a headache.




Truth of the matter is, if you don't like playing against the sort of lists that show up at tourniments, don't go. Better yet, organize your own and put your own self imposed limits on it. Some people like a challenge, they might show up just to test their skills. Others will think your a dill hole and not show up. Either way, you get to play against people with a like mindset. Make new friends, suddenly your Saturday gaming is a hella lot more fun and tons less expensive than a weekend in Chicago.

Another way to curb some of the power-gaming lists is to reduce point totals. It's a lot harder to fit 45 lootas into a 1500 point list vs. 1750/1850/2000. The Force Org Chart doesn't scale (in other words, it's not as limiting and balancing at 2000 points as at 1500 points).

If the game is moving towards horde armies by design, we really will need either lower point levels or longer game times just to the average 200 on 200 model game finished.

Very much agreed. really does sound like something 'in the grim future'...

:S

the answer to the one sided power builds. Missions!!!
an entire game of nightfight or "aggresive vegatation: any models not moving suffer strength three hit during the assault phase."
The other answer is variety of terrian. Yes it is hard to get good terrian on all 60 tables. so just focus on the top 5 to ten tabes and make the terrian different, difficult and challenging. Nothing like a dense city table on #1 to make 45 lootas next to worthless

Moz wrote:If the game is moving towards horde armies by design, we really will need either lower point levels or longer game times just to the average 200 on 200 model game finished.

Or just slow play the orks and only give them 2 shooting phases. They will get so sick of never finishing a game that the list will change ;-)

I think Redbeard wrote an article on how to play large Ork armies in a decent amount of time.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Playing_a_Horde_Quickly

Edit: Added link. Read and learn.

skkipper wrote:The other answer is variety of terrian. Yes it is hard to get good terrian on all 60 tables. so just focus on the top 5 to ten tabes and make the terrian different, difficult and challenging. Nothing like a dense city table on #1 to make 45 lootas next to worthless

Thats a great idea. If you truely are the best you can deal with any terrain.

Somnicide wrote:

Moz wrote:If the game is moving towards horde armies by design, we really will need either lower point levels or longer game times just to the average 200 on 200 model game finished.

Or just slow play the orks and only give them 2 shooting phases. They will get so sick of never finishing a game that the list will change ;-)

Sure, if you want to risk getting yourself thrown out of the tournament for intentional delay of game.

Actually, I was just joking. But, you don't get thrown out for it, your sportmanship gets dinged (it was an actual field on the checklist - for those who didn't play in any GTs this go around.)

I've always felt that there needed to be a points scale for duplicate units.

Example: 1st loota unit is at cost. 2nd loota unit is at cost x 1.5. 3rd Loota unit is at cost x 2. Or something to that effect.

The fact is that the majority of units in the game do not have a linear effect on the game as the number of the unit increases. THis is true for both 40K and Fantasy.

The problem with the scaling costs is that it favors Marines (Or any army that has multiple units that fulfill the same role)

Isn't the problem with every comp scheme that it helps marines? Or at least, hurts/helps one army disproportionally?

Hi all.
As far as I can remember GW made games that were more '3D RPG,' than 'wargames suitable for competative play.'
Far more emphasis on narative and cinematic, than actual military tactics and accurate costing of in game effectivness.

When I started playing GW games back in the late 1980s, I got the impresiuon the rules were just a starting point .Your gaming group could expand and adapt them to suit thier own preferences.

Back then GW had a monthly gaming suppliment, 'White Dwarf', and a collection supplimments in the form of Codexes -Army Books , Chapter Approved, Generals Compendium etc.

Emphasis was on creativity and finding out what you enjoyed the most in a wide and diverse hobby.
There was FAR less emphasis on winning a game of toy soldiers , and far more on playing out fantastic battles in your imagination.

The objective of the game is to win,but the point of playing is to have fun!

However, 40k was picked to be the intro game for GW .And as GW PLC wanted to sell more minatures the unsuitability of GW games for tournament play was 'played down.'

And some totaly deluded gamers think 40k is suitable for ballanced competative play.

And want GW to spend time and money on developing the rule set to be suitable for ballanced competative play,when corperate dont want to have external playtesting or proof reading.
As corperate managment belive the current rule sets are 'adequate,' EG enough people buy them , why bother making them better....

GW sell minatures.
If you buy the latest minatures because of the new uber unit rules, you prove GW corperate are right .And you deserve the lackluster vapid blandathon that corperate have got in store for you by 8 th ed 40k.

BE WARNED!

Its YOUR hobby not GWs.
Enjoy it!

TTFN
Lanrak.

Somnicide wrote:Actually, I was just joking. But, you don't get thrown out for it, your sportmanship gets dinged (it was an actual field on the checklist - for those who didn't play in any GTs this go around.)

I've thrown people out of tournaments for intentionally delaying their games.

I live in Birmingham Alabama where we have one moldy, dusty, abysmal game store, about ten long term players and an ever changing mix of come and go players. It is in the realm of the 'friendly, casual, store' gamer that I have encountered the worst examples of gamer stereotype. Year after year I have witnessed temper fits, an abundance of abusively foul language, intense rules arguments, blatant cheating, the stench of the unbathed, etc.

I started going to GTs as a way to meet and play new people and hopefully have an overall better experience than I was getting at home. I also enjoy tournament play and I like the way competitive vibe plays out at GTs as opposed to our store and the RTTs I have been to. With only two or so exceptions I never see the above mentioned behaviors at the GTs I have attended. Almost all the players I have met in GT land have been reasonable human beings; easy and fun to play (and not smelly).

I have made many friends in GT land. I joined Marc Parker's 40K Wrecking Crew because I enjoyed hanging with the members at GTs and 'cause he invited me to. Get it? My membership in his club grew out of friendship, not some sick fascination with dominating tournaments. You see a lot of smack talk between Toledo and WC on these boards. At Chicago we all went out for dinner Saturday night and had a great time. (There was this 50's style Italian restaurant, a lounge lizard singer who was trying to be a cross between Tom Jones and Elvis, me and Brad singing along and me serenading one of the Toledo guys to the tune of Besame Mucho with Elvis Jones backing me up...anyway...)

You know, the Saturday dinners are quickly becoming my favorite part of the trip.

If you go to a GT alone and/or thinking your going to win or being pissed off at whoever does win, their army build, etc. you probably won't have much fun. If you introduce yourself to me or any of the regular attendees I have met (and you don't care that occasionally I'm a little swishy and/or that they're not), you're welcome at the dinner table...and you might just have a great time.

Oh yeah, 45 Lootas. I go to lots of GTs and I have yet to see 45 Lootas. Neal had 26, two squads of 13. Lootas work well in the current 'lots of terrain but none of it blocks LOS' enviroment but against good players they are not a gamebreaker. At home we use a reasonable amount of large LOS blocking terrain and Lootas are nearly useless. The Ork army as a whole is solid and with a good general is very hard to beat. It is beatable. I just ran two test games with my buddy Jeff playing his Orks against my foot Sisters and played him to a standstill twice. With a little more practice I believe my Sisters will easily hold there own against any Ork build. If I have them painted in time I will put this to the test at Baltimore.

the big problem I see with this isn't that competative lists shouldn't win. if your going to a GT you should bring the best your army has to offer. yes some armies have better adaptations but there shouldn't be a 'dock' in points because they use their codex the way it says they can.

this isn't a problem with the gamers its a problem with gw. untill gamers formally force them to fix something its not going to happen.

how many threads like this on pop up, and how many of them just die after a while because they realize there's nothing they can do? I don't see someone going to a GT and sitting at a table just to protest to GW with a sign that say's "make the game balanced."

GW walks all over their customers but no one cares enough to really, really try stop them.

GW games have always been weak on rules balance, ever since RT era. It's the nature of the beast. To expect something different from them is like buying a Yugo and expecting it to drive like a Ferrari. It's just not what it is.

If you want a balanced, competitively oriented game, there are plenty out there that you can play.

wash-away wrote:

GW walks all over their customers but no one cares enough to really, really try stop them.

Step number one is stop buying GW products and start writing letters.

Acheron wrote:GW games have always been weak on rules balance, ever since RT era. It's the nature of the beast. To expect something different from them is like buying a Yugo and expecting it to drive like a Ferrari. It's just not what it is.

If you want a balanced, competitively oriented game, there are plenty out there that you can play.

This doesn't ring true to me. If GW is promoting their games for tourney play, they need to make the effort to balance them. Or stop promoting tourney play.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

wash-away wrote:

GW walks all over their customers but no one cares enough to really, really try stop them.

Step number one is stop buying GW products and start writing letters.

I all but have, who would I write to and what adress?

Noisy_Marine wrote:If GW is promoting their games for tourney play, they need to make the effort to balance them. Or stop promoting tourney play.

GW has come a long way from Tournament play being The One True Way. I applaud this.

Thanks for that insight Redbeard.

Its been said before. GW has re-defined the word "Tournament" for their uses. It doesn't represent anything near what springs to mind in the majority of people it is mentioned to. If you asked someone off the street what "Tournament winner" would mean to them, I mean "A person that through luck, timing, probability, random personal bias and army viability managed to not lose more points than the other guys" is what springs directly to mind (SARCASM). Sure there will always be variables but to suspend any credence to the claim of "Tournament winner" you'd actually have to aim at some sort of level playing field, no?

Apparently not, and so I give you a quote for people who take pride in anything 40k related.

"When will people learn that 40k isn’t a competitive game? It’s a probability based narrative."

If you aren't happy with being involved in a mechanic that enables variable simple stories, change game

I'll be totally boning up for the Choose Your Own Adventure 40k Tournament this year (Creative SARCASM).

As far as the raging Loota-spam goes...
I've wanted to do a Bad Moons army since second ed, and now I just can't because it's apparently a bowl of cheese spaghetti.

I was waiting for the rules to catch up with the concept of super-dakka orks, but will people now think I'm a bad sportsman or whatever?

Boooo.

I just wish people would realize that not all ork armies are Loota spam armies, or that every entry in the ork codex is dripping with cheese. I can quite easily make an ork army that will never win a game, no matter how good the general is.

I'm really disheartened when people ask what army I play and roll their eyes when I say orks. 95% of my ork models are 8-10 years old. I don't even have a single loota model. Nor does my army even want any. There are good, non-cheese ork players out there.

wash-away wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:

wash-away wrote:

GW walks all over their customers but no one cares enough to really, really try stop them.

Step number one is stop buying GW products and start writing letters.

I all but have, who would I write to and what adress?

Games Workshop Group PLC
Willow Road
Lenton
Nottingham
NG7 2WS
United Kingdom

I'm not really sure who though I wouldn't address it to Jervis. Perhaps head of game design or 'design team'.

Jayden63 wrote:I just wish people would realize that not all ork armies are Loota spam armies, or that every entry in the ork codex is dripping with cheese. I can quite easily make an ork army that will never win a game, no matter how good the general is.

I don't think most people are making that statement, however such armies are extremely difficult to deal with, as its not hard to make an Ork army thats horrendously shooty, ridiculously numerous (and hard to kill with ubiquitious 4+ cover saves) and still extremely killy, and Orks currently have the most cost effective basic troops in the game by far (shoota boyz match guardsmen for firepower when in rapid fire range, but can do so at 18" while moving, and still get 3A on the charge at S4 and WS4 and are T4, even those wonderful CSM's can't compete in efficiency in the same way)

Honestly I like the Ork codex very much, however I think in terms of power, its still currently on top in terms of abuse potential, just ahead of lash spam and replacing Holofield skimmer spam with the advent of 4E. That said, most Ork armies aren't that gross and are actually rather fun to play against.

I'm really disheartened when people ask what army I play and roll their eyes when I say orks. 95% of my ork models are 8-10 years old. I don't even have a single loota model. Nor does my army even want any. There are good, non-cheese ork players out there.

I would agree with you here again, and I would lump the vast majority of Ork players in with people like you, however facing an Ork army with a raw firepower ability (in terms of number of shots and likely hits, if not necessarily AP and utility) almost on par with that of an IG army coupled with a 200+ model count army can really turn people off to playing against Orks if they have to face such armies. I honestly have only seen such an army a couple times, most of the Ork players don't play anything that gross, but it does have the potential to make orks seems hideously OP.

BeefyG wrote:

"When will people learn that 40k isn’t a competitive game? It’s a probability based narrative."

So nobody actually wins/loses the game, eh?

Seriously, you guys want a competitive game that you can play in tournaments ?

Go play the Privateer Press games.

Calle wrote:Seriously, you guys want a competitive game that you can play in tournaments ?

Go play the Privateer Press games.

I do.

And want am I supposed to do with all the thousands of dollars of warhammer stuff that I have? Throw it away even though I still like the background and models?

Maybe GW should make a Paint By Numbers Golden Demon competition.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW should make a Paint By Numbers Golden Demon competition.

Oh snap, I might actually have a chance at a Golden Demon then!

Noisy_Marine wrote:

wash-away wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:

wash-away wrote:

GW walks all over their customers but no one cares enough to really, really try stop them.

Step number one is stop buying GW products and start writing letters.

I all but have, who would I write to and what adress?

Games Workshop Group PLC
Willow Road
Lenton
Nottingham
NG7 2WS
United Kingdom

I'm not really sure who though I wouldn't address it to Jervis. Perhaps head of game design or 'design team'.

thank you,

I played in a 8 week league at my local store, and the ork armies didn't even get into the top 5, 1 made it into top 10. The top 5 were - Nids 1st, Daemons tied with necrons for 2nd and Daemons tied with Marines for 4th.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

Calle wrote:Seriously, you guys want a competitive game that you can play in tournaments ?

Go play the Privateer Press games.

I do.

And want am I supposed to do with all the thousands of dollars of warhammer stuff that I have? Throw it away even though I still like the background and models?

I'd save them for when you realise that playing an extremely dull, power gaming encouraging game of depressingly little depth starts to feel childish, THEN come back to 40k and Fantasy where it's about having some fun with some friends, and not an immature waving contest where you hope to stomp some stranger into the ground so you can brag to your fellow geeks about how win you are.

Low opinion of PP? Me? Never!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:

Calle wrote:Seriously, you guys want a competitive game that you can play in tournaments ?

Go play the Privateer Press games.

I do.

And want am I supposed to do with all the thousands of dollars of warhammer stuff that I have? Throw it away even though I still like the background and models?

I'd save them for when you realise that playing an extremely dull, power gaming encouraging game of depressingly little depth starts to feel childish, THEN come back to 40k and Fantasy where it's about having some fun with some friends, and not an immature waving contest where you hope to stomp some stranger into the ground so you can brag to your fellow geeks about how win you are.

Low opinion of PP? Me? Never!

Those people are no fun no matter what game you play.

Just a shame Warmachine etc act as both rallying beacon and nursery to their kind.

And frankly, the Tournament Scene. it right in the ear. You are a minority. A tiny one. The game is not written purely for your benefit, but for those gamers less obesessed with winning and having something to show for it.

I really do think it was the people you were playing MDG. I've never met a 'that guy' player in Warmachine that wasn't a 'that guy' in every game he played. The flavour of toy soldiers doesn't turn people bad, they started out that way.

'Play Like You Got a Pair'

'Unstoppable Combo O' Doom' being the whole point.

Next to background or motivation for the 'factions'.

Variation on a single theme (Big Metal Roboty Things)

Yup. Powergamers paradise.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:'Play Like You Got a Pair'

I always took those a bit of a joke; I suppose anyone who takes them seriously would take lots of things in life a little too seriously whatever they were doing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:'Unstoppable Combo O' Doom' being the whole point.

Hardly, the structure of the game is centred on co-operation between different elements. Conversely no element no matter how powerful is unstoppable.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Next to background or motivation for the 'factions'.

Is this a typo, what does this mean?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Variation on a single theme (Big Metal Roboty Things)

...Dragons, trolls werewolves and so on. Hordes is part of the same game the Hordes factions have widened Warmachine considerably over the last few years.

I also dislike tournaments, I was put off by a cheating 'that guy' playing an all Wolfguard army back in 40k second edition. Looking back though I do think that he should have been allowed to play an all Wolfguard army and the game should provide for that. I play an all carapace Imperial Guard army and the game should provide for that too.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And frankly, the Tournament Scene. it right in the ear. You are a minority. A tiny one. The game is not written purely for your benefit, but for those gamers less obesessed with winning and having something to show for it.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, my experience has been that even if people aren't GT tournament players, they often play by whatever is "tournament legal" and little else in their area. The vast majority of pickup games I see are done using the local tournament points level, with the same missions and list restrictions.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with powergaming, as long as you are not also a dill weed. If you're going to a tournament, why are you expecting a "friendly play" level of list? It's a competative game. Just because it's competative doesn't mean it isn't also friendly, and a great way to meet new players, ogle nicely painted armies and generally have a good time playing more games than you usually would against forces outside your home group.
For that reason, the game should be balanced to some degree to support tournament play. In my opinion, as long as you play one of the newer codices, it is relatively balanced. The biggest problem I have with GW isn't the balance within codices, it's the balance across codices. They really, really need to shake up the release schedule and get all the armies on a level playing field.
As for loota spam: It should be easy enough to deal with. Here's some examples:
Space Marines: 3 Tactical squads in drop pods are cheaper than 3 loota units and can drop on them on turn one and gut them.
Chaos Marines: Plague Marines laugh at your puny AP4 weapons. Berserkers in a landraider will happily cruise into you and lay the smack down. Deep Striking obliterators or generic daemons can either flame or close combat you to death. All for less points.
Tyranids: Scouting genestealers make short work of lootas. For less points.
and so on. The problem isn't the lootas, it's that you haven't brought something capable of taking down an enemy firebase.

What Jervis said is depressing. It's basically "We're incompetant morons who don't do our jobs properly, and we're proud of it too!"

As for the privateer press bashing: I never liked the "play like you've got a pair" page five nonsense, it seemed pretty juvenile to me. But hey, at least the setting doesn't practically scream "SKULLZ R KEWL! GRIMDARK!"
The factions are actually well differentiated and have very different playstyles and builds. Much moreso than the multitude of imperial armies out there.
The unstoppable combo of doom doesn't exist, it can always be stopped by killing one of the links in the chain.
And I have never had a game of warmachine or hordes with a rules issue, or any kind of cheating. This may be because it's new over here, and only played by a smallish group of dedicated lads who are all sound out though.

Jayden63 wrote:I just wish people would realize that not all ork armies are Loota spam armies, or that every entry in the ork codex is dripping with cheese. I can quite easily make an ork army that will never win a game, no matter how good the general is.

I'm really disheartened when people ask what army I play and roll their eyes when I say orks. 95% of my ork models are 8-10 years old. I don't even have a single loota model. Nor does my army even want any. There are good, non-cheese ork players out there.

When faced with loota spam a player should make damn sure that all those lootas are checking LOS, remembering that those footslogging orks 30" in front of the loots probably block LOS.

olympia wrote:
When faced with loota spam a player should make damn sure that all those lootas are checking LOS, remembering that those footslogging orks 30" in front of the loots probably block LOS.

This is true. While you are allowed to shoot between gaps in models, you cannot draw line-of-sight completely through models, you must be able to see the target. Sometimes the lootas get a little elevation that helps them with this, but if they're in a forest, behind a wave of models advancing, they're not shooting.

Isn't the real problem just a feeling that tournament play is not balanced?

Casual gamers are fine with the game and even tournament players have no problem with 40k fundamentally (or I'm asuming they'd play something else?).

Could the problems not be solved by having tournaments that through a mixture of carefully crafted missions, good terrain layout and army list options (for example - being allowed a sideboard, limiting total PV to make spamming more difficult, or other such restrictions) provide a more level playing field?

This surely is not beyond the wit of man to acheive...

Definitely terrain is the most important thing for tournaments. It's absolutely vital to have it balanced.
That's a discussion worth having on these boards actually.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Isn't the real problem just a feeling that tournament play is not balanced?

Casual gamers are fine with the game and even tournament players have no problem with 40k fundamentally (or I'm asuming they'd play something else?).

Could the problems not be solved by having tournaments that through a mixture of carefully crafted missions, good terrain layout and army list options (for example - being allowed a sideboard, limiting total PV to make spamming more difficult, or other such restrictions) provide a more level playing field?

This surely is not beyond the wit of man to acheive...

I think that the real problem is that you have a group of players that take the tournament circle extremely seriously - tune and playtest builds to win the tournaments - and are coming with their A game. These guys (often) are not so much into the fluff and pagentry of the game - but treat it as a tournament to win. They run into players who are opposites. Those spending years converting and painting armies that are beautiful to look at and have a huge story line/fluff behind them - but usually not overly competitive on the game table. Then you have those who are casual players - sometimes with an over-inflated ego of their abilities and skills - that get their feelings hurt when they lose and instead of being man enough to just say - I got beat - blame the army builds. Then you have the casual gamers - who may have nice armies - but play what they like - and will take the win/losses as they come.

Simply put - the game works on the tournament circle - BUT - you have to play, play, play your army against as many different builds as you can face off against. You have to take it seriously - maybe go to a couple of tourney's to feel them out before thinking you should win it all. Oh yeah - and it has to be a GOOD build that fits your playing style - AND - it's a game of luck - sometimes it goes bad. Marc is as good as they get at the game - but I'm sure he'd tell you about losing games he should have won - and winning games he should have lost - purely on lucky dice rolling. It happens - and it's the way the game is played.

BTW - I've had the pleasure of playing against quite a few of the top end players in tournaments over the years. Some games I've won - some I've lost. Y'know what though - if you beat one of the top tier guys - I have yet to hear them whine or complain about losing - as a matter of fact - most of them have the best laughs during losing. I've also found that the games I've learned the most from tactically have been against top end players - win or loss.

If you want to be competitive - take the time to do it. If not, then don't be competitive - just go have fun - drink a lot of beer - and MAYBE get lucky and win a few sportsmanship awards (my personal favorite).

Da Boss wrote:I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with powergaming, as long as you are not also a dill weed. If you're going to a tournament, why are you expecting a "friendly play" level of list? It's a competative game. Just because it's competative doesn't mean it isn't also friendly, and a great way to meet new players, ogle nicely painted armies and generally have a good time playing more games than you usually would against forces outside your home group.
For that reason, the game should be balanced to some degree to support tournament play. In my opinion, as long as you play one of the newer codices, it is relatively balanced. The biggest problem I have with GW isn't the balance within codices, it's the balance across codices. They really, really need to shake up the release schedule and get all the armies on a level playing field.
As for loota spam: It should be easy enough to deal with. Here's some examples:
Space Marines: 3 Tactical squads in drop pods are cheaper than 3 loota units and can drop on them on turn one and gut them.
Chaos Marines: Plague Marines laugh at your puny AP4 weapons. Berserkers in a landraider will happily cruise into you and lay the smack down. Deep Striking obliterators or generic daemons can either flame or close combat you to death. All for less points.
Tyranids: Scouting genestealers make short work of lootas. For less points.
and so on. The problem isn't the lootas, it's that you haven't brought something capable of taking down an enemy firebase.

What Jervis said is depressing. It's basically "We're incompetant morons who don't do our jobs properly, and we're proud of it too!"

As for the privateer press bashing: I never liked the "play like you've got a pair" page five nonsense, it seemed pretty juvenile to me. But hey, at least the setting doesn't practically scream "SKULLZ R KEWL! GRIMDARK!"
The factions are actually well differentiated and have very different playstyles and builds. Much moreso than the multitude of imperial armies out there.
The unstoppable combo of doom doesn't exist, it can always be stopped by killing one of the links in the chain.
And I have never had a game of warmachine or hordes with a rules issue, or any kind of cheating. This may be because it's new over here, and only played by a smallish group of dedicated lads who are all sound out though.

So, by that rational, because *Some* Car Owners enjoy street racing, all Manufacturers should design their car with that in mind? Or is it down the owner to tinker and messa bout with said car until he is happy with it's performance in a role it was never designed for?

I don't think it's the same at all MDG.

OF course it is.

Games Workshop sell games designed for friendly play. The original idea was to provide rules for peoples models. Only the way a few gamers do it has changed, so the analogy is a good one.

You soup up a car when you intend to race, to make it faster, improve handling etc.

You soup up your Army List when you go to a Tournament.

Absolutely no difference in the application.

Oh okay. I agree with that entirely.
I thought you were talking about change the game fundamentally for tournaments.
But yes, absolutely, you power your list for tournaments, but not always for friendly games. I have one friend who is only interested in playing with the best possible units all the time, and against him I always try to play the best list possible. I have others more interested in theme and style, and against them I'll bring wackier lists for fun.
I think most tournament gamers are like this.

And therein lies the problem.

As a strictly friendly gamer, my choice and attitudes to list writing do not hamper anyone elses enjoyment of the game. Against another purely friendly gamer, we get a decent narrative, and generally a close fought game to around turn 4, when someone is able to press the advantage. But against a Powergamer, he gets extentsion, and I at least get an opponent.

But a Powergamer? If he expects me to use a Powerlist against him, he in enroaching on my enjoyment. Tournaments are his natural stomping ground, but so obsessed is he, every game is a practice game. Everyone has to dance to beat of his drum of banality....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But a Powergamer? If he expects me to use a Powerlist against him, he in enroaching on my enjoyment. Tournaments are his natural stomping ground, but so obsessed is he, every game is a practice game. Everyone has to dance to beat of his drum of banality....

I find that tournament players have tournament lists that they use in tournaments and practice gamnes, and pickup-game lists that they use in pickup games. I've never known one who played tournament lists all the time.

Then I would say you are lucky.

In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board. But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

I dunno. My powergaming friend recognises that not everyone wants to play power lists. He's slightly confused by it (in a "why would anyone intentionally nerf themselves?" kinda way) but he lets them be. He just doesn't really bother playing against them.
I suppose because I'm more flexible (I can enjoy powergaming and friendly play) I have less problems with other gamers than some. I do hate cheaters though.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then I would say you are lucky.

In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board. But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

If both players have done this, then it becomes about skill again.
In 4th, playing my orks against Mech Eldar at a tournament was some of the most fun I'd had in ages.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board. But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

I disagree. A tournament is a test of whatever criteria the tournament organizers set. There is no "should."

The current 40K tournament tests and rewards a lot of things that happen long before you reach the table. List-building, converting, painting, and playtesting/experience.

The fact is, when players finally reach the table, much of the battle has already been won or lost. If you don't like that, then that is fine, but understand that ultimately your beef is with the system, not the players.

Hate the game not the playah.

No, no, it's with the players.

There choice to go over the top competitive. Their choice to actively seek to remove as many tactical decisions from the game as possible. Their choice to play like a prat.

The few tournaments I have been to were run by powergaming fanbois with no concept of what a real tournament is let alone how to run one. GW has no anti-geek barrier, and for what ever flaws PP has one they do not is the idea everything they do is perfect. If they make a mistake they fix it with errata. Hell Battlefront gave me a new rulebook when I got one with massive printing errors. When was the last time you heard GW admitting they made a mistake and actively sought to correct thier rules?



As far as Powergamers go you know what I love playing them they are the easiest to win against. They often have army list they downloading then never bothered to playtest so they do not have a clue how to play it and get owned so badly it must be the lists fault.

Loser-"You might have gotten Overall/Best General at the tournement, but you had to use orks to do it!"

Winner-"Excuse me just a second." *readjusts his armful of swag topped with an 'overall' win trophy along with his carrying case* "Now, what did you say?"

Loser-"I said, I'm unimpressed by your win this weekend. You used Orks to win overall. I think its more impressive that I got 7th out of 128 with Deathwing."

Winner-"Your Deathwing record was indeed impressive. What did you get for your 7th place placing?"

Loser-"I had a great time competing this weekend and a sense of accomplishment and my good placement with such a weak list."

Winner-"Cool! Hey, do you need this box of Swooping Hawks I got as swag? I know you're building that weird eldar list for that next GT."

Loser-"Yea, THANKS! That will finish my army. Its gonna be awesome, I've got a pretty good win record with it and I'm not using ANY of the power units in the Eldar list. What are you bringing to the next GT?"

Winner-"Orks."

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No, no, it's with the players.

There choice to go over the top competitive. Their choice to actively seek to remove as many tactical decisions from the game as possible.

But if the system didn't reward that, if the system rewarded different behavior to win, then wouldn't they adjust their behavior?

Da Boss wrote:What Jervis said is depressing. It's basically "We're incompetant morons who don't do our jobs properly, and we're proud of it too!"

No, not exactly. It's "we play a certain way, and if you're not playing in a similar fashion, you're playing wrong."

The irony, of course, is that Jervis was one of the architects of the GT circuit. And yes, the GTs proclaim to be about friendly play and having a good time. But also note that (to my knowledge) the UK GTs have never included things like comp requirements. So it's never been *that* friendly, has it? And the GTs are still going strong.

Does that mean GW recognizes that tournament play is part of the hobby, or is it some kind of Frankenstein monster failed experiment that they can't seem to eliminate?

The answer (in true GW FAQ fashion) is yes.

Since when do only powergamers want to play with balanced rules? If anything it's the opposite, they love the broken rules because they can exploit them and win more.

Why WOULDN'T players want balance? I mean, even in a casual, friendly environment like a family board game people want balance.

Well you might say you'd want rules that emphasise flavour over balance, but even then this edition of 40K has less flavour than any other.

It seems Jervis 40K combines the worst of both words; bland and unbalanced.

In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board.

Please allow me to disagree. GTs are about having fun...if your idea of having fun is going to GTs. Skill is a factor, but so is art, dice ju-ju, luck of the draw, etc. Also, the best, most intense tournament players I have met almost always have beautifully painted and modeled armies (and lots of different ones), an enjoyment (but not obsession) with the 'narrative' side of things and are extremely fun to play against. I suppose I am a 'top level tourny player'. At Vegas this year a young guy at his first GT caught me flat-footed and ran my army off the table. It was a great one-sided slaughter and we laughed the whole way through. Hmmm, he must have been a power-gamer.
I have heard that the Heat thing in England is pretty hardcore and often too intense. Don't know, never been, that's just what I've heard. But the American GT system is in my opinion a great all around experience and overall representative of the best the hobby can offer. To me, I get a weekend of quality gaming, beautiful armies, new faces, new and old friends and a very small percentage of the unbathed or ill-willed.

But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

I go to almost every US GT and Indy US GT every year and in my experience this statement is completely false.

As a strictly friendly gamer, my choice and attitudes to list writing do not hamper anyone elses enjoyment of the game.

We used to have a guy where I live who held this banner high. He believed that he was the only guy in our group that really "got it" with regards to how an army should look and play. He had all sorts of list writing rules and thresholds in his head. If you built a list that violated his perception he instantly labeled you with some negative gamer tag and wrote you off.
He was an okay player skill-wise but his armies lacked gameplay synergy. He fielded what he liked and what he liked to paint and look at. Problem is he tried to insist everyone else do the same (in his view). It was difficult to play him. He lost most of his games and would get real upset blaming us, the codices, etc. I remember trying to dumb down my game so we could play and him not get upset and it was just miserable and dull. No friction, no intensity, boundless bitterness.
As a strictly (in his view) friendly gamer, his choice and attitude to list writing (and the game in general) severely hampered everyone elses enjoyment of the game. He was the inverse of the negative so-called 'power gamer' stereotype and a real drag.
Any position, polarized and taken to its' extreme, bogs down the human spirit and can ruin any creative endeavor.
These type of thoughts make me my head spin:
'...all tournament players suck...Jervis is an idiot...etc...etc...etc...'
The 'I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong' mindset is a real problem in human-land.
There are no absolute rights and wrongs here. Creative debate and learning don't take place when the exchange consists of polarized, entrenched viewpoints with neither party open to the possibility of modifying and/or changing their outlook. Try engaging the mindset that there may be far more similarities than differences in EVERYONE's gaming experience/viewpoint.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As a strictly friendly gamer, my choice and attitudes to list writing do not hamper anyone elses enjoyment of the game. Against another purely friendly gamer, we get a decent narrative, and generally a close fought game to around turn 4, when someone is able to press the advantage. But against a Powergamer, he gets extentsion, and I at least get an opponent.

But a Powergamer? If he expects me to use a Powerlist against him, he in enroaching on my enjoyment. Tournaments are his natural stomping ground, but so obsessed is he, every game is a practice game. Everyone has to dance to beat of his drum of banality....

If I understand you correctly, I think you're off base here. If a powergamer goes into the game looking for a hard-fought, close game, and you bring a list that has no hope of winning or even competing, it's not going to be a very interesting game for the powergamer. Maybe his type of enjoyment isn't *your* type of enjoyment, but it could easily be said your disinterest in competing hurts his enjoyment of the game.

Then the powergamer should shove off and play someone more inkeeping with his style.

Like at his precious Tournaments.

scotts wrote:I have heard that the Heat thing in England is pretty hardcore and often too intense. Don't know, never been, that's just what I've heard. But the American GT system is in my opinion a great all around experience and overall representative of the best the hobby can offer. To me, I get a weekend of quality gaming, beautiful armies, new faces, new and old friends and a very small percentage of the unbathed or ill-willed.

Just to echo Scott's opinion here, I've been to about 10 or so US GTs, including the very first (and I have the shirt to prove it). And I'd agree that they've almost always been a very good hobby experience.

MDG, I also can't speak for the UK system, but I think you'd have fun if you attended a US GT. You'd be surprised.

We used to have a guy where I live who held this banner high. He believed that he was the only guy in our group that really "got it" with regards to how an army should look and play. He had all sorts of list writing rules and thresholds in his head. If you built a list that violated his perception he instantly labeled you with some negative gamer tag and wrote you off.
He was an okay player skill-wise but his armies lacked gameplay synergy. He fielded what he liked and what he liked to paint and look at. Problem is he tried to insist everyone else do the same (in his view). It was difficult to play him. He lost most of his games and would get real upset blaming us, the codices, etc. I remember trying to dumb down my game so we could play and him not get upset and it was just miserable and dull. No friction, no intensity, boundless bitterness.
As a strictly (in his view) friendly gamer, his choice and attitude to list writing (and the game in general) severely hampered everyone elses enjoyment of the game. He was the inverse of the negative so-called 'power gamer' stereotype and a real drag.

See, I classify these guys as "closet competitive." They proclaim to be friendly gamers, but tend to handle losing very poorly and complain endlessly about "cheese." In the end, if you're truly a non-competitive player, you couldn't care less about cheese or even keeping score because *it doesn't matter to you.*

I respect players at either end of the competitive <=> hobbyist continuum and at all points in between, so long as they know what they want out of the hobby and enjoy it on their terms. I have a harder time with hypocrites.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then the powergamer should shove off and play someone more inkeeping with his style.

Like at his precious Tournaments.

I think it's very easy and perfectly understandable to desire that anyone who thinks differently then we do should just disappear.

But that line of thought must always be resisted, because when both people on different sides of an argument dig in their heels and demand that the other side just go away, then the ability to resolve the issue completely disappears.

Compromise and consolidation are possible and should be sought for. I am a dedicated tournament player, but if someone asks me to tone down my list in a pickup game, I happily will. Why? Because I consider that to be good sportsmanship.

Likewise, I hope that he, after our game, would be willing to meet me halfway and tone up his list for our second game. By taking turns, both styles can be accommodated.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then the powergamer should shove off and play someone more inkeeping with his style.

Like at his precious Tournaments.

What I'd say is that players should compare notes so as to go into games with similar expectations.

And once again, all "over-the-top" competitive players aren't tournament players, and all tournament players aren't over-the-top competitive.

You're painting with quite the broad brush, simply because they enjoy the hobby differently than you. It's the very definition of being closed-minded.

Jayden63 wrote:I just wish people would realize that not all ork armies are Loota spam armies, or that every entry in the ork codex is dripping with cheese. I can quite easily make an ork army that will never win a game, no matter how good the general is.

I'm really disheartened when people ask what army I play and roll their eyes when I say orks. 95% of my ork models are 8-10 years old. I don't even have a single loota model. Nor does my army even want any. There are good, non-cheese ork players out there.

I have 28 loota models, but almost every other ork model I have is between 6 and 12 years old. I've been playing with orks since 3rd started. And yes, I too am starting to get a little upset when people roll their eyes at me for playing orks. For tournaments I make the hardest list that I can that also has the units I want to play with. In non-tournament play, I'll use combos that are pooh-poohed by the internets and find a way to make them work with the rest of the army.

The only ork list that I ever thought was cheesy was KOS in mid 3rd edition. Never lost with that list - never even came close to losing with that list. But every list you can make out of the current dex has a counter to it. If someone wants to pump 675 points into 45 lootas at 1750 points, that's fine with me. There's plenty of counters to it.

MDG illustrates perfectly the thing that is ruining the hobby. The whole 'one right way to have fun and if you don't have fun my way, you're a bad person' bit.

It makes me paranoid to play someone because of all the whining about overpowered this and cheese that, and you're a bad person if you take this type of army.

I just want to bring a list I like playing and not be worried about being bullied about it.

Wow I actually agree with MDG on this point. Too many spankers do spoil the game. Those that are 'If you don't think painting is the end all be all they I will not play against you and your half/un/poorly painted models. Or those that are if you are not playing to crush your opponent then you either lying or you should go read a book. Not to mention those that say if you think the hobby is too expensive go play something else. More time should be spent on enjoying the aspect(s) you like about 40k and stop trying to brow beat others to your view point.

There are more constructive ways to go about it. Ie. Offering painting tips to new players, or offering your opponents advice about thier list afterwards and things they could have down better tactically in your game. Perhaps they do not know about the online discounters and instead by everything full retail.

The real problem is that GW can't be arsed to do things properly. There are plenty of examples of rulesets that are fine for tournament and for friendly play. In fact, a well written ruleset is usually better for both.

GW ought to make codexes that have a variety of balanced units which are worth the points. Players can then pick units that work together to fit a tactical plan, and they won't stand an extra chance of winning or losing unless they come up against a better player or an army that is the rock to their scissors. That would be the end to beardy cheese spam.

There is nothing basically wrong with tournament players and there is nothing fundamentally right with non-tournament players. There are plenty of TFG players who don't go to tournaments because deep inside they are scared, and they spend their time making newbies lives miserable at the local club.

I doubt Jervis's comment was the official policy of the company.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I'd save them for when you realise that playing an extremely dull, power gaming encouraging game of depressingly little depth starts to feel childish, THEN come back to 40k and Fantasy where it's about having some fun with some friends, and not an immature waving contest where you hope to stomp some stranger into the ground so you can brag to your fellow geeks about how win you are.

Low opinion of PP? Me? Never!

You obviously have never played PP games for any length of time, and obviously haven't played much of 40k or WHFB lately if you think that opinion is even remotely close to reality.

As a recent "convert" who hasn't given up GW, but switched to PP as my main "game of choice" to get my 2-3 games a week of in, I've never had a more fun, exciting, and rewarding experience with actually playing the game well.

The point for anyone who strives to play well, or be competitive, is NOT to stomp some stranger into the ground to brag about it. I'm competitive, I play in tournaments, I build the lists that you (finally) seem to rail against in WHFB or 40k, and the last thing I want to do is stomp people who have no chance at all. I want good competitive games and that's what PP gives me far and above what GW is currently providing, without most of the stupid rules problems and most importantly with a balanced game system where no single faction has "no chance" against other lists.

And to get to the first point, obviously 40k and WHFB are having problems with certain army lists or factions dominating other ones. Otherwise there wouldn't be this thread or the tons of other ones going on about how VC & Daemons are killing WHFB.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:'Play Like You Got a Pair'

Exactly, play like you've got a pair. The game is balanced, if you find something absolutely devastates you, then take solace in the fact that your faction has ways to get around that problem! It's up to you to figure out how to do so and to implement it properly

'Unstoppable Combo O' Doom' being the whole point.

There is no 'Unstoppable Combo O' Doom'. The entire point of the game is that everything can be countered, many times by very simple & basic methods. The challenge is in seeing the opening and pulling it off.

Next to background or motivation for the 'factions'.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE! The books that come out have a good amount of background and their quarterly magazine actually has quite a bit of NEW fluff in it, with a storyline that progresses and rules that reflect it. As a fairly new player I'm making the effort to buy books I don't own yet for the background in them, even though I don't need the rules.

And at least PP makes the effort to balance between FLUFF and RULES. They still make rules based on fluff, but unlike GW it doesn't stop there. They playtest things to make sure it isn't OTT and in cases where they make a mistake - they actually FIX the rules. And not in 5 years with a new army book, but with online errata.

Variation on a single theme (Big Metal Roboty Things)

This doesn't even make sense.

Yup. Powergamers paradise.

If you mean it's a system where RAW works and you can resolve rules disputes quickly by referencing the rules and if grey areas do come up, you can go to their company forums and have your question answered by people who have actual authority on the rules of the game!

And the best part is the "Play like you've got a pair!" attitude, so when you get through someone's super-crazy combo they're not allowed to complain about it. Their game is so solid that they don't NEED composition or sports scores do "ding" players who take hard lists.

I can just see the situation that soured you so much on it. Someone probably used their own model as a target for a chain spell or targeted their own model for a slam so it would hit one of yours. It's that kind of thing that is perfectly permissible by the rules and embodies the "play like you've got a pair" sentiment. What is and isn't allowed is very clear and there is no argument if it is supposed to be "in the spirit of the game".

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And therein lies the problem.

As a strictly friendly gamer, my choice and attitudes to list writing do not hamper anyone elses enjoyment of the game. Against another purely friendly gamer, we get a decent narrative, and generally a close fought game to around turn 4, when someone is able to press the advantage. But against a Powergamer, he gets extentsion, and I at least get an opponent.

GW has done such a terrible job with the latest round of armies, at least in WHFB, that they have even rendered this as a false statement.

I could be a strictly friendly gamer, and I happen to like Daemons, and like most males I think a Bloodthirster is cool, badass, and an awesome model. And hey he's my Lord choice for my purely Khorne army.

Of course as soon as I go to give him any kind of gift, like the one that negates all magical weapons he's in base contact with, or the one that lets him re-roll failed to hit, or the one that gives him Killing Blow, or MR3, or a Dispel Scroll, I start to make things near impossible for my opponent if they're using say Ogres, or Beasts of Chaos.

It doesn't matter if I back up my BT with blocks of bloodletters, only a few units of Hounds, and maybe even some Bloodcrushers, I've basically screwed over not just other melee armies, but in some cases entire factions of the game.

But it's ok, when my army gets their new book in a couple of years, I'm sure I'll be able to deal with a Greater Daemon effectively. I'll just sit tight till then.

Mad Doc, I can kind of see why you don't like tournaments. I'm not a big fan of competitions myself, but I like a nice game of warhammer/warmachine when I can get one in.

The last 40k tournament we had, the winner was a guy that usually loses a lot, and the cheesy lists didn't even do that well (Nidzilla with Winged Tyrant). And none of the players in my area are powergaming jerks, though they go to tournaments and play warmachine/hordes. We teasingly call each other cheesy, but only as a joke.

As for WM being powergamers paradise ... I've had great experiences playing it. I never have a rules problem. If there is a question it is almost always answered on the unit card. If not that, check the extensive FAQ. I simply don't get this kind of support from GW. I have a lot of questions about the Eye of the Gods table in the new chaos warriors book, and I've a feeling they won't be answered in that book. Because GW just doesn't support their stuff as well as I'd like them to. Would it hurt them to write clearer rules and admit mistakes and fix them? No! It would help them. Privateer Press admits mistakes and I don't begrudge them for it. On the other hand, I get really mad when I read about some stupid thing Jervis or Alessio said at some event.

I still like 40k a bit, but quotes like the one redbeard posted really make me rethink buying GW. And Fantasy is basically dead to me until they stop the ridiculous power curve on the new books.

And I want to say I really enjoy the WM background. And their magazine actually has hobby gaming material in it. I compared it to WD and white dwarf is basically a sales ad these days. The last No Quarter had an RPG encounter with a machine wraith for the D20 game. I don't play it, but I thought having stuff like that is really cool. I'd like to so Warhammer RPG stuff in White Dwarf.

And lastly,

And at least PP makes the effort to balance between FLUFF and RULES. They still make rules based on fluff, but unlike GW it doesn't stop there. They playtest things to make sure it isn't OTT and in cases where they make a mistake - they actually FIX the rules. And not in 5 years with a new army book, but with online errata.

This is huge. GW really needs to fix stuff faster. Certain armies in Fantasy need a boost and the players don't want to wait years for an update, why should they? If I don't like the new stuff in Warriors of Chaos, I don't want to wait years for a fix. And I won't, because I don't have to with WM.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I doubt Jervis's comment was the official policy of the company.

Probably not, but stuff like this makes them look like uppity jerks. Where are the quotes that make the designers sound like decent people?

I always interpreted "a pair" as "dice."

Boosting your rolls obviously meant you had better chances of reproducing.

Having read the page 5 'play like you've got a pair', it's really more about being able to accept that this is a strong balanced aggressive game, and if you lose - there's one person to blame and that's you. Buck up, pick up your little metal men, and try again - Play like you have a pair. And it's necessary too, because a lot of gamers are incapable of honestly accepting a loss without at least deflecting a significant portion of it onto something they can't control. That's not an attitude that will get you very far in Warmachine.

Moz wrote:Having read the page 5 'play like you've got a pair', it's really more about being able to accept that this is a strong balanced aggressive game, and if you lose - there's one person to blame and that's you. Buck up, pick up your little metal men, and try again - Play like you have a pair. And it's necessary too, because a lot of gamers are incapable of honestly accepting a loss without at least deflecting a significant portion of it onto something they can't control. That's not an attitude that will get you very far in Warmachine.

its easier to blame someone with no significant recourse then to realize your just not as good as they are.

I hear the term friendly gamer, and I honestly get a kick out of it. 'i'm a friendly gamer because I don't bring all the cheese i have to offer. I just stomped this guys army to the ground but i'm a friendly gamer'

when I started I played what I could afford and used other people to help me learn the rules. (my first army was black templar with a squad of scouts and a librrian ) and I still do to some extent.

I have an idea of what my marines should do and I try to find the best way to do it. and through experience I've gotten better at using this list. I do play competitvly because I'm not so tired of winning I mess around. I don't win the majority of my games so I take the best list I can.

a friendly gamer isn't measured by his list, a friendly gamer shows you how to become better and you have a good time. bring your 2 lash princes, your necron monolith phalanx, but don't be a dick about it and if that doesn't work for you don't get upset.

I did fight the 2 lash princes at ard boys, not to mention the 3 landraider army. and I tied both of them with a drop pod gunline marine army.

blame the rules all you want a pothole in the road is still a pothole, you just gota learn to get around it. Imagine all the cheese marine players would have if they wheren't the most looked over codex there is.

this is a problem in all game systems, in Call of Duty 4 there's the Martydon (drop a grenade after you die) and M203 (noob tube) users, but thats part of the game. the problem I think is that GW won't fix these things and players are stuck to them because they know they can win with them. how many people used the lash prince to move units out of coherecny because it said anywhere? if there where more enphasise on teaching players how to win with an army and not a gimick this would be as bad.

I think some people are taking this a bit too seriously. JJ didn't say; "You are playing the game wrong!".

He said; "This game is intended for friendly narative play. Should you choose to play it in a highly competetive way, you should realize that the rules aren't built for that and that you will run into balance issues. Yes, this is a natural consequence of using the rules in ways they were not specifically made for. We, GW, will continue to make rules with narative friendly play in mind."

What is wrong with that? Does anybody really feel that they have been misled by GW in any way? Does anybody feel they have been promised a ruleset fit for tournaments? 40K has been a narative game since RT. Choosing to play it in a different way is fine....but there are consequences.

Steelmage99 wrote:I think some people are taking this a bit too seriously. JJ didn't say; "You are playing the game wrong!".

He said; "This game is intended for friendly narative play. Should you choose to play it in a highly competetive way, you should realize that the rules aren't built for that and that you will run into balance issues. Yes, this is a natural consequence of using the rules in ways they were not specifically made for. We, GW, will continue to make rules with narative friendly play in mind."

What is wrong with that? Does anybody really feel that they have been misled by GW in any way? Does anybody feel they have been promised a ruleset fit for tournaments? 40K has been a narative game since RT. Choosing to play it in a different way is fine....but there are consequences.

a movie is a narrative, a book is a narrative, a game like 40k is just that, a game. and with every game your going to find people that like to win, or rather don't like to lose.

people play 40k to win sometimes, thats the problem. its not a story, period.

Honestly i think that tornies arent all that important, yes i like to join in every once and a while but the real joy of it comes from a home made campain with a heap of friends and too many buildings and stuff and making a movie almost that takes a weekend to play and you love every minute of it, showing off your new conversion or paint job

Squig Herder certainly seems to get it.

There is so much more to 40k and Fantasy than just playing the game.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then I would say you are lucky.

In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board. But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

Skill on the board ? Seriously, are you playing the same game ?

Everything gets decided by the building of the list or lucky/unlucky rolls. There is no Skillzzz at all . Its a beer & pretzels game (and a good one at that).

If you want to play a game in a competitive setting, play one that was developped with that in mind.

P.S. I have NEVER seen a powergaming list in one of PP's game that I couldnt do something against with the army I usually play with.

Calle wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then I would say you are lucky.

In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board. But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

Skill on the board ? Seriously, are you playing the same game ?

Everything gets decided by the building of the list or lucky/unlucky rolls. There is no Skillzzz at all . Its a beer & pretzels game (and a good one at that).

If you want to play a game in a competitive setting, play one that was developped with that in mind.

P.S. I have NEVER seen a powergaming list in one of PP's game that I couldnt do something against with the army I usually play with.

I would ask you the same question, anyone can say i fire at them but to know what is the main problem, or your tactics is a very hard skill to pick up, yes list does come into it, but from the start of deployment to the final dice roll requires skill of some level. what is the point of take a greater demon in your chaos 40k army and spawning him 48' away from anything, you need skills and tactics to really win in this game.

Squig_herder wrote:

Calle wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then I would say you are lucky.

In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board. But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

Skill on the board ? Seriously, are you playing the same game ?

Everything gets decided by the building of the list or lucky/unlucky rolls. There is no Skillzzz at all . Its a beer & pretzels game (and a good one at that).

If you want to play a game in a competitive setting, play one that was developped with that in mind.

P.S. I have NEVER seen a powergaming list in one of PP's game that I couldnt do something against with the army I usually play with.

I would ask you the same question, anyone can say i fire at them but to know what is the main problem, or your tactics is a very hard skill to pick up, yes list does come into it, but from the start of deployment to the final dice roll requires skill of some level. what is the point of take a greater demon in your chaos 40k army and spawning him 48' away from anything, you need skills and tactics to really win in this game.

For me, thats not tactics, thats common sense.

Look, WHFB has a large portion of tactics in it, 40k has a bit of strategy(but almost no tactics). Building a list, taking the best units, thats strategy, not tactics.

If you would look at the tiny, infinitesimal mistakes that can cost you the game in Warmachine, you might see the difference.

Really, I like my Grey Knights, but heck , its more because of the fluff and the "cool suits" then because of the game. 40k was my "portal game" into the hobby, but its nothing more than that.

Steelmage99 wrote:I think some people are taking this a bit too seriously. JJ didn't say; "You are playing the game wrong!".

He said; "This game is intended for friendly narative play. Should you choose to play it in a highly competetive way, you should realize that the rules aren't built for that and that you will run into balance issues. Yes, this is a natural consequence of using the rules in ways they were not specifically made for. We, GW, will continue to make rules with narative friendly play in mind."

What is wrong with that? Does anybody really feel that they have been misled by GW in any way? Does anybody feel they have been promised a ruleset fit for tournaments? 40K has been a narative game since RT. Choosing to play it in a different way is fine....but there are consequences.

If they aren't built for competitive play then why does GW run multiple events throughout the year (that cost a good sum of money to attend) that are centered around playing competitively.

And the fact is that playing competitively isn't something that's limited to tournaments. The problems GW has with Game Balance has gotten so bad and out of whack that new players in "friendly" environments can be screwed by picking the "wrong" army books (such as the severely overpowered ones, or the stupidly underpowered ones).

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I think some people are taking this a bit too seriously. JJ didn't say; "You are playing the game wrong!".

He said; "This game is intended for friendly narative play. Should you choose to play it in a highly competetive way, you should realize that the rules aren't built for that and that you will run into balance issues. Yes, this is a natural consequence of using the rules in ways they were not specifically made for. We, GW, will continue to make rules with narative friendly play in mind."

What is wrong with that? Does anybody really feel that they have been misled by GW in any way? Does anybody feel they have been promised a ruleset fit for tournaments? 40K has been a narative game since RT. Choosing to play it in a different way is fine....but there are consequences.

If they aren't built for competitive play then why does GW run multiple events throughout the year (that cost a good sum of money to attend) that are centered around playing competitively.

Money and marketing, obviously.

And the fact is that playing competitively isn't something that's limited to tournaments. The problems GW has with Game Balance has gotten so bad and out of whack that new players in "friendly" environments can be screwed by picking the "wrong" army books (such as the severely overpowered ones, or the stupidly underpowered ones).

I agree. The plague that is The Powergamer is highly contagious. But that is just a matter of choosing who you play with. I don't waste my time with tournaments. I don't do pick up games.
I have the social skillset required to get together with a bunch of friends and play a game we enjoy. I don't have to go to a store or tournament to find players to game with.
(Please note, this is not an attack on people who enjoy tournaments or pick up games. It is not an attempt to say that tournament players are socially deficient. Each to his own. The above statements are solely based on my experiences.)

Are they?

In theory, a Grand Tournament is a fantastic way to meet new opponents, especially for those unfortunate enough to have a small or non existent gaming group.

But those who see it as a chance to win at all costs derail it.

Exactly. I did a really quick examination of the new Marine codex compared to the Dark Angel codex released maybe a year ago.

Marines get predators, vindicators and razorbacks cheaper.
Marines get more transport capacity in their vehicles.
Marines get assault squads 10 points cheaper (2/man)
Marines get terminators cheaper
Marines get 1.5x return on cyclone missile launcher
Marines get tactical marines cheaper (factoring cost of weapon upgrades)

Not to mention, marines get more overall options, additional 'free' rules (combat tactics), access to sternguard and vanguard units.

Heh. Dark Angels get cool looking robes and a secretive backstory.

And this isn't even a 10-year old codex, it's one-year old and it's already completely surpassed.

Redbeard, you say what is in my heart.

Although there is a name for people who use a different codex for Dark Angels......they are called Fallen.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I think some people are taking this a bit too seriously. JJ didn't say; "You are playing the game wrong!".

He said; "This game is intended for friendly narative play. Should you choose to play it in a highly competetive way, you should realize that the rules aren't built for that and that you will run into balance issues. Yes, this is a natural consequence of using the rules in ways they were not specifically made for. We, GW, will continue to make rules with narative friendly play in mind."

What is wrong with that? Does anybody really feel that they have been misled by GW in any way? Does anybody feel they have been promised a ruleset fit for tournaments? 40K has been a narative game since RT. Choosing to play it in a different way is fine....but there are consequences.

If they aren't built for competitive play then why does GW run multiple events throughout the year (that cost a good sum of money to attend) that are centered around playing competitively.

Money and marketing, obviously.

I agree, it's obvious that there's a market of people willing to pay $120+ to attend an event, why not run one?

The problem is that when said customers are complaining about the game being played at the event, their response is that "oh well, it's not competitive".

And the problems being complained about are not limited only to those kinds of events. Redbeard gives a perfect example of how this spills over into normal every day games.

You play Generic Marines, one of your close friends plays Dark Angels. You're going to have an advantage in just about every matchup going in, no matter how compy your list is.

Same is said for Daemons vs. Ogres, or Daemons vs. Beasts, or VC vs. Orcs & Goblins, or Orks vs. Grey Knights, or Nids vs. IG.....

Their rules have been so poorly done that it simply effects the entire game.

And the fact is that playing competitively isn't something that's limited to tournaments. The problems GW has with Game Balance has gotten so bad and out of whack that new players in "friendly" environments can be screwed by picking the "wrong" army books (such as the severely overpowered ones, or the stupidly underpowered ones).

I agree. The plague that is The Powergamer is highly contagious. But that is just a matter of choosing who you play with. I don't waste my time with tournaments. I don't do pick up games.
I have the social skillset required to get together with a bunch of friends and play a game we enjoy. I don't have to go to a store or tournament to find players to game with.
(Please note, this is not an attack on people who enjoy tournaments or pick up games. It is not an attempt to say that tournament players are socially deficient. Each to his own. The above statements are solely based on my experiences.)

Good on you. Most of my "core" gaming group plays WM/Hordes now, because that's what we like. But I still have the social skillset needed to play games with the friends I have that play WHFB still and when we meetup to play that game we all have the exact same reference on how it should be played: tournament style with armies as hard as possible - with the goal of bringing our armies to the next local tournament we're going to attend.

The issue is that for my group of friends many lists just aren't even worth considering, it's certainly evidenced by how I'm moving forward in WHFB. My Ogres are getting shelved till their new book comes out and I'm building a Daemon army to use at tournaments until then. And while you can say it is isolated to just people with my mindset, it affects people in gaming shops or other gaming circles just as much - just in a different way.

All it takes is one non-powergaming player to like a strong book, oblivious to its power level, and they can dominate the store or group.

Obviously this is the case because why else are there so many stupid posts online about different armies being too good, if it wasn't for the fact that "friendly gamers" are being impacted by GW's gross imbalances in their games.

I only play in tournaments. I play for several reasons. I live in a small town. The nearest GW is an hour drive away. Luckly within an hour drive there are many stores that regularly have tournaments. Usually there are 2 per month that I can go to if I'd like. Sadly with timing and real life, I'm lucky if I can go once per month or 2. For my hard to come by gaming time, I want to maximise my enjoyment. Here's why I love tournaments...

1. I like to play with people who play by the rules. Tourney guys know the rules, and in my last tournament, the new 5th edition book had to be consulted once.

2. I like my opponent to have an army list, printed out. No looking back in the box for all the heavy bolters because he didn't think he'd be facing orks. Tourneys guarantee this.

3. Interesting tactical scenarios. Not just seek and destroy or cleanse for ever. I like a combination of moving and fire. I don't understand the enjoyment players get from gunline armies, and who complain when scenario forces them to move. Usually here in Canada, there are published scenarios you can see before you go to the tourney. If you don't build your army thinking that you will need to move, or have to take objectives, then you are to blame. I specifically build my army to be able to accomplish any scenario I might encounter. I then temper the list based on what I am expecting to meet in the current metagame. I believe that by doing this it makes me a better gamer than a guy who doesn't. Army selection is a huge part of 40k. So be it. A guy that has 45 lootas isn't going to be advancing and taking many objectives with them. And most armies now have scout, or deep strikers. Why are you trying to slog across the field to assult them? Because you chose poorly in your list building? Were you expecting to still play against marines all the time?

4. Great players. Before I started going to tourneys, I had 3 different guys to play against. the same 3 armies all the time, over and over. Blech. I can name on less than one hand the bad games vs powergamers in hundreds of games. And lots of variety of different lists and armies. On the last weekend I played vs 13th company and sisters, double footslogging marines, orks and deathwing, marines and deathwing. ( It was a doubles tourney) I've made many friends on the local scene that I always enjoy playing against, and whom I always look forward to seeing again.

Even when people used to complain about 3rd edition rules being bad, how often do real conflicts come up? I think I've actually had to come down to d6ing it a handful of times. I am not thrilled with area terrain in the new 5th, but other than that, it's a great ruleset. Most complaints in the new version seem to be personal preference, rather than bad writing, but it's still new. 40k has always had it's bad rock paper scissors matchups. Most of these things are solved by scenario and terrain. Usually my biggest complaint in tourneys is inconsistent terrain. It is the great equalizer. Following the guidlines for every table would provide a much more even gaming experience for everyone.

I think GW do a great job with the game, the models. The Codexes really need more work. Codex orks is a great book. People are still finding new ways to play armies from it. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some choices are better than others. Tankbustas should be as good a choice to make as lootas. Flashgits? What were they thinking? Dark angles vs codex marines? Almost every book has its must haves and must avoids. Waiting for 10 years for GW to reverse them is horrible.
And FAQ's are appalingly few and far between. 4th edition didn't have barrage rules! I am very happy with the last set of codex FAQ's but they were what we should have had 2 years before for 4th edition. They didn't look at 5th edition rules hardly at all.

I like to play to win, yet I have a host of best sportsman awards. My favorite games are hard fought ones down to a dice roll or last minute manuver. I am dissapointed in myself when I play badly, but I'm pretty confident I am not a jerk. I try and build armies that are good and well balanced for the way I like to play and choose units that match my playing style, and what I see out on the table in the metagame. Most peoples concept of cheese seem to be based on some personal concept of what is allowed to take from a list and some things that are not. It's not written down anywhere, so who is to judge weither 45 lootas is cheese or playing orks as the designer intended? I wouldn't but it because standing back shooting isn't my favourite way to play. Comp is so subjective. I do think that smaller sized games - 1000 to 1500 really is the best level to play at, but the Americans like 1850. Great for them. I'm not going to judge someone else for the way they like to play.

THere are many ways to play the game. Do it how you want. If you don't enjoy it, do something else. Don't tell me I'm a powergaming jerk because I enjoy playing tournaments, and I wont tell you your way of playing is wrong as well.

greenskinned git wrote:I only play in tournaments. I play for several reasons. I live in a small town. The nearest GW is an hour drive away. Luckly within an hour drive there are many stores that regularly have tournaments. Usually there are 2 per month that I can go to if I'd like. Sadly with timing and real life, I'm lucky if I can go once per month or 2. For my hard to come by gaming time, I want to maximise my enjoyment. Here's why I love tournaments...

1. I like to play with people who play by the rules. Tourney guys know the rules, and in my last tournament, the new 5th edition book had to be consulted once.

It would be too easy to say something along the lines of; "And non-tourney players don't?". But since you completely missed my point, I won't.

2. I like my opponent to have an army list, printed out. No looking back in the box for all the heavy bolters because he didn't think he'd be facing orks. Tourneys guarantee this.

See 1.

3. Interesting tactical scenarios. Not just seek and destroy or cleanse for ever. I like a combination of moving and fire. I don't understand the enjoyment players get from gunline armies, and who complain when scenario forces them to move. Usually here in Canada, there are published scenarios you can see before you go to the tourney. If you don't build your army thinking that you will need to move, or have to take objectives, then you are to blame. I specifically build my army to be able to accomplish any scenario I might encounter. I then temper the list based on what I am expecting to meet in the current metagame. I believe that by doing this it makes me a better gamer than a guy who doesn't. Army selection is a huge part of 40k. So be it. A guy that has 45 lootas isn't going to be advancing and taking many objectives with them. And most armies now have scout, or deep strikers. Why are you trying to slog across the field to assult them? Because you chose poorly in your list building? Were you expecting to still play against marines all the time?

See 1.

4. Great players. Before I started going to tourneys, I had 3 different guys to play against. the same 3 armies all the time, over and over. Blech. I can name on less than one hand the bad games vs powergamers in hundreds of games. And lots of variety of different lists and armies. On the last weekend I played vs 13th company and sisters, double footslogging marines, orks and deathwing, marines and deathwing. ( It was a doubles tourney) I've made many friends on the local scene that I always enjoy playing against, and whom I always look forward to seeing again.

See 1.

THere are many ways to play the game. Do it how you want. If you don't enjoy it, do something else. Don't tell me I'm a powergaming jerk because I enjoy playing tournaments, and I wont tell you your way of playing is wrong as well.

Which I didn't.

Edit.

I merely pointed out that the ruleset, by JJs own admission, isn't made for highly competetive gaming.

Well said, greenskinned git.

It is noticeable that far more complaints are heard about balance in US tourneys (where playing 1750-2500pt games seems to be the norm) than UK tourneys (which are almost always 1500pt)

Terrain is still shocking at UK tourneys, even those held at Warhammer World seem very short on LOS-blocking scenery, but its noticeable that there is a very different set of 'top-table' armies on this side of the pond...

It has been said before when this topic has come up and it must be said again -- a tight well written ruleset would benefit all gamers, not just the tournament goers.

How can the friendly narrative gamers bashing tourny players have a problem with that? You guys already have Apocalypse to do whatever the hell you want, balance be damned. How does having a better made game infringe on your ability to play how you want? Why not have a well made, well written and fully playtested codex -- and one that is reveiwed and adjusted after a year or so after it is released.

As far as the difference attitude-wise between tourny gamers and non-tourney gamers. I think thie posts made by mad doc grot posts versus guys like scotts illustrate it better then I can (otherwords 'friendly' gamers are the pushy - play my way aholes more often then a tournament regular).

Finally, I think 5ed killed comp in a big way. How can you balace any math comp system now? I don't know that you can without boning several armies or granting others huge advantages. And subjective opponent socred comp is usually a mess and is even more so in 5ed (ding someones comp for a list that stomped them in one mission, all the while ignoring its issues hollistically).

Under 5E, 1500 pts is very different, because the Troops - non-Troops balance is tighter. US can have more toys for the same number of Troops, so of course, Comp is more of an issue.

winterman wrote: As far as the difference attitude-wise between tourny gamers and non-tourney gamers. I think thie posts made by mad doc grot posts versus guys like scotts illustrate it better then I can (otherwords 'friendly' gamers are the pushy - play my way aholes more often then a tournament regular).

This is so true. I've made lists that go all over the board and found that no matter what I made, I could never make the 'friendly' gamers in our area happy. After trying for years, I just gave up and play the forces that I want to play. I find the 'friendly' gamers are typically the biggest and most vocal complainers.

When I was little, my father, my two brothers and I played toy soldier games in the garden.

We used matches, toy pistol caps and fulminate of mercury to make little bombs and mines.

We had dozens of soldiers, tanks and aircraft, and we fought brilliant battles and campaigns.

There were no rules, it was all "narrative".

Is that what people want from 40K? Cos you don't need any rules to play "narrative" games.

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was little, my father, my two brothers and I played toy soldier games in the garden.

We used matches, toy pistol caps and fulminate of mercury to make little bombs and mines.

We had dozens of soldiers, tanks and aircraft, and we fought brilliant battles and campaigns.

There were no rules, it was all "narrative".

Is that what people want from 40K? Cos you don't need any rules to play "narrative" games.

Some days...yes. But...I guess here's my humble take on it....that's when I play with a really small group of friends, who follow the rules...mostly...and do a lot of roll-offs. Now, I'm 1) Nowhere near good enough to even think about participating in a tourney, and 2) Not..umm...equipped...to handle one either. I think there will always be many different types of gamers. People find their niche. That's why it's a game. Some play total competitively, and that's not bad. Some play strictly FLGS style...slow and semi-narrative. Some others, mostly narrative, loose rules. It's like people and sports. I.E. Football (we're going American football for all you brits, Aussies, etc) I played backyard games. Great fun. Rules? Most of the major ones. No crazy intensity...just, a great time, good competition, but, nothing serious. A game. Now...look at the same game played on high-school or college level. Almost seems, and in some cases is, more like work to these guys. Most of them still love the game, they play very tightly with the rules, and have very high intensity. Now, if I willingly go into one of those games, I should be ready for that type of player. But, would I ask the captain of the team, if he played our backyard games, to tone down his intensity? Maybe...maybe not. I knew what I would be getting into, and, as long as everyone else agreed, no one can blame him for being a ringer if they lost.

I may be straying..but..can you sort of see where I'm going? I knock no one who plays this. Everyone has their own flavor, and play style. If someone wants to bring an army of Orks to the table, I'll field my army, and see what the dice, and my tactics, can do. If I go to a local game store, and see a GT winning player, with the same army on the table, do I ask him to 'knock it down a notch'? Nope. I play him, and, win or lose, have fun. It doesn't matter to me if after the game he boasts, as long as it's within the non dillweed way. He earned it. He beat me, according to the rules we played. I think everyone here is right, to some extent. I, like some others, can't stand the intolerance. Everyone is different. So called 'PowerGamers' are the football captains--intense play style, extremely competitive. As long as everyone you play can be respectful, and gracious in victory or defeat, then I would think that is all that would matter.

But...I could be wrong. I usually am according to my wife.

--/end ramble.

Blood

Redbeard wrote:Exactly. I did a really quick examination of the new Marine codex compared to the Dark Angel codex released maybe a year ago.

Marines get predators, vindicators and razorbacks cheaper.
Marines get more transport capacity in their vehicles.
Marines get assault squads 10 points cheaper (2/man)
Marines get terminators cheaper
Marines get 1.5x return on cyclone missile launcher
Marines get tactical marines cheaper (factoring cost of weapon upgrades)

Not to mention, marines get more overall options, additional 'free' rules (combat tactics), access to sternguard and vanguard units.

Heh. Dark Angels get cool looking robes and a secretive backstory.

And this isn't even a 10-year old codex, it's one-year old and it's already completely surpassed.

My main beef with the new Marine Dex is I can create not only a more competative list with them over Dark Agnels, but I can create a fluffier Dark Angels list with the new dex barring Deathwing. (That and they took our Heavenfall Blades...)

As to the competetivness of the game, I dont' really think its that bad. The other day I beat a nidzilla with Tyrant and Guard with Greenwing Angels. (Though admittedly I think it was the 20 odd plasma guns in the list that pulled the Carnis down.) But my brother on the other hand thinks my Dark Angels are cheesy, cause I continually waste his Space Wolf army from afar with my Plasma. He thinks its totally unfair that way. On the other hand, he completely crushed my ork horde. (150 footslogger boyz meet 80 Bloodclaws, the result was not pretty.)

Sure my stuff costs more than conventional marines, but I still await the list I can't pull down with my Greenwing. (The nidzilla was however pretty damn close.)

winterman wrote:It has been said before when this topic has come up and it must be said again -- a tight well written ruleset would benefit all gamers, not just the tournament goers.

How can the friendly narrative gamers bashing tourny players have a problem with that? You guys already have Apocalypse to do whatever the hell you want, balance be damned. How does having a better made game infringe on your ability to play how you want? Why not have a well made, well written and fully playtested codex -- and one that is reveiwed and adjusted after a year or so after it is released.

As far as the difference attitude-wise between tourny gamers and non-tourney gamers. I think thie posts made by mad doc grot posts versus guys like scotts illustrate it better then I can (otherwords 'friendly' gamers are the pushy - play my way aholes more often then a tournament regular).

Finally, I think 5ed killed comp in a big way. How can you balace any math comp system now? I don't know that you can without boning several armies or granting others huge advantages. And subjective opponent socred comp is usually a mess and is even more so in 5ed (ding someones comp for a list that stomped them in one mission, all the while ignoring its issues hollistically).

This.

There have been numerous posts in this thread that seem to be advocating the opposite position; that poorly written, sparingly playtested rules are somehow more "causal" friendly, and drive "Tournament" (Hardcore) players away. I really fail to see the connection, if anything, tightly written rules without ambiguities or list-breaking combos encourages play at all levels and increases enjoyment by everyone.

Many of the posters supporting JJ cite "powergamers" as a major cause of their ire; surely "power lists" are a symptom of rules set flaws? Specifically, a symptom of the fact that GW (apparently) does not believe in quality control of printed matter to match their models. Is it so outrageous to expect GW to exercise the same standards with rules as their kits (stipulating that the kits are overall good)?

People say that GW is a "models" company; malarkey. GW is a business, pure and simple, and all you have to do to see that their poor rules quality is hurting their bottom line is read the statements in this thread (of people we have no reason to doubt) of long time players abandoning the game for another, more tightly written one. Quality rules are as much a part of retaining customers (and that can be the only metric GW can apply to their gamers) as good quality models; exploring one but not the other is a loss in profit (unless you are willing to make the argument that quality rules are exorbitantly expensive).

Objectively, GW's 40k rules are probably better than pretty much anything that they've written before. The main rulebook has almost no ambiguities that I can think of. And the only "list-breaking combos" are tied to combos that no "casual" player would ever take. So what's the problem?

Steelmage99 wrote:

What is wrong with that? Does anybody really feel that they have been misled by GW in any way? Does anybody feel they have been promised a ruleset fit for tournaments? 40K has been a narative game since RT. Choosing to play it in a different way is fine....but there are consequences.

I dunno. I see the line of reasoning, but I just don't buy it.

You cannot invent an entire tournament system for 40K (which is exactly what Jervis did when he organized the RTT and GT/GD events) then turn around and say that you are completely unaccountable for ensuring that the rules allow for it.

It is political Bull Crap and Jervis knows it. He's trying to place the blame on the players, which is always what GW does when the flaws in it's products are exposed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Objectively, GW's 40k rules are probably better than pretty much anything that they've written before. The main rulebook has almost no ambiguities that I can think of.

"(B)etter then pretty much anything that they've written before" is not synonymous with "good". As I pointed out, you need look no farther then this thread to find examples of formerly devoted players who have ceased playing (and more importantly, buying product) because of the rules quality. I am unprepared to offer an opinion on your appraisal of the quality of the main rulebook at this time, sufficed to note that your opinion of the rules appears to be divergent from, at the very least, a substantial minority of the aforementioned posters.

And the only "list-breaking combos" are tied to combos that no "casual" player would ever take.

Tell me, does this all-encompassing knowledge of the habits of the casual player stem from genetic memory, or is this the fruit of long research into peyote and vision quests? In either case, little more needs to be said then: I disagree.

Casuals and Hardcore alike has access to the internet, and thus are only a Google search away from the broken lists; casuals can read the tourney results just as easily as the hardcore player and, it can be argued, are more likely to be taken in by the aura of inevitability the power lists/combos tend to generate.

So what's the problem?

I can only ask the same question of the those in this thread venting their spleens about tournament players; better rules are simply better for everyone, what can be wrong with this? JJ is flat out saying that they don't want to invest in quality; how can anyone be encouraged by that?

Steelmage99 wrote:I think some people are taking this a bit too seriously. JJ didn't say; "You are playing the game wrong!".

He said; "This game is intended for friendly narative play. Should you choose to play it in a highly competetive way, you should realize that the rules aren't built for that and that you will run into balance issues. Yes, this is a natural consequence of using the rules in ways they were not specifically made for. We, GW, will continue to make rules with narative friendly play in mind."

What is wrong with that? Does anybody really feel that they have been misled by GW in any way? Does anybody feel they have been promised a ruleset fit for tournaments? 40K has been a narative game since RT. Choosing to play it in a different way is fine....but there are consequences.

The problem is their rules have huge problems even for casual play, and their FAQ's have thus far been terrible and far below the standards of what the company should be putting out. Too man of their rules are ambiguous or awkward, or simply don't mesh with the current ruleset, and they still can't keep armies updated, which is why we still have nearly half the armies still operating under codex's that were designed for rules *TWO* editions ago.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Objectively, GW's 40k rules are probably better than pretty much anything that they've written before.

Personally, I think this depends on what one means by "better rules". If on means clearly written, possibly. If one means a decent balanced, intuitive, and fluid ruleset, I would disagree and think that 5th ed was a gross disappointment and was simply some tossed together changes to get a new product out the door. Are there some great changes? Sure. Are there some gigantic "WTF" decisions? Yes. Are there very poor changes/additions? Yes, about as many as there are great changes. Overall, in terms of actual gameplay, a small sidestep rather than a great leap forward.

The main rulebook has almost no ambiguities that I can think of.

Look at the rules for area terrain (or whats left of them)

JohnHwangDD wrote:Objectively, GW's 40k rules are probably better than pretty much anything that they've written before. The main rulebook has almost no ambiguities that I can think of. And the only "list-breaking combos" are tied to combos that no "casual" player would ever take. So what's the problem?

Sorry, but do the words "utter hogwash" express my opinion of your opinion strongly enough?

No, but the profanity filter might smack down any further attempts at embellishment!

Modquisition ON:
Lets keep it friendly here people. Attacking the argument and not the person is more helpful to the discussion.
Modquisition Off

Voodoo Boyz wrote:
If they aren't built for competitive play then why does GW run multiple events throughout the year (that cost a good sum of money to attend) that are centered around playing competitively.

And the fact is that playing competitively isn't something that's limited to tournaments. The problems GW has with Game Balance has gotten so bad and out of whack that new players in "friendly" environments can be screwed by picking the "wrong" army books (such as the severely overpowered ones, or the stupidly underpowered ones).

Because GW's definition of a Tournament is different than yours. Similar to Gorgon, I've been attending GT's for at least the last 8-9 years, with a little time off in between. And the GT was always defined as a "Hobby Tournament". That's why they had Composition Scores, Sportsmanship Scores, Painting Scores (and not the current simple 'is it painted?' stuff), Opponent Scoring, Battle Points, and hell, even Quiz Scoring. All of which totalled your overall score in the Tournament.

And every GT, there were fantastically painted, converted, and amazing armies across the board, especially among those who usually won (because a solid painting, sports, and comp score was more important than the battle scores - because it was about the HOBBY, not the GAME).

Over the last few years, though, that has changed, for better or worse, depending on how you view tournaments. I'm going to Baltimore this year, and not expecting nor wanting to compete for overall. Hell, I've never finished above 10th in a GT. Because meeting new people, seeing the nice (or what used to be nice) paint jobs, playing 5 games, and generally being a geek for the weekend is what I want to get out of it.

And, the most memorable parts used to be hanging around in the hotel bar afterward with the other players, GW would run a 'pub quiz', giving out free stuff, and we'd all swap war stories.

As has been mentioned, if you're looking for that super-competitive, balanced, test of skills game in a 40k Tournament, you're barking up the wrong tree. You won't find it here, that has been made painfully clear. And you know, what, that's fine for me, because I can choose not to go, or go, based upon how its structured. Sometimes I wish they'd go back the subjectively scored painting, comp, and sportsmanship, because then it wasn't just about the winning part.

Care to explain the existence of 'Ardboyz events then?

OK, to try and get this thread on to something more concrete, what are our options?


1. A ground-up rewrite by GW with exhaustive playtesting in order to address every issue and balance every unit.

While this might be on a few people's wishlist, I don't know of anyone with the ~$300M it would cost to buy GW and force them to do this.


2. Accept that the way things are is the way they'll stay. There may be improvements very slowly over time but people will never be entirely happy.

This, I'm sure would be right up the alley of people who love to go on internet forums () and moan, but isn't really satisfactory.


3. Give in completely - either change system or use GW models with whatever rules you like.

Great for you or your gaming group, but doesn't help the rest of us.


4. Identify how to make the competetive experience fairer and run events based on such changes.

Its fair to say that people who want a 'narrative wargame' or just a friendly who-cares knockabout have few(er) issues with 40k. Can we do anything to help improve the tounament scene?


5. Something else?

Is there another option I haven't considered?




Jervis always says its 'our game' as hobbyists and enthusiasts, so can we put this to the test?
Can we make it better ourselves - because it doesn't look like GW will do it for us.

@Cruentus: I went to the Chicago GT with this in mind. I took the best looking army I could and didn't bother about the winning and losing. I had a great time, and didn't feel the stress that comes with wanting to win all your games, so I was able to relax and enjoy it more.

That said, there are serious game balance issues in 40k, and there is no reason for it except sheer and utter laziness on the part of the rules team.

I'm willing to recognize a company's strengths as well as their weaknesses. The team that ran the GT was top-notch. They had excellent refs, excellent paint judges who were willing to discuss scores with people who asked (this is important to me). The event ran very smoothly. GW makes some amazing looking miniatures. This is one of their strengths. They write excellent background material (probably why so many of us are still interested). Their customer service is excellent. Since they canceled their bitz service, I've had them mail me complete replacement boxes for product with a missing piece - not even asking me to send them back the incorrect package.

And yet, there is this "we would ruin the game if we made balanced rules" mentality from Jervis.

Never mind the fact that many other companies have made games that play well as beer&peanut games and scale well into tournament games. Clearly, this can be done.

The Eurogames do it well. Settlers of Catan is a great game for playing over a few beers, yet manages to hold balanced tournaments. Puerto Rico is a game my wife and her friends enjoy, and yet it's the game used in the finals of the Board Game Championships.

CCGs do it well. M:TG is a game that I play at lunch with some of my coworkers in the office, who have never even seen a rulebook. It's intuitive enough that newbies can enjoy it without spending too much time learning intricacies. And yet, they have such well-defined rules and balanced gameplay that WotC manages to run the biggest gaming circuit of any gamer event. (I'm not including more traditional games like poker or chess here).

Video games do it. First-person shooters have a huge casual following, but scale into well-defined, well-balanced tournaments, where pro (or semi-pro) teams get sponsors and compete for big dollars.

Making a good game doesn't mean that the game no longer works for the casual gamer. Making a bad game means that the game really doesn't work for the serious gamer.

Making these changes really doesn't cost the casual gamer anything, and, if anything, it means that they get a better game out of it too. After all, if you're picking your army based on models you like, wouldn't you feel better about running a penitent engine if its point cost was more reasonably in-line with its game effect?

The message I took away from Jervis's comments wasn't that making tournament capable rules would spoil the game, so much as that GW couldn't be bothered to put in the effort.

This "narrative gaming" concept is just an excuse for not taking the trouble to write balanced codexes. It's just easier to think up fun ideas and not worry about them balancing.

In what way would players be prevented from having "narrative games" just because the codexes were balanced?

I would like to meet some of the players who make of the 95% that Jervis is talking about. Tournments are the driving force of 40k and Fantasy here in the US. The casual gamer is a dying breed and are hard to find.

Even in casual games people play tourney style. A casual game is just practice for the next tourney. I rarely seen anyone pull out there "non-tourney" list. People all play the same armies all the time.

My local gaming club has this posted on there website for people who come out to our game nights.

"We make up some of the best tournament players in the US and probably the world. Do you have what it takes? Do ya?"

and

"Show up, bring your best and plan to get your arse handed to you every now and then. Deal out your beat downs with grace and expect the same done to you."

There are also other local clubs who are very much the same way.

They have league nights just for tuning there armies.

It is all about "Punching In" and "Bringing your"A" Game"

You will get mocked and ridiculed for sloppy play, poor play, and bad army lists.

Comp and Sportsmanship are considered handicaps for weak players who can't bring it.

"If you don't play to win, don't bother coming." is a common sentintment.

"If you don't play to win, don't bother coming." is a common sentintment.

Wow. I'm glad I don't play with your group, Eli. I can't ever imagine getting that hyper-competitive over a game of freaking toy soldiers...

Our "cheese test" in our local group is to swap armies and play a second game. If you find you're not having much fun as you get gunned down by your own list, that can sometimes be a pretty potent agent for change. It'd be interesting to imagine a competition where you had to switch and use your opponent's army for a second game - you'd sure know if you won both games who the better strategist was, eh?

Commissar Molotov wrote:

"If you don't play to win, don't bother coming." is a common sentintment.

Wow. I'm glad I don't play with your group, Eli. I can't ever imagine getting that hyper-competitive over a game of freaking toy soldiers...

Our "cheese test" in our local group is to swap armies and play a second game. If you find you're not having much fun as you get gunned down by your own list, that can sometimes be a pretty potent agent for change. It'd be interesting to imagine a competition where you had to switch and use your opponent's army for a second game - you'd sure know if you won both games who the better strategist was, eh?

Ironically I don't really play with them either. I got burned out on competitve play a while ago, I was never that good anyway.


I am more interested in scenario and campaign games.

Evil Eli wrote:


I am more interested in scenario and campaign games.

Which is good, because GW is just cramming cool casual play materials down our throats. Campaign packs, interesting scenarios, perhaps even variants on the game like Kill team and Combat patrol. Oh wait.... They've cut all that stuff out completely.

I think we're looking at this from the wrong perspective. GW doesn't just hold tournament gamers in disdain, it's really pretty apathetic bout the people that play it's games at all. It's Ideal customer is a person who buys every model they make, paints them, and then buys more. To their credit, the fifth edition rules are much tighter than before, and the gap between codices is far less than it was even four years ago. On the other hand, there is very little support (outside of Apacolypse) for 40k gaming. Look at White Dwarf: Fantasy gets scenarios, mini campaigns, alternate rules, all kinds of stuff. LotR gets all kinds of rules, units, etc. 40k gets.... very little.

I'm not sure GW needs tougher play testing, although it wouldn't help. I think it just needs a common sense voice on the development team to point out the stuff that will get abused like a fiend.

Polonius wrote:
Which is good, because GW is just cramming cool casual play materials down our throats. Campaign packs, interesting scenarios, perhaps even variants on the game like Kill team and Combat patrol. Oh wait.... They've cut all that stuff out completely.

I think we're looking at this from the wrong perspective. GW doesn't just hold tournament gamers in disdain, it's really pretty apathetic bout the people that play it's games at all. It's Ideal customer is a person who buys every model they make, paints them, and then buys more. To their credit, the fifth edition rules are much tighter than before, and the gap between codices is far less than it was even four years ago. On the other hand, there is very little support (outside of Apacolypse) for 40k gaming. Look at White Dwarf: Fantasy gets scenarios, mini campaigns, alternate rules, all kinds of stuff. LotR gets all kinds of rules, units, etc. 40k gets.... very little.

I'm not sure GW needs tougher play testing, although it wouldn't help. I think it just needs a common sense voice on the development team to point out the stuff that will get abused like a fiend.

Wow, I mean, how do you keep saying such interesting stuff?

Ok, as a returning player after many years away who can remember just how unbalanced things used to be, firstly yes, there's a big problem and it's called releasing codices over many years written by people with different visions of the game. How about the gaming organisers and folks like Yakface, who write the FAQs, create a council, declare themselves 'official' and set to work on refining competition level rulesets? Surely GW would be glad to see some folks step up and take this on. If many of you are feeling GW aren't producing the level of refinement in the ruleset you want to see, take it further and organise yourselves to a national (or international) council that can have enough sway and support in the circuits to ensure your rules are used.

Let the company make the basic rules, let the enthusiasts refine it to contest level fairness.

Just a suggestion mind...

Polonius wrote:
I'm not sure GW needs tougher play testing, although it wouldn't help. I think it just needs a common sense voice on the development team to point out the stuff that will get abused like a fiend.

I think it's the opposite. They have a 'common sense' approach. It's "common sense" that no one would actually take 45 lootas. It's "common sense" than no one would make all their carnifexes shooty.

What they need is real process for testing. I started my chat with Jervis by asking how they tested, because, as a professional engineer, it's something that interests me. And, what he said was that they just play games with what they've got in the studio.

This, speaking as an engineer, fails. What does it tell you? If you lost, do you have any idea what the culprit was? If you won, was it because something was out of whack, or was it because the dice worked in your favour?

Define a process. Say that, for any codex entry, you have to play at least three games with that entry maxxed out. Have both players report if the game seemed fair, or unfair. Are 45 lootas going to make it past that test? No, the opponent is going to say that's unfair. What about 9 penitent engines? Is that going to make it through the test, or is the person playing with the penitents going to report that they got their ass handed to them each time they played.

That's process. That's unit testing. That's focused testing on each element in a codex, in an organized fashion, in a systematic fashion.

Taking a handful of models and playing a game isn't.

Here's another idea for play-testing. For any set of dice rolls over, say, 4 dice, either player may claim "average". In this case, you take as successes what would be an average result on the set of rolls. (Meaning, if I have marines taking 9 bolter shots, either I, or my opponent can claim 'average', and I get 6 hits without rolling dice.) While this doesn't make for fun games, it normalizes the effect of randomization, which should yield better testing results.

I'm not saying completely discount the 'play a few games with the models' approach, but I think that having a process that defines specific tests that need to pass before a unit makes it into a codex would help catch a lot of these problems.

A friend of mine has played Orks since he got into the game back in the early 90's, and in that time has only lost one tournament game. A large part of his tournament playing was with the last "weak" edition of the Ork codex and he regularly beat people using power build armies that they had taken up to 2nd place with in GT's.
Before the current Ork codex, a lot of the people on these boards were saying that no one could ever win a tournament with the Orks.
One thing I've learned watching his games is if the person has the talent, they could win with just about any codex most people think of as garbage, and that no "unbeatable" army is really unbeatable.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ok, as a returning player after many years away who can remember just how unbalanced things used to be, firstly yes, there's a big problem and it's called releasing codices over many years written by people with different visions of the game. How about the gaming organisers and folks like Yakface, who write the FAQs, create a council, declare themselves 'official' and set to work on refining competition level rulesets? Surely GW would be glad to see some folks step up and take this on. If many of you are feeling GW aren't producing the level of refinement in the ruleset you want to see, take it further and organise yourselves to a national (or international) council that can have enough sway and support in the circuits to ensure your rules are used.

Let the company make the basic rules, let the enthusiasts refine it to contest level fairness.

Just a suggestion mind...

thats no a bad idea at all, however places like bell of lost souls, dakka, heresy online, and my others have all released different FAQ of their own and in bell of lost souls case, entire campaign and codecies! BOLS is where I go to find new things do add to the hobby when i want something to convert or something new and fun to do.

if all the majore online groups got togethor and created an FAQ that was published on each site, I'm sure that after a while it woule just become what FLGS's accepted as the norm because it is so easily acessible.

however its deciding who should be in this council that is the problem, there are so many differrent views on the game, and so man people to put in that position that it would be hard to find the right candidate's.

I really like this idea i'm going to look into it. 40kradio.com is doing a live show this friday, if anyone gets through ask them about this!

@ Redbeard: I think you're on the right track, but you're misunderstanding what I meant by common sense. I think the first thing a common sense player would ask upon seeing any entry is "what is this like if maxed out?"

Saying "nobody would take 45 lootas" isn't common sense, it's ignoring everything history has taught us about gamers. It's flat out wrong at worst, wishful thinking at best.

There hasn't been a broken or abusive list in the last decade that didn't rely on multiple identical units. Awareness of that fact can help weed out these problems before hand. That's what I mean by common sense.

wash-away wrote:
if all the majore online groups got togethor and created an FAQ that was published on each site, I'm sure that after a while it woule just become what FLGS's accepted as the norm because it is so easily acessible.

however its deciding who should be in this council that is the problem, there are so many differrent views on the game, and so man people to put in that position that it would be hard to find the right candidate's.

Remember how the INAT FAQ was castigated?

Steve Jackson (the Texan one) who is a highly regarded game designer, wrote an article on game design.

In this he said that it was essential that players who were not the designers of the game should test the rules because they would try all the extreme scenarios, since they did not know any better.

The specific example he gave hypothetically was an ACW ruleset that let uphill charges into entrenched artillery and infantry succeed easily.

His point was that the rule writer, being an ACW expert, would know this tactic would never work so he would never try it during testing and would fail to find the flaw.

This double failure is exactly what GW have been doing, and their explanation is not that they screwed up the rules and testing, it is that their customers have f*cked up on playing.

For the umpteenth time, I would like a non-competition player to explain why having a rule saying you can't have 45 Lootaz is worse than not having a rule saying you can't have 45 Lootaz (or whatever is beardy cheeze spam build of the month.) [/rhetorical]

As I am a non-competition player myself, I will take the liberty of answering.

It isn't, it's better.

It's much more fun to blame people's personalities, though, isn't it?

HI all.
As reguards to a 40k tournament rule set.I assume this would need to have provable levels of (im)ballance.
PV to be an accurate reflection of in game effectivness.
And strategic placement and tactical worth to be assesed and adressed AFTER accurate PV allocation.AND DO NOT ALTER PV !!(Eg limit numbers of units -unit sizes- combos etc.)

In this respect the AP and AV dammage allocation systems would need to be replaced. As they do not give graduated proportional results but, bi-conditional effects with fixed results based on situational events.

Also the army level IGO-UGO game turn may be seen as too biased to first turn advantage.

And random movment rates my preclude a lot of tactical planning.

In fact I can not think of anything in the 40k rule set that would be the most efficient method of producing a wargame suitable for ballanced competative play.

Is a Napoleonic based rule set the best basis for a futuristic war setting?
I think not.

Epic , (Space Marine and Armageddon,) give far better representations of 40k warfare IMO.

Do you think a new rule set based on modern rule sets , would be a better option than a mutated WH clone?

Could we -should we dabble in trying to develop a new 40k rule set for tournament?

TTFN
Lanrak

The problem there, Lanrak, is you're not talking about coming up with something for tournaments - you're talking about rewriting 40k from scratch using a whole host of new concepts.

As I've said twice now in this thread, its not practical!

We can improve tournaments in any number of ways to ensure that games are more tactical and less reliant on 'power builds'.

You do this with mission design, terrain design, and where necessary list restrictions/options (if people are interested I'll happily post a full list of every option I can think of).

You do NOT need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start from scratch - at the end of the day if I go to a 40k tourney, its because I want to play 40k (a game I know and enjoy) not some souped up sci-fi version of ASL...

BOLS put out an interesting article about possible tournament rules. they suggest somehting along the lines of not being able to take any duplicate entries. This means of course that you could still take 6 carnifexes they would just have to be kitted out differnently. So you could not take 45 lootas but instead, 15, 14, 13. this wouldnt solve the problem but it might at least make army lists look less copy and paste.

One idea....

KP's.....don't like them to points so much, but link them to an abstract value.

For example, basic Grunts. Always loads of them. They give - 1 Kill Point.

Character - 1 each (simply because a single character can be easy enough to kill.

Elites and Retinues - 2 Killpoints. Losing these guys is a blow to the enemy command. Also means going after a character reaps rewards, even when in a retinue.

Fast Attack - 2 Killpoints. Again, as an asset, these guys are valuable for recon, disruption, sabotage etc.

Heavy Support - 3 Kill Points. An army that loses it's HS will soon find situations it struggles with.

Just adopt something like that for Tournaments.

Ideas for list restriction/options:
You could use one or more of these in combination if you wish.

1. No more than 1500 pts at tournaments (its not impossible to power-build, but it is harder).

2. Allow a 500 pt 'sideboard' (each player would have a 1000pt core force and 2x 500pt add-ons, of which he would only be allowed to pick one. You could dice off to see who picks first, make players chose in secret, or make the player with the better record at that point in the tourney pick first as a form of handicap).

3. Insist that players have selected one elite choice, one fast attack and one heavy support before they can pick a second of any them (similarly two of each before you are allowed a third)

Bodichi wrote:BOLS put out an interesting article about possible tournament rules. they suggest somehting along the lines of not being able to take any duplicate entries. This means of course that you could still take 6 carnifexes they would just have to be kitted out differnently. So you could not take 45 lootas but instead, 15, 14, 13. this wouldnt solve the problem but it might at least make army lists look less copy and paste.

There's a much simpler way to limit spamming. Just change the Force Organizational Chart used in tournaments. For example:

HQ - 1 Required
Elites - 2 Maximum
Troops - 2 Required, 6 Maximum
Fast Attack - 2 Maximum
Heavy Support - 2 Maximum

Which of course (types in boilerplate) helps some armies and hurts others.

HI Chimera_Calvin.
You can fiddle with force restrictions and comp score all you like.
UNLESS PV are allocated accuratley to reflect comparative in game effectivness, you will never be able to get any sort of ballance aproaching the high level of balance required at the 'competative mind set' tournament.


If 1500pts is actualy anywhere between 1300pts, and 1700pts depending on the forces used.How can you say limiting the most powerful build a bit will make the game suitable for competative play?

I do not want to emulate the over complicated snoozathon of ASL thanks.(OR Newbury rules for Napoleonics either!I want to get through a game in less than a week! )

A string of 'kewl ideas' thrown together into a clone of a Napoleonic based rule set, to arrive at a 'Fun dice rolling game for ages 12 and up!' IS NOT SUITABLE for serious competative play.

If you want a rule set optimised for ballanced competative play, it HAS to be developed as such.
It is possible to get wider varietey and better interaction than current 40k provides , with much SIMPLER rules set.
But that wouldnt let GW pimp thier latest minature releases.(have you seen the latest SM codex, ).
And GW devs HAVE to do that, (unfortunatley.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Frazzled wrote:Which of course (types in boilerplate) helps some armies and hurts others.

Like who? I can't think of any army that really "needs" that third heavy support or elites choice to be competitive.

Balancing a game is very very difficult and cannot be done with any sort of sweeping change like limiting force org slots or duplicates across the board.

Really the point of the thread is that there is one party capable of pushing 40k into a balanced competitive direction, that's GW and they are not interested.

And Doc your suggestion helps any army that has strong troop and HQ selection while typically neglecting elite, fast, and heavy. Examples include Ork horde, twin lash + plague marine chaos. While hurting any army that tends to fall back on elite, heavy, fast options in lieu of weaker or very general troop selections. Examples here are Tau, marines, IG, eldar, nids, dark eldar.

Moz wrote:Doc your suggestion helps any army that has strong troop and HQ selection while typically neglecting elite, fast, and heavy. Examples include Ork horde, twin lash + plague marine chaos. While hurting any army that tends to fall back on elite, heavy, fast options in lieu of weaker or very general troop selections. Examples here are Tau, marines, IG, eldar, nids, dark eldar.

Nah, I don't buy it.

I play all those armies, and none of them need that third heavy support or elite choice to be competative. In fact, it is in that third choice that you always find the things people complain about.

Please define how Tau, IG, and Carnifexes, are not aided by a 3rd HS support choice? For your statement to be cogent all codexes would have to have troops that had identical net values vs. cost. Are you proferring that that is the case?

The problem with 40K for competitive play is not the core rules, it is the points values and special rules in the codexes.

Kilkrazy wrote:

This double failure is exactly what GW have been doing, and their explanation is not that they screwed up the rules and testing, it is that their customers have f*cked up on playing.

For the umpteenth time, I would like a non-competition player to explain why having a rule saying you can't have 45 Lootaz is worse than not having a rule saying you can't have 45 Lootaz (or whatever is beardy cheeze spam build of the month.) [/rhetorical]

As I am a non-competition player myself, I will take the liberty of answering.

It isn't, it's better.

GW seems to have some sort of weird honor system that precludes them from maxing out the best units. They even mention in the new DA FAQ that opponents are honor-bound not to give themselves advantages over their opponents.

I thought the whole point was to get an advantage so you could try to win the game. Who on earth plays for the draw, or likes getting their behind kicked in?

Anyways, is this an online article? I'd like to read it myself.

I can't remember where I read the article. It was in a magazine a long time ago. Possibly it may be available online since SJG is still going strong.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

GW seems to have some sort of weird honor system that precludes them from maxing out the best units. They even mention in the new DA FAQ that opponents are honor-bound not to give themselves advantages over their opponents.

Yes, I've noticed that as well. I wonder if it's a British thing or something.

the uk events were full of 9 obilts and 4 heavy choices when iron warriors were king.

To generalise, it's a British thing that we don't see the point of playing a game when you're bound to win.

Where's the fun in it?

That doesn't absolve GW from writing rubbish codexes though.

Kilkrazy wrote:To generalise, it's a British thing that we don't see the point of playing a game when you're bound to win.

Where's the fun in it?

That doesn't absolve GW from writing rubbish codexes though.

What he said. Just you wait, in the next edition there'll be a magic item that forces your opponent to make you tea.

Kilkrazy wrote:To generalise, it's a British thing that we don't see the point of playing a game when you're bound to win.

Where's the fun in it?

That doesn't absolve GW from writing rubbish codexes though.

I think I get it.

That's why GW can't fathom why we Americans are always asking them to be a referee.

open_sketchbook wrote:I consider myself pretty hardcore as a warhammer player. I've been playing since around my tenth birthday, I've played all the major Warhammer games and all the specialist games, I've got two armies over three thousand points right now. I don't really consider tournaments a part of my hobby, nor do the vast majority of my friends. I've played all of three or four, and the experience left a sour taste in my mouth. Competive, rude and arrogent players obsessing over minute details and caring only about the hot builds is frankly a bit pathetic. It's a game. It's supposed to be enjoyed. I know I'm not one of that sort of gaming in the first place, as despite the obvious tactical drawbacks, I rank my troops up on the field because it looks awesome, and I play mechanized space marines because it's really really fun, but, damn.

I still win a lot of games. I lose a lot too. And you know what? I really, really enjoy myself. So do the people I play with, so do the people watching the game.

Then, I watch tourney guys freak out over each new list, whine every single time a new army or edition comes out, constantly threaten to 'leave the hobby' if things don't go their way, then have the nerve, the fracking nerve, to tell me I play the game wrong, and that I'm not a "true fan".

We play a game decided by random number cubes. Tactics and strategy and uber-lists and whatever take you as far as the table edge and turn one, and after that it's in the hands of fate and nobody else. Trying to pack your mathematically optimized lists and 'winning is everything' mentality into the game is maybe the reason you don't enjoy it, far beyond and above any broken lists and cheap builds. Munchkin play is condemned in role-playing games, but power gaming is seen as some sort of ultimate goal in GW games for some reason. Really, it's just sad. Win, lose, whatever, enjoying yourself is the most important part. If Orks are always going to win, FINE. Play Orks if you NEED to win, and know you're going to have to switch when the new hot crap is out. Get frustrated? Maybe you're just in the wrong damn hobby.

thats exactly my take on it. theres no reason to get THAT worked up over it.i remember once i played a small tournament made up by a group of friends. i was doing well until i hit a match with my renegades that i had to siege a SM bunker. at the time we didnt all think about the fact that the defenders should have less points because they were behind walls and bunkers. i got my ass handed to me good in that game. i lost the tourny but i didnt care it was really fun. even AFTER we thought "hey i should of had more to work with" i wasnt mad. the next time we knew.
i enjoy modeling the minis as much as playing. i dont really care if i win, lose, or slaughter. as long as im playing im enjoying it

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with 40K for competitive play is not the core rules, it is the points values and special rules in the codexes.

Well, I can think of a couple core rules that really hurt competitive play (kill points in particular).

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Moz wrote:Doc your suggestion helps any army that has strong troop and HQ selection while typically neglecting elite, fast, and heavy. Examples include Ork horde, twin lash + plague marine chaos. While hurting any army that tends to fall back on elite, heavy, fast options in lieu of weaker or very general troop selections. Examples here are Tau, marines, IG, eldar, nids, dark eldar.

Nah, I don't buy it.

I play all those armies, and none of them need that third heavy support or elite choice to be competative. In fact, it is in that third choice that you always find the things people complain about.

Personally, I think a Tau army that has to rely mostly on its troops without as much Heavy support is at a much greater relative disadvantage than an Ork army without any heavy support with tons of troops. Certain armies have absolutely amazing troops (Orks, CSM) others have very mediocre troosp (Tau, IG)

Vaktathi wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Moz wrote:Doc your suggestion helps any army that has strong troop and HQ selection while typically neglecting elite, fast, and heavy. Examples include Ork horde, twin lash + plague marine chaos. While hurting any army that tends to fall back on elite, heavy, fast options in lieu of weaker or very general troop selections. Examples here are Tau, marines, IG, eldar, nids, dark eldar.

Nah, I don't buy it.

I play all those armies, and none of them need that third heavy support or elite choice to be competative. In fact, it is in that third choice that you always find the things people complain about.

Personally, I think a Tau army that has to rely mostly on its troops without as much Heavy support is at a much greater relative disadvantage than an Ork army without any heavy support with tons of troops. Certain armies have absolutely amazing troops (Orks, CSM) others have very mediocre troosp (Tau, IG)

And having two hammerheads instead of three is no big deal. Heck, I only field 2 hammerheads at 1750 anyway.

I love this thread.
GW: "Let's start a low class racing circuit. Hondas, stationwagons, your mom's sunday grocery car. But let's have a Formula 1 racing car too. But, tell the Formula 1 drivers that, on their honor, they can't go over 70 mph."

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Moz wrote:Doc your suggestion helps any army that has strong troop and HQ selection while typically neglecting elite, fast, and heavy. Examples include Ork horde, twin lash + plague marine chaos. While hurting any army that tends to fall back on elite, heavy, fast options in lieu of weaker or very general troop selections. Examples here are Tau, marines, IG, eldar, nids, dark eldar.

Nah, I don't buy it.

I play all those armies, and none of them need that third heavy support or elite choice to be competative. In fact, it is in that third choice that you always find the things people complain about.

Personally, I think a Tau army that has to rely mostly on its troops without as much Heavy support is at a much greater relative disadvantage than an Ork army without any heavy support with tons of troops. Certain armies have absolutely amazing troops (Orks, CSM) others have very mediocre troosp (Tau, IG)

And having two hammerheads instead of three is no big deal. Heck, I only field 2 hammerheads at 1750 anyway.

Doc. You cannot be this dense. Orks and marines have heavy weapons in troop squads. Tau do not. Simple as that.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with 40K for competitive play is not the core rules, it is the points values and special rules in the codexes.

Well, I can think of a couple core rules that really hurt competitive play (kill points in particular).

Kill points are a badly thought out rule, no doubt.

If you're thinking of Tau's gundrone problem, that can easily be fixed by a new codex or even just an FAQ that clarifies gundrones do not count for kill points.

Hi agian.
If you play 40k as a way to produce a kewl 40k war film with your friends, It works ok!(And can be alot of fun!)
In fact it always did work better as a story telling with 3D props venture.

However as times and the target demoghraphic changes , GW and the devs didnt re-inforce their games unsuitability for competative play.As this would hurt sales.(All the 'game supliment' element was dropped from WD.)

GW actualy removed most of the stuff that gave 40k its RPG feel,to try to get better balance.(Actualy to increrase minature count IMO.)

And as the Codex books have PV and force composition , its not hard to see why gamers think 40k SHOULD be suited to competative play.

At least in 5th ed rule book Alessio (SP) actualy states that 40k isnt geared to competative play.

However I am appauled that the GW devs break the golden rule of game development, 'if you have not played it, dont put it in the book !'

If in a Codex they just put the number of units they ACTUALY play tested.Eg if they only ever played games with ONE Lootas mob then put (0-1) next to the entry.At least then gamers will know that taking 3 lootas mobs might be unballancing!

We could then use this as a guide for more competative games knowing what the devs actualy play tested!

The 40k rule set is just not written to be able to easily arrive at fixed comparative values .(I have a susspicion this is done on purpose, so the devs can argue oppinoins and not have to defend 'poor' PV allocation.)

EG AV mechanic, All hits of a strenght that beat the AV values of the vehicle have the same chance of causing the same dammage.
If you beat the AV by 1 or 10 the effects are the same .

The AP system means that the effectivness of weapons and armour are totaly dependant on whats on the table .
Even taking averages the efficiency jumps from AS to AS are non-lineir.(Appx 15% to 80 % efficiency jumps!)

Other rule sets use ther simple system of deducting the Armour value/resistance to damage, from the strenght of hit to determine damage to the target.

EG strenght of hit - armour value = result on target.
So a armour value 1 reduces the effects of ALL hits by 1.An armour value of 4 reduces the effect of all hits by 4.So all armour values give graduated even proportional results vs all weapons.

Also most games developed for compatative play use the same stat line across ALL units.So all units can be compared directly .
(Avoid the MC vs vehicle disparity for example.)

EG.
Movment (and type )
Armour (on seperate facings for large targets.)
Hit points.(wounds -structure points -life points- whatever you want to call them, how much damage the unit can take.)
(Size.)
(Awarness.)
Moral
(Command)
Weapon ranges.
Weapon effects

The stats in () are optional to allow for 'fog of war' and 'command and control' elements into the game.
Alot of newer games (post 1990) use unit cards to keep all the individual units game info close to hand, in a gamer friendly way.
(AT 43 does this realy well IMO.)

Anyhow, is you want a wargame suited to ballanced competative play , dont look to GW for an answer.

TTFN
Lanrak.

fitzeh wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:To generalise, it's a British thing that we don't see the point of playing a game when you're bound to win.

Where's the fun in it?

That doesn't absolve GW from writing rubbish codexes though.

What he said. Just you wait, in the next edition there'll be a magic item that forces your opponent to make you tea.

Now that is the first sensible thing I've read.

And to the rest of you, if it really, really matters that much, why bother playing in the first place? There is every chance you won't win, no matter which list you chose. And I love the intimation that the people who fielded the winning armies only won because they fielded the winning armies. There is a certain circular logic to that I simply have to admire for it's sheer mind boggling inanity.

Have you stopped for even one second to consider that the people who won might just have deserved it, and done so through tactical and strategic thought? Is their list really that beardy, who is to say? Oh, of course, the people with an inflated opinion of themselves who don't win, ergo, the only logical conclusion is that the winner is a) Cheesey) b) Cheated c) Is in with the Refs.... Choose as many of those as you like, I think all absolve you of having put a foot wrong. I mean, where would the world be if people admitted their shortcomings?

The whole point of these games, besides making the manufacturer money of course, is to allow the players to while away some hours doing something the enjoy. Me? I enjoy knocking up a random army list that fits into my idea of how the army should look. I then collect it, paint it, and field it. From then on, I prefer the onus to be on me to win with tactics rather than special rules and obvious combos. But some people prefer Tournaments. Hardly my cup of tea, but each to their own in the end.

HOWEVER. If you do like going to Tournaments, surely, surely you must know that progressive generations of arseholes have degraded it from something quite good fun to a Mathammer arsefest of boring lists etc. Surely? When you are paying you £/$X entry, you must be aware you are entering a competitive environment? I am, thats why I steer clear of them and play at home and in store only. But surely that must be your aim, to get in some genuinely competitive games? SO WHY COME ON HERE AND WHINGE WHEN YOU GET YOUR ARSE HANDED TO YOU? It's like me getting into the ring with a Pro-Boxer, and complaining when I awake from my persistant vegetative state months or years later that it wasn't fair, and he only won because he was fitter, stronger, heavier and lot more experienced than me. If he hadn't been those, I'd have one, and clearly that is HIS fault....

Grow up guys, and learn to take your licks. Play with the big boys, lose like a big boy.

Doctor Thunder wrote:I can't think of any army that really "needs" that third heavy support or elites choice to be competitive.

*cough*IMPERIAL GUARD*cough*

Ditto'd John. I'd posit Tau as well. And whats an eldar list without aspects?

Ulthwe?

Targets?

Frazzled wrote:whats an eldar list without aspects?

Um, Tau?

Tau with French accents

"Go away or we will taunt you a second time."

In many ways, I think that 40k would work better if it was played by small groups of allied players facing a 'GM'-type opponent whose army is equal to the sum of the allied forces.

GW has a decent rule set, but when I sit back and look at its game and how much 'intent and interpretation' is supposed to factor in, it seems much more like a Dungeons and Dragons/unite to kill Big Bad Evil Guy than the head to head strategy shooter that it's marketed as.

But if you look at Forgeworld Books, and earlier GW Material, this is exactly what it's about.

Tournaments came later, and were laid to fill demand, not the other way around. Sure, you can play it competitively, but with the rich background you are missing on much of the joy of the game.

Why can't you all just push for some WD published tournament house rules? Surely GW would consider that a fair compromise. And its a lot more sensible than just moaning and calling jervis johnson this that and the other.

Much less fun though.

Tournament rules have been suggested before.

I think GW's position (if Jervis's statement is in any indicative of a company line) is that they prefer to serve the ever renewed hordes of 13-year old boys rather than the grizzled vets.

Hum. I fancy another shortbread finger and THE PACKET IS EMPTY!!!

HI all.
Here is the REAL reason GW WILL NEVER produce tournament rule sets ....

IF you develop a rule set suitable for balanced competative play, you HAVE to have a provable level of imballance.
And most game systems with tournament rules have the force construction template and points value allocation calculations clearly displayed at the back of the rule book.
(Armies of Arcana is agood example of this.)

So you can make up any force you want to (within the confines of the force construction template,) and KNOW it will be ballanced with ANY force of the same PV.

And there is the reason !GW could not sell Codexes and Army books because gamers could devise and accuratley cost ANY army they wanted to.(And even use non GW -Citadel minatures!)

And without the Codexes and Army books GW belive they would lose 'control' over thier customers purchasing trends, and could not sell as many minatures.

TTFN
Lanrak.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Then the changes shouldnt be made to points, its not the only way you can adapt the rules you know.

How about disallowing certain units from tournaments. You do know that a lot of the models gw have simply have rules so that they can sell the model, if they made models purely based on game balance there would hardly be any.

Lanrak wrote:HI all.
Here is the REAL reason GW WILL NEVER produce tournament rule sets ....

IF you develop a rule set suitable for balanced competative play, you HAVE to have a provable level of imballance.
And most game systems with tournament rules have the force construction template and points value allocation calculations clearly displayed at the back of the rule book.
(Armies of Arcana is agood example of this.)

So you can make up any force you want to (within the confines of the force construction template,) and KNOW it will be ballanced with ANY force of the same PV.

And there is the reason !GW could not sell Codexes and Army books because gamers could devise and accuratley cost ANY army they wanted to.(And even use non GW -Citadel minatures!)

And without the Codexes and Army books GW belive they would lose 'control' over thier customers purchasing trends, and could not sell as many minatures.

TTFN
Lanrak.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Or it could just be because they dislike all the hate and rudeness created by the GTs, I made the mistake once about going to a tournament, I went with a simple list with no expectation to win, just to enjoy a fun game and learn how to improve, fielding an army of Necrons I managed to take out a Rus, I sead " Woo! Finally got one" laughing in a joking manner and all I got in return was "Well its to be expected when playing a cheap list like necrons!"

Very simply, tournaments are not what the game was made for, and it clearly shows that when you come here and cry because it didn't go your way or you don't like Rule X because it makes things less fair and it would require you to re-make the cheese crap list you made last year.

Ah, yes, this thread.

What I don't see is why they can't right a tight ruleset with balanced Codices. Jervis' comments on their testing process, or lack thereof, are frightening in that they don't seem to care if their game works or not.

Put it this way:

Unbalanced, untested ruleset = Tournament gamers unhappy, casual gamers don't care.
Balanced, tested ruleset = Tournament gamers happy, casual gamers don't care.

It's obvious which one is a better outcome because having balanced and well-tested rules and catering to casual gamers aren't mutually exclusive goals (despite the myth that they are perpetuated by so many here).

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ah, yes, this thread.

What I don't see is why they can't right a tight ruleset with balanced Codices. Jervis' comments on their testing process, or lack thereof, are frightening in that they don't seem to care if their game works or not.

Put it this way:

Unbalanced, untested ruleset = Tournament gamers unhappy, casual gamers don't care.
Balanced, tested ruleset = Tournament gamers happy, casual gamers don't care.

It's obvious which one is a better outcome because having balanced and well-tested rules and catering to casual gamers aren't mutually exclusive goals (despite the myth that they are perpetuated by so many here).

BYE

I do agree they need to test there new rules, and I think they do test. They might not test every possible out come to an army list, but lets face it, if they did that we would never get a new codex. Also I think they might test them on other codex there working on at the time so the future game is better balanced rather then the past games.

Just because Jervs seas they don't do extensive play testing doesn't make it true, he could just be trying to hide it so people stop fishing for leeks so much.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ah, yes, this thread.

What I don't see is why they can't right a tight ruleset with balanced Codices. Jervis' comments on their testing process, or lack thereof, are frightening in that they don't seem to care if their game works or not.

Put it this way:

Unbalanced, untested ruleset = Tournament gamers unhappy, casual gamers don't care.
Balanced, tested ruleset = Tournament gamers happy, casual gamers don't care.

It's obvious which one is a better outcome because having balanced and well-tested rules and catering to casual gamers aren't mutually exclusive goals (despite the myth that they are perpetuated by so many here).

BYE

Thats not true though. A balanced game means many units and models which look good or work well in a narative game, are completely useless in a balanced game.

Case in point, marines in inquisitor.

I'm not a tournament gamer but I much prefer a balanced (or at least well-written) ruleset. It makes pickup games much less aggravating and even friendly games are easier if we know there's less chance of a half hour of rules-arguing.

Balance wrote:I'm not a tournament gamer but I much prefer a balanced (or at least well-written) ruleset. It makes pickup games much less aggravating and even friendly games are easier if we know there's less chance of a half hour of rules-arguing.

I have played many friendly games, and I have never had more then one or two rule arguments. I think the most time I ever spent fussing about rules is when I first started and didn't know a lot about the game.

My friends and I simply change the rules as we see fit. If there is something that we find that is outrageously unbalanced, we spend about an hour figuring out how to change it so that it doesn't mess with the rest of the game. It may sound like a pain in the arse, but we've made some really cool rules that make the game more fun, and more balanced.

Haven't actually come up with any problems with the new rules so far. But we are thinking about bringing back the 6 on a glance= bOOM

whatwhat wrote:Thats not true though. A balanced game means many units and models which look good or work well in a narative game, are completely useless in a balanced game.

Come again?

If the game was balanced there wouldn't be any useless units.

JokerGod wrote:I do agree they need to test there new rules, and I think they do test.

You are, of course, correct here. They do test, but their tests are, by their own admission, cursory at best. What's worse is that their design phylosophy is flawed right from the beginning - they don't test extreme builds because they don't care about them. And then when people complain, Jervis tells us that tournament goers are a fringe group that they don't care about. Would you want someone like that designing your game, someone who not only doesn't care if the game is balanced but blames a group of players when the balance question is brought up.

Is it any wonder there are uber-Codices and crap Codices?

BYE