I bought CA2019 last week, but I'm only just getting round to reading it (finishing off painting a Knight Despoiler and reading a Black Library novel got in the way)...
From what I've read so far it seems to me that 8th edition has now achieved maturity with no new matched play rules since CA2018, and only a few truly new missions. The rest of CA2019 being points updates and tweaks to existing missions. Whilst I'm happy about this, I'm also nervous the that the rumours about 9th edition landing soon might be correct. I mean GW aren't going to want players like me to stop buying rules now are they?
I guess if GW were to release a new BRB in the summer of 2020 (as per the rumours) that would be okay, as long as it was compatible with my 8th edition codexes (Ultramarines/SM 2.0 and Chaos Knights released in July/August this year). If my codexes become obsolete only a year after they were released I think I would be less happy (especially as I've already had to buy the SM rules again this edition).
What are your thoughts on 8th edition's maturity and the potential for a 9th edition?
These 'rumors' seem to be circular and feeding themselves. Somebody asks if 9th is coming and suddenly it's a rumor that 9th is coming and people ask if 9th is coming.
I have thrown the hat in with 8th and I played from 3rd on.
No GW I will not purchase your allegedly mandatory rules updates nor your half arsed attempts at campaigns which give you yet more rules.
GW is addicted to rules bloat and the books they can shift with it. We are right back in 6/7th era. Allegedly 8th was meant to be streamlined for new players. Good luck with that and don't put your back out carrying all those books.
If 9th does drop it will be nothing more than a rules consolidated version of 8th which, as time has shown, will be rife with errors and have multiple FAQs released within a month of launch.
I think that 9th is inevitable but rumours aren't really a reliable measure of when it will drop.
All I know is I hope they change the rules up a lot because I'm not a huge fan of 8th.
Rule changes won\t be super dramatic though as it's pretty much quaranteed that existing codexes will be compatible which limits what you can do. Stratagems for example aren't going anywhere. CP generation might change a bit though.
We'll see. It's starting to get to the time new edition would be released though.
I think its just a few blogs fishing for 9th edition rumours which mostly ends up being just pure rumour which tend to be circular "leaks" that are more wishlists that just keep getting spread around.
Considering that GW hasn't even finished 8th edition fully (technically Sisters of Battle are not yet fully out with their retail release) and consider that GW now has the Chapter Approved every year it would seem very odd to suddenly go into launching a new edition this soon.
Not if its like the AoS 2.0 'edition.' Just a general cleanup
What are your thoughts on 8th edition's maturity and the potential for a 9th edition?
Considering CA19 just made the first real attempt at terrain rules, the edition still feels very immature.
But neither mature rules or immature rules is a flag for an edition change- all too often that's dictated by the need for sales spike, not the state of the rules. Consider how quickly 7th happened, and made a functional game system much worse. And then brought absolute ruin in the flood of secondary books.
----
Personally I don't see an edition change doing much good. CPs aside, most of the problems stem from the avalanche of special snowflake rules in the flood of codexes and supplements, not the core rules. An edition change would be relatively meaningless unless they also invalidate the last year of releases at the same time.
AoS 2.0 was much more than a clean up. Rules wise it was giving most armies actual army themed rules since the 0.5 and 1.0 were just old warscrolls in a book with some lore.
AoS "clean up" more refers to sorting out the armies themselves in terms of their final compositions and which armies and models stayed and which were let go.
I've spoken with a Warhammer Store manager that told me they had a huge reunion planned for summer 2020 with all of the European managers. He said such reunions only happened on big events like for 8th Edition, the AoS release and so on, so bets are open.
I'd love a radical change to the actual 40k rules (like the death of IGOUGO) but I wonder if they'd dare do that a couple months after Psychic Awakening. Wouldn't be the first time they sold rules valid for 3 months though so who knows ?
In any case the only GW books I buy are my army books, supplements, CA, GHB for AoS I can find the information I need online. I don't have the kind of money to buy 8 books for a few pages of content relevant to my factions for every game I play.
9th was confirmed from the same sources which told us all good leaks about PA and CA 2019 (none of the nonsense about Cult Marines gettng 2 wounds etc).
Sources said 9th will come after PA is done and PA should be done around or during June 2020.
Same sources said Marines and SoB are "9th edition Codex" by stating the following : if you have something you lose when you soup, it is a 9th edition Codex.
tneva82 wrote: Rule changes won\t be super dramatic though as it's pretty much quaranteed that existing codexes will be compatible which limits what you can do. Stratagems for example aren't going anywhere. CP generation might change a bit though.
We'll see. It's starting to get to the time new edition would be released though.
People forget how long older editions lasted. 3rd was around for like 6 years. A well-designed ruleset doesn't require constant updating. Not that 3rd was amazing but it was a well-executed reboot that simplified the game and made it accessible for new players, quite unlike 8th which had the same design goals.
Overread wrote: I think its just a few blogs fishing for 9th edition rumours which mostly ends up being just pure rumour which tend to be circular "leaks" that are more wishlists that just keep getting spread around.
Considering that GW hasn't even finished 8th edition fully (technically Sisters of Battle are not yet fully out with their retail release) and consider that GW now has the Chapter Approved every year it would seem very odd to suddenly go into launching a new edition this soon.
Complete editions are exceedingly rare for GW. So on the contrary getting close to completion is usually good sign gw will soon release new edition
And very odd? Since when is pushing "print me money" button odd for gw? seems fairly standard.
GW has shown no sign they have abandoned 20+ year old system they have which is working in making money.
To be fair, 3rd had its own set of updates, they did multiple Chapter Approved books with rules updates & FAQ and where they updated transport vehicles and rebooted the assault phase rules partway through using CA, and had a fair number of issues that really could have used some updates
tneva82 wrote: Rule changes won\t be super dramatic though as it's pretty much quaranteed that existing codexes will be compatible which limits what you can do. Stratagems for example aren't going anywhere. CP generation might change a bit though.
We'll see. It's starting to get to the time new edition would be released though.
People forget how long older editions lasted. 3rd was around for like 6 years. A well-designed ruleset doesn't require constant updating. Not that 3rd was amazing but it was a well-executed reboot that simplified the game and made it accessible for new players, quite unlike 8th which had the same design goals.
Yes. But GW has been upping the pace and 8th ed has already outlived couple editions. Unless gw winds back their system over decade back it's more likely to be short period between than long.
Overread wrote: I think its just a few blogs fishing for 9th edition rumours which mostly ends up being just pure rumour which tend to be circular "leaks" that are more wishlists that just keep getting spread around.
Considering that GW hasn't even finished 8th edition fully (technically Sisters of Battle are not yet fully out with their retail release) and consider that GW now has the Chapter Approved every year it would seem very odd to suddenly go into launching a new edition this soon.
GW has had yearly Chapter Approved & Generals Handbook (for the fantasy side) volumes in editions past - wich included new options, errata, missions, army lists, etc etc etc, modeling sections, you know all that stuff you find in 8th ed CAs - and it never prevented the release of a new edition.
You are right though in that it'd be a bit soon for a new edition. Other than the 6th ---> 7th 2 year jump anomaly, a 40k edition runs about 4-5 years. 8th only turns 3 this coming summer. And they can milk it by re-doing the books for Necrons, Tau, etc. So between summer of '21 & '22 is my guess.
Yes. But GW has been upping the pace and 8th ed has already outlived couple editions. Unless gw winds back their system over decade back it's more likely to be short period between than long.
It's outlived one edition (6th).
This summer it'll tie another (7th).
It's just that they've barraged you with so much **** these past 2.5 years that you're as tired of 8th now as you were at the end of 4th or 5th.....
Overread wrote: AoS 2.0 was much more than a clean up. Rules wise it was giving most armies actual army themed rules since the 0.5 and 1.0 were just old warscrolls in a book with some lore.
AoS "clean up" more refers to sorting out the armies themselves in terms of their final compositions and which armies and models stayed and which were let go.
No, when I say 'clean up,' I mean the core rules. The core rules didn't change all that much- what happens in the various phases of the battlerounds just got an editing pass and ridiculous nonsense about measuring from the model and worrying about horizontal spears impacting the number of inches a model can move if it turns went away.
Getting around to releasing battletomes and purging old models is a different issue. Both would have happened eventually regardless of whether AoS stayed at 1.0 or moved on to 2.0.
Similarly, if 40k does go to 9th, the problems of codexes and supplements will stick unless specifically purged by GW fiat (invalidating recent books, which will hack people off) or gradual replacement.
You are right though in that it'd be a bit soon for a new edition. Other than the 6th ---> 7th 2 year jump anomaly, a 40k edition runs about 4-5 years. 8th only turns 3 this coming summer. And they can milk it by re-doing the books for Necrons, Tau, etc. So between summer of '21 & '22 is my guess.
7th->8th, aos 1st->2nd.
And rarely multiple codexes get 2nd version inside same edition. It starts and then new edition kicks in.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, 3rd had its own set of updates, they did multiple Chapter Approved books with rules updates & FAQ and where they updated transport vehicles and rebooted the assault phase rules partway through using CA, and had a fair number of issues that really could have used some updates
Yup. We used to joke that by the end the only relevant parts of the 3rd ed rulebook remaining were the to hit and to wound tables.
A new edition is probably due this summer. I wouldn't worry though. Past Codexes will be compatible with the new edition, and the new books coming out are likely designed to work around the new edition more than this one.
Personally, I hope there never is a 9th edition. I want to see an Imperial Agents dex, a Drukari 2.0 with restored characters and model support, I want a playable plastic kroot army. I want more non-imperial Blackstone explorers with 40k and Kill Team rules. I want every faction to have a Kill Team box with a unique sculpt, which gets released as a stand alone later.
None of this will happen if we go a hard 9th.
Now the idea of a soft 9th that blends seamlessly, that I can handle; there are some dexes that really need a 2.0, and I could especially get behind this if each dex update includes getting everything updated to plastic with a few new units to boot.
If you think about it, that's pretty much where we're already at.
A hard rules overhaul doesn't make sense. The cross platform integration between games has never been what it is now. Messing with any of those systems too much too fast takes the whole network down.
And with two different ways to cost an army, three ways to play, two separate campaigns which you can choose to integrate or not, and in whichever combinations you choose, not to mention three additional scales of gameplay that use the same models... Well quite franly, you are not using the tools you've been given.
As for the IGOUGO debate, I'll say again what I always say: with Blackstone, Kill Team and Apocalypse all being Altenate Activation already, you can already get what you want, without suggesting wrecking 40k for those of us who like it BECAUSE it offers breaks in the action rather than in spite of it.
This is what I mean about using the tools you've been given.
With the right group of players, you can probably talk at least a few people into playing 40k in AA format.
For casual, narrative campaign play between friends, this game has never been better. We've certainly never had so many options.
I get that other versions of the game or other designs might be better for balanced, steamlined, accessible tournament style play. But this isn't my prefered style of play, so a system optimized for it is far less appealing than what we've already got.
Especially when you already have the tools to do what you want anyway.
I like to think that with Chapter Approved 2019 giving official points value to every single unit in the game (Forge World included) and the beginning of moving things to "Legends" I think it looks like they are setting up everything for 9th edition. Does that mean it will drop in 2020, not necessarily, but it does begin the "clean up" process of 8th to at least prep it for 9th. If they do come out with a new edition, I don't think it will change anything significant, from my understanding 7th -> 8th was a massive shift, and if they are going for a modular approach then the codices should be able to "slot in" for 9th with possible re-printing; with all the current erratas, FAQs and point changes from CH 2019 merged into them.
Personally I'd welcome a new edition. I expect it not to be a re-write of the core rules, more of an update and clean-up.
Actually, I'd prefer GW did this every year. If it were up to me, each year's Chapter Approved would include the the latest version of all the rules in the BRB cleaned up and corrected to bring them in line with the Erratas and FAQs. This way you could bring the latest CA to games instead of the CA and BRB. And the free Core Rules pdf should be re-issued twice each year with the Big FAQs and incorporate the latest updates.
Aash wrote: Personally I'd welcome a new edition. I expect it not to be a re-write of the core rules, more of an update and clean-up.
Actually, I'd prefer GW did this every year. If it were up to me, each year's Chapter Approved would include the the latest version of all the rules in the BRB cleaned up and corrected to bring them in line with the Erratas and FAQs. This way you could bring the latest CA to games instead of the CA and BRB. And the free Core Rules pdf should be re-issued twice each year with the Big FAQs and incorporate the latest updates.
Who brings the BRB to games? The only part of it that hasn't been completely superseded is the bit on Detachments. The little rules primer they hand out in every medium or larger box and Chapter Approved replace everything else.
I wouldn't mind a cleanup like AOS 2.0 did. But 40k has already spiralled out of control whereas AOS hasn't (yet) and given it's more popular I wouldn't doubt they Dona different approach. They've done it in the past already and given how the 40k team seems to design compared to the AOS team there's no telling what a 9th edition, if it happens, will entail.
Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
Draco765 wrote: Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
They also announced that they weren't going to nickel and dime players with loads of different supplements to play the game. They'll call it just a "rules update" and have some minor rules changes. We would call that a new edition (similar to 5th to 6th, 6th to 7th), but Games Workshop will disagree.
Draco765 wrote: Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
Probably not, but there is a laundry list of things they said or hinted when 8th was announced that have either been outright lies or "politician statements" that could easily be construed as not meaning what everyone thought they meant.
Draco765 wrote: Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
Probably not, but there is a laundry list of things they said or hinted when 8th was announced that have either been outright lies or "politician statements" that could easily be construed as not meaning what everyone thought they meant.
I think the Core rules of 8E are great and really do not need to change and Missions get updated in CA, so there really is no reason to go to 9E. Most of the core issues with 8E have to do with detachments and CP generation, and specifically how they interact with army building and Stratagems, which are Codex based.
Since it's unlikely that Codices will be invalidated with a new edition immediately after this edition did so, any potential 9E will do Jack for Stratagems.
UNLESS....the rework of core rules does something special with CP generation and how it interacts. I'd personally like to see Battle Forged grant 3CP EACH ROUND and detachments grant little to no CPs at all. Or maybe you only get CPs for detachments that have the Faction keywords as your WL.
Or even limiting how many CPs you can use in a player turn to like...5 or something so you cant blow your lot on 1 devastating turn
I would like to see the whole sale remaval of cp and stratagems. The introduction of AA. The release of all the datasheets online for free. The adoption of apoc like terrain rules and a move toward unit to unit interactions instead of model to unit.
Draco765 wrote: Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
Probably not, but there is a laundry list of things they said or hinted when 8th was announced that have either been outright lies or "politician statements" that could easily be construed as not meaning what everyone thought they meant.
"3 ways to play!"
No see 3 ways to play was legit. It's just that most people ignore 2 of them to focus on one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: I would like to see the whole sale remaval of cp and stratagems. The introduction of AA. The release of all the datasheets online for free. The adoption of apoc like terrain rules and a move toward unit to unit interactions instead of model to unit.
You're gonna be waiting a looooong time for that.
I agree though, CP/Stratagems have become this edition's formations/detachments, arguably worse.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched
Open
Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
LunarSol wrote: FWIW, I've been hearing rumors of 9th edition since Christmas of 2017....
And you'll keep hearing them until they are ... eventually ... correct.
And until than, every little re-print of the rulebook or battle primer with some editorial cleanup will be heralded as the verification of these rumour unshakable accuracy, to be followed the next day of rumours of the soon-to-arrive actual 9th Edition.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched
Open
Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
What are the actual differences between them?
Narrative - a set of mission.
Matched - other sets of missions and extra rules. But not points. Because the actual section on matched says you can use pl, or whatever system you and your opponent agrees on including no system. And while detachments are required for matched, they are not forbidden from narrative or open. Btw neither are points.
Open-litterally use any rules you want. Including all of matched.
Again, 3 ways to play in what actual capacity? More and more restrictive mission selection? Open encompasses all of narrative, matched, and anything else combined. So how could it possibly be a 3rd separate way to play?
LunarSol wrote: FWIW, I've been hearing rumors of 9th edition since Christmas of 2017....
And you'll keep hearing them until they are ... eventually ... correct.
And until than, every little re-print of the rulebook or battle primer with some editorial cleanup will be heralded as the verification of these rumour unshakable accuracy, to be followed the next day of rumours of the soon-to-arrive actual 9th Edition.
I think the key difference here is that this source is relatively credible in that they've predicted like 5 or 6 things completely accurately. Add to this the "massive 40k announcement" that GW has lined up at Adepticon and I think it's fair to say this isn't the usual doomsaying or random guessing.
Draco765 wrote: Am I misremembering an early announcement for 8th edition that included a little bit about this being the last "raw" edition overhaul and that they will just update the game via Chapter Approved/Supplements like PA, etc?
Likely not. But then again the GW always says to that effect for every edition. Note how GW doesn't even particularly make any mention of "8th". In rulebook page there's no mention of 8th ed. Again standard for GW. They downplay number of editions in general.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched
Open
Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
What are the actual differences between them?
Narrative - a set of mission.
Matched - other sets of missions and extra rules. But not points. Because the actual section on matched says you can use pl, or whatever system you and your opponent agrees on including no system. And while detachments are required for matched, they are not forbidden from narrative or open. Btw neither are points.
Open-litterally use any rules you want. Including all of matched.
Again, 3 ways to play in what actual capacity? More and more restrictive mission selection? Open encompasses all of narrative, matched, and anything else combined. So how could it possibly be a 3rd separate way to play?
Honestly the whole "3 ways to play" is purely marketing spiel. We've had those 3 ways since before GW was born.
Matched is just games with points - you can have a full narrative campaign system with them, a tournament, a one off fight.
Narrative is well is just games with connected story. This might be a campaign, but could just be you telling a story in your head.
Open - almost meaningless because it means "Well just do whatever you and your opponent(s) want to do. You don't need a "mode of play" for that you just, do it.
I do think some of it is generational though, I've noticed more generations coming through who are very competitive focused with the hobby almost to the exclusion of any other kind of approach or concept for their evenings gaming. Not that there is anything wrong with matched play competitive standard, but it can become quite a clique on its own and quite a closed shop affair to new commers who often under perform and thus will tend to lose out far more than normal. I've also noticed some casual hints that some cultures/countries are more like this than others. I'd say the UK is pretty open to other modes of play but that some regions like the USA, appear to be a bit more single minded in how they approach the game at the club level. Though this might just be an impression generated from forums and such so is bias in the type of people who sign up to forums to chat.
In the end the net normally defaults to Matched and most of the narrative is just matched with connected missions or story. Mostly because those are universal concepts which are easily understood. More freeform open play is often hard to chat about because there's no unification or common ground. One group might just use power levels for open play; another might be using custom rules written by someone etc... The range is huge and thus can get bogged down in the details.
Everyone's got their Codex, SM & Chaos got their 2nd, Sisters will be getting their new models/codex soon (if I haven't missed its release already) and the "rules only" version of the rulebook is out (and GW didn't bother to put in the effort to incorporate the errata).
So yeah, can very much see GW releasing 8.5 revised/9E this June. I won't be buying it, but can definitely see the codex/rules churn starting all over again - and that's always a good time for them to put a new rulebook out there.
I don't think we'll see 9th edition anytime soon. AoS being the tester for this system type needed a 2nd edition but 40K really doesn't. If they need to update anything that is what the Chapter Approved books are for basically. If you want to remain up to date with points and for tournaments then you need the CA books. If you are a collector or like a variety of missions then you need the CA books. Expansions like Vigilus also make them money and so will new models. If we see a 9th edition then I don't expect to see it within the next few years.
3 years after the launch of an edition is a good time to bring out a revised BRB. It will not be a new edition, since GW doesn't like that term.
It will include all the erratas and add some minor changes (with possible huge effects on the meta, but that is another matter).
The game is working quite fine right now, both in terms of gameplay and sales. A new edition right now wouldn't be a good marketing move, and if GW learned one thing in the last years, is how to manage the marketing side of business.
We need an SM nerf, but that does surely not require an edition change.
PenitentJake wrote: Personally, I hope there never is a 9th edition. I want to see an Imperial Agents dex, a Drukari 2.0 with restored characters and model support, I want a playable plastic kroot army. I want more non-imperial Blackstone explorers with 40k and Kill Team rules. I want every faction to have a Kill Team box with a unique sculpt, which gets released as a stand alone later.
None of this will happen if we go a hard 9th.
Now the idea of a soft 9th that blends seamlessly, that I can handle; there are some dexes that really need a 2.0, and I could especially get behind this if each dex update includes getting everything updated to plastic with a few new units to boot.
If you think about it, that's pretty much where we're already at.
A hard rules overhaul doesn't make sense. The cross platform integration between games has never been what it is now. Messing with any of those systems too much too fast takes the whole network down.
And with two different ways to cost an army, three ways to play, two separate campaigns which you can choose to integrate or not, and in whichever combinations you choose, not to mention three additional scales of gameplay that use the same models... Well quite franly, you are not using the tools you've been given.
As for the IGOUGO debate, I'll say again what I always say: with Blackstone, Kill Team and Apocalypse all being Altenate Activation already, you can already get what you want, without suggesting wrecking 40k for those of us who like it BECAUSE it offers breaks in the action rather than in spite of it.
This is what I mean about using the tools you've been given.
With the right group of players, you can probably talk at least a few people into playing 40k in AA format.
For casual, narrative campaign play between friends, this game has never been better. We've certainly never had so many options.
I get that other versions of the game or other designs might be better for balanced, steamlined, accessible tournament style play. But this isn't my prefered style of play, so a system optimized for it is far less appealing than what we've already got.
Especially when you already have the tools to do what you want anyway.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched
Open
Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
What are the actual differences between them?
Narrative - a set of mission.
Matched - other sets of missions and extra rules. But not points. Because the actual section on matched says you can use pl, or whatever system you and your opponent agrees on including no system. And while detachments are required for matched, they are not forbidden from narrative or open. Btw neither are points.
Open-litterally use any rules you want. Including all of matched.
Again, 3 ways to play in what actual capacity? More and more restrictive mission selection? Open encompasses all of narrative, matched, and anything else combined. So how could it possibly be a 3rd separate way to play?
Open - no need for thought or concern of balances or narrative, simply bring some stuff, put it on the table and roll dice
Narrative - unique scenarios using points or PL often with a particular story or skew that means it cannot be deemed a competitive or balanced mission
Matched - balanced missions that are primarily intended around points based play
You're right you can do all of those with points or PL, likewise you can use any of those features or missions and call it a matched game. but the overriding operative si they designed these aras of the game for people with different mindsets, people who want different things presented for them.
I don't think we will get a full on 9th edition as many fear. More like 8.5 that continues what has been already done.
The current Dark Imperium box has now sold well over a few years and I doubt it is making them a lot of money anymore. Updating with a new box would be a very sensible move business-wise. The market is currently very saturated with Death Guard minis and the second hand market is directly competing with GW.
Second, the current rulebook and pamphlet are woefully out of date so I wouldn't be surprised if they want to update those things along with putting maybe a few updates such as CA cover rules and whatnot. The new rulebook would have(hopefully) updated rules from errata along with the FAQ changes to the system as well all mission changes and improvements from CA.
So I wouldn't be surprised if we see a new edition, but it ain't going to be anything like the switch to 8th. It's not going to be a complete rule change, but minor editing and addition to an already slim ruleset. They've already did that for AoS with Soul Wars and it was a very welcome change.
However, as I am a cynic, I wouldn't be surprised if this were to jumpstart another codex cycle. Gotta sell those books.
I'm happy with the current BRB + latest CA approach, so I'd be against an edition change that invalidates current codexes. I could get behind a new BRB release though which included the latest matched play rules plus some other tweaks.
Matched allows you to use pl or anything to build your lists. 3 ways to play = 2 different classifications of missions and a open way to build missions.
Thats not 3 ways to play. Thats 3 ways to build missions.
What in the ever loving feth are you rambling about? The 3 ways to play is factually true, just because 2/3rds of them are ignored by the community doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matched Open Narrative.
Oh look, there's 3 different ways to play the game there.
What are the actual differences between them?
Narrative - a set of mission. Matched - other sets of missions and extra rules. But not points. Because the actual section on matched says you can use pl, or whatever system you and your opponent agrees on including no system. And while detachments are required for matched, they are not forbidden from narrative or open. Btw neither are points. Open-litterally use any rules you want. Including all of matched.
Again, 3 ways to play in what actual capacity? More and more restrictive mission selection? Open encompasses all of narrative, matched, and anything else combined. So how could it possibly be a 3rd separate way to play?
Open - no need for thought or concern of balances or narrative, simply bring some stuff, put it on the table and roll dice Narrative - unique scenarios using points or PL often with a particular story or skew that means it cannot be deemed a competitive or balanced mission Matched - balanced missions that are primarily intended around points based play
You're right you can do all of those with points or PL, likewise you can use any of those features or missions and call it a matched game. but the overriding operative si they designed these aras of the game for people with different mindsets, people who want different things presented for them.
No I really think he is right there. Narrative is just a bunch of exotic missions, with no changes to the actual game outside of that. The Open War cards are as much "a way to play" as narrative is. I have played a ton of narrative missions, and never used PL once. Open play is just ignoring army building limitations to field a themed army or an army from a limited collection, which is functionally identical with a player asking his or her opponent "Can I field X?". People have been doing that for seven editions before GW gave it a name.
So, in reality: Matched - Play a game of WH40k Narrative - Play a game of WH40k with an exotic mission Open - Play a game of WH40k with an exotic army
IMO they should just drop three modes, turn matched play into core rules and then combine all optional rule modules like CoD, spearhead or battle honors under "Narrative". People who want to skip certain parts of the rules will figure out how to do that themselves.
Jidmah wrote: People who want to skip certain parts of the rules will figure out how to do that themselves.
You would think so, and yet some of the stuff I've read on this forum would suggest that some people are completely incapable of doing anything unless it is somehow explicitly prescribed by Games-Workshop. I've legitimately read posts here from people who object to the idea of discussing game parameters with their opponent. It's utterly bizarre.
Well, there is also Matched Play with the added event recommendations for tournament/competitive play such as limits to detachments and datasheets. IMO it might make sense for GW to label that as „competitive play“ or something as a 4th variant, as it seems popular, especially in the US.
Jidmah wrote: People who want to skip certain parts of the rules will figure out how to do that themselves.
You would think so, and yet some of the stuff I've read on this forum would suggest that some people are completely incapable of doing anything unless it is somehow explicitly prescribed by Games-Workshop. I've legitimately read posts here from people who object to the idea of discussing game parameters with their opponent. It's utterly bizarre.
The thing is, open play does not solve that. If you agree on open play, you throw a ton of rules out of the window at once, some of which you might not even be aware of. And there are plenty reports of people denying open play for more or less good reasons, as well as people who trick people into playing open play so they can exploit the missing restraints of matched play (having your entire army shoot twice via stratagems, for example).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, there is also Matched Play with the added event recommendations for tournament/competitive play such as limits to detachments and datasheets. IMO it might make sense for GW to label that as „competitive play“ or something as a 4th variant, as it seems popular, especially in the US.
I'd rather have them drop the additional baggage and just make those rules part of the core rules, for all regular games. There is no difference between a game played at a store on a weekday night and a game played against the same person in the same store during an event.
Jidmah wrote: People who want to skip certain parts of the rules will figure out how to do that themselves.
You would think so, and yet some of the stuff I've read on this forum would suggest that some people are completely incapable of doing anything unless it is somehow explicitly prescribed by Games-Workshop. I've legitimately read posts here from people who object to the idea of discussing game parameters with their opponent. It's utterly bizarre.
The thing is, open play does not solve that.
You're right; it doesn't. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that Matched Play with all that that entails is the only legitimate way to play, and that's fair if that's what they want to do, but then I read posts where people suggest that Games-Workshop should outright get rid of anything that isn't Matched Play, and I'm like, hold-up; I like a lot of the non-Matched Play elements. Why is it fair for someone to suggest that I can house rule additions to the rules, but it's not fair for me to suggest people house rule subtractions?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a discussion that allows critiques, criticisms and suggestions. Games evolve, and this kind of discussion is invaluable in establishing the direction most want their games to go, but when I hear people just take an entire aspect of the game I love and say "nobody uses this," as if it's an irrefutable fact, it bothers me.
For what it's worth, I love 8th edition. I generally have a lot of fun playing it, which is pretty much the only benchmark I use to measure its value. I was steamrolled a couple of times by Space Marine armies recently, and that honestly was not fun, so no, the game's not perfect, but the core rules are pretty solid as far as I can tell, and I'd hate for them to change them beyond maybe publishing an updated set that includes errata and FAQs that they've already published.
And finally, I don't know how it hasn't occurred to any of you, but there's not actually going to be a 9th edition. The next edition will be mark X, and it will be published with a font 30% larger than the previous.
And finally, I don't know how it hasn't occurred to any of you, but there's not actually going to be a 9th edition. The next edition will be mark X, and it will be published with a font 30% larger than the previous.
Well, unlike Power Armour marks, Editions of Warhammer 40K aren't numbered either.
What is commonly called "8th" could just as well be just "4th Edition" if you only count the hard re-sets, or it could already be something like 17th Edition or Edition 8.3 (or 4.3) if you count smaller updates and patches.
I'd rather have them drop the additional baggage and just make those rules part of the core rules, for all regular games. There is no difference between a game played at a store on a weekday night and a game played against the same person in the same store during an event.
Sure there is.
A) Event recommendation take out quite a few matched-play builds out of the game (e.g. Dark Eldar 6-patrol raiding force, etc..)
B) Event recommendations aren't applied identically to all events anyhow. E.g. Some tournaments use a limit of 3 datasheets, some events only 2 or 1, etc.. (which makes sense, as these recommendations themselves come with the explicit, again, recommendation by GW to tweak and change them as needed).
Ginjitzu wrote: You're right; it doesn't. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that Matched Play with all that that entails is the only legitimate way to play, and that's fair if that's what they want to do, but then I read posts where people suggest that Games-Workshop should outright get rid of anything that isn't Matched Play, and I'm like, hold-up; I like a lot of the non-Matched Play elements.
Which one of those aren't mission related?
Why is it fair for someone to suggest that I can house rule additions to the rules, but it's not fair for me to suggest people house rule subtractions?
I have no idea where you got this idea from. If anything, my experience with 40k across the last decade is that people would rather let you ignore a rule than create a new one.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a discussion that allows critiques, criticisms and suggestions. Games evolve, and this kind of discussion is invaluable in establishing the direction most want their games to go, but when I hear people just take an entire aspect of the game I love and say "nobody uses this," as if it's an irrefutable fact, it bothers me.
My point was that all three play styles are 100% supported by just having matched play rules. Everything narrative play related works 100% fine even when using matched and organized play rules. Dropping random models on the table and rolling dice without any mission also works with matched play rules. There simply is no reason for open play and narrativ play to exist as separate rule sets.
For what it's worth, I love 8th edition. I generally have a lot of fun playing it, which is pretty much the only benchmark I use to measure its value. I was steamrolled a couple of times by Space Marine armies recently, and that honestly was not fun, so no, the game's not perfect, but the core rules are pretty solid as far as I can tell, and I'd hate for them to change them beyond maybe publishing an updated set that includes errata and FAQs that they've already published.
I love 8th, too, but its core rules do have some major flaws that could be ironed out without re-inventing the game - CP generation, measuring from bases in combat and terrain/cover as big examples pretty much everybody agrees on.
And finally, I don't know how it hasn't occurred to any of you, but there's not actually going to be a 9th edition. The next edition will be mark X, and it will be published with a font 30% larger than the previous.
With a special xenos edition, which will just be an 8th edition BRB updated with a sharpie and sticky-notes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: A) Event recommendation take out quite a few matched-play builds out of the game (e.g. Dark Eldar 6-patrol raiding force, etc..)
You got this backwards here. The correct answer is, it's the same game. You should be able to use your armies special rule in all games or it should not exist. If anything, the whole Drukhari detachment dilemma is an argument for having just one ruleset instead of 3.5. De facto, the 6 patrol raiding force might as well be narrative play only right now.
B) Event recommendations aren't applied identically to all events anyhow. E.g. Some tournaments use a limit of 3 datasheets, some events only 2 or 1, etc.. (which makes sense, as these recommendations themselves come with the explicit, again, recommendation by GW to tweak and change them as needed).
Yet another argument for having just one ruleset for playing games. Either GW puts those limits into rules and that's how the game works, or they don't. There is no reason for an inbetween.
Facts that exist, which I infer point to a 9th on the near horizon:
- Sisters were released
- There is GWcon or giant party planned in Summer 2020
- There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game
- 8th is almost 3 years old
- GW currently has models or entire stratagems being banned at majors
- GW "accidentally" dropped their new 40k Rulebook on the webstore for a hot second.
- There are several more PA releases, about one per month, and nothing has been announced after PA.
- GW is losing money on the Erules front, where it can charge for new or updated content. (Recent meeting highlighted their interest in this regard - Push players to online rules)
You got this backwards here. The correct answer is, it's the same game. You should be able to use your armies special rule in all games or it should not exist. If anything, the whole Drukhari detachment dilemma is an argument for having just one ruleset instead of 3.5. De facto, the 6 patrol raiding force might as well be narrative play only right now.
Why. The Drukhari detachment is perfectly matched-play legal. Why would it be narrative?
Yet another argument for having just one ruleset for playing games. Either GW puts those limits into rules and that's how the game works, or they don't. There is no reason for an inbetween.
Why? The very best thing about 40K is the wide variety of ways it can be played. Monotony and stagnation into "just one way to play" is the ultimate gaming nightmare and the one thing any gaming company should avoid like the plague.
If everybody were to play 40K just one way, it'd be the death of the game.
Ultimately, diversity hurts nobody. Everyone can play the way they like. Removing modes of play only hurts people that enjoy that mode of play with no benefit to people that didn't use that mode of play.
- Sisters were released - There is GWcon or giant party planned in Summer 2020 - There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game - 8th is almost 3 years old - GW currently has models or entire stratagems being banned at majors - GW "accidentally" dropped their new 40k Rulebook on the webstore for a hot second. - There are several more PA releases, about one per month, and nothing has been announced after PA. - GW is losing money on the Erules front, where it can charge for new or updated content. (Recent meeting highlighted their interest in this regard - Push players to online rules)
Where/what have they banned at majors (I assume you don't mean Legends), and what was this "accidentally" dropping the new Rulebook? Haven't heard of either of those.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Why? The very best thing about 40K is the wide variety of ways it can be played. Monotony and stagnation into "just one way to play" is the ultimate gaming nightmare and the one thing any gaming company should avoid like the plague.
If everybody were to play 40K just one way, it'd be the death of the game.
Ultimately, diversity hurts nobody. Everyone can play the way they like. Removing modes of play only hurts people that enjoy that mode of play with no benefit to people that didn't use that mode of play.
For most people though, it doesn't matter if the other ways are removed since they may as well not exist in the first place. It's a death knell for something to be labeled as narrative or, god forbid, Open play as it will never see any use in the majority of games since it's "not matched play legal". Yes, there are "three ways to play" but one of those ways is the near-universal standard and the others are ignored at best or openly derided at worst.
You got this backwards here. The correct answer is, it's the same game. You should be able to use your armies special rule in all games or it should not exist. If anything, the whole Drukhari detachment dilemma is an argument for having just one ruleset instead of 3.5. De facto, the 6 patrol raiding force might as well be narrative play only right now.
Why. The Drukhari detachment is perfectly matched-play legal. Why would it be narrative?
Because (according to a poll I did here on dakka) you have a 60-70% chance that when you walk into a random club/store/event that your army is not allowed to be fielded.
That is something that would not have happened if GW hadn't split the game into Open, Narrative, Matched and Organized for no reason whatsoever.
I'd also like to point out that you are arguing the current status quo. I'm arguing how it should be.
There should be one rule set that covers all ways to play. And then huge toolbox with optional rule modules to turn that streamlined board game into a narrative game of your liking. Literally nothing else is needed.
And, most importantly, there should just be a rule that excludes the Drukhari patrols from the detachment limit, just like drop pods are excluded from the tactical reserve rule.
Why? The very best thing about 40K is the wide variety of ways it can be played. Monotony and stagnation into "just one way to play" is the ultimate gaming nightmare and the one thing any gaming company should avoid like the plague.
If everybody were to play 40K just one way, it'd be the death of the game.
Please try to understand what I'm saying, you clearly do not.
If you feel like you don't want to write lists and just throw together a cool looking army and then eyeball the PL for fairness - you should be able to do that.
If you feel like you want to play a narrative campaign with custom named characters, battle honors, cities of death, death in the skies, spearhead and build your own landraider - you should be able to do that.
If you feel like you want to go to a store and find a fair and balanced game against at total stranger - you should be able to do that.
If you feel like you want to go to a large tournament and end up on a stream, playing on one of the top tables - you should also be able to do that.
There is just zero reason why you need four different rulesets for that. You are using the same codex for all those games, why are you under the impression that you need more than one set of core rules?
All those ways to play have existed for a long before 8th its "three ways to play" and they were never in need of separate rules before.
Ultimately, diversity hurts nobody. Everyone can play the way they like. Removing modes of play only hurts people that enjoy that mode of play with no benefit to people that didn't use that mode of play.
The Open War Deck, Eternal War, Maelstrom, Narrative Missions, Cities of Death, Spearhead or "Let's shoot at each other until one is dead" are modes to play.
Open, Narrative and Matched are not modes to play. They do not further diversity. The only thing they do is add complexity for no benefit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: - GW currently has models or entire stratagems being banned at majors
Please provide a source for that? Genuinely interested.
- Sisters were released
- There is GWcon or giant party planned in Summer 2020
- There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game
- 8th is almost 3 years old
- GW currently has models or entire stratagems being banned at majors
- GW "accidentally" dropped their new 40k Rulebook on the webstore for a hot second.
- There are several more PA releases, about one per month, and nothing has been announced after PA.
- GW is losing money on the Erules front, where it can charge for new or updated content. (Recent meeting highlighted their interest in this regard - Push players to online rules)
Where/what have they banned at majors (I assume you don't mean Legends), and what was this "accidentally" dropping the new Rulebook? Haven't heard of either of those.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Why? The very best thing about 40K is the wide variety of ways it can be played. Monotony and stagnation into "just one way to play" is the ultimate gaming nightmare and the one thing any gaming company should avoid like the plague.
If everybody were to play 40K just one way, it'd be the death of the game.
Ultimately, diversity hurts nobody. Everyone can play the way they like. Removing modes of play only hurts people that enjoy that mode of play with no benefit to people that didn't use that mode of play.
For most people though, it doesn't matter if the other ways are removed since they may as well not exist in the first place. It's a death knell for something to be labeled as narrative or, god forbid, Open play as it will never see any use in the majority of games since it's "not matched play legal". Yes, there are "three ways to play" but one of those ways is the near-universal standard and the others are ignored at best or openly derided at worst.
IH Leviathans are/were banned at several large events, and the IH Forgefather strats with the healing were curtailed. As for the Rulebook drop check google. GW posted a link that had a list of "purchasable" content on the webstore, which among other things, had a New Limited 1st Edition rulebook. This has been hand waived away by some as them just re-releasing 8th's BRB, but others point to the fact that it was removed from the link in under an hour. They did the same mistake multiple times in the past with big releases: Sisters got leaked this way, as did IH Codex Supplement, and Orks. It's not uncommon for their webgurus to mess up.
I can't seem to find any reports of the rulebook drop you speak of. Do you know anywhere that might have reported on such a thing, or screenshotted it anywhere?
Open/Narrative/Matched should be divorced from whether you use points, power levels or “eyeballing” things, and more about the play style itself.
Open = grab your models and play. Formations, unit sizes, keywords and detachments don’t matter. Use what you got, points and PL don’t likely matter.
Narrative = there’s a story behind the battle. Fights might have unequal sides, may consider using custom rules that fit this particular battle, especially army construction and special stratagems. May use points or PL, or a themed army.
Matched = This is for all the marbles. Forces are “equal”, by-the-book use of rules. Points or PL to keep things “fair”, but may use a handicap system for more experienced players.
This is the snapshot that someone took. It was in October. Again, this is not proof that 9th is coming, this is proof that GW goofed in their webteam. I draw the loose conclusion that 9th is coming.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game
And yet somehow everyone in my local gaming group gets by with the BRB, latest CA and their codex (with errata available online on their phones if necessary).
This is the snapshot that someone took. It was in October. Again, this is not proof that 9th is coming, this is proof that GW goofed in their webteam. I draw the loose conclusion that 9th is coming.
So instead of associating that entry with the 40k Gaming Book that was released in a similar time period to the IH supplement, you make the leap to some nebulous 9th Edition release?
Stormonu wrote: Open/Narrative/Matched should be divorced from whether you use points, power levels or “eyeballing” things, and more about the play style itself.
Open = grab your models and play. Formations, unit sizes, keywords and detachments don’t matter. Use what you got, points and PL don’t likely matter.
Narrative = there’s a story behind the battle. Fights might have unequal sides, may consider using custom rules that fit this particular battle, especially army construction and special stratagems. May use points or PL, or a themed army.
Matched = This is for all the marbles. Forces are “equal”, by-the-book use of rules. Points or PL to keep things “fair”, but may use a handicap system for more experienced players.
Agree that PL/Points are irrelevant to the game mode.
However, all three can be played with the current organized play rules, with open being "your army must not be battleforged" and narrative just playing a narrative mission. There is zero reason to waste as much as a paragraph on either in the BRB.
Eldarsif wrote: The current Dark Imperium box has now sold well over a few years and I doubt it is making them a lot of money anymore. Updating with a new box would be a very sensible move business-wise. The market is currently very saturated with Death Guard minis and the second hand market is directly competing with GW.
The DI models can be easily found secondhand, but finding discounts on the more modifiable Plague Marine box secondhand is far more difficult.
Stormonu wrote: Open/Narrative/Matched should be divorced from whether you use points, power levels or “eyeballing” things, and more about the play style itself.
Open = grab your models and play. Formations, unit sizes, keywords and detachments don’t matter. Use what you got, points and PL don’t likely matter.
Narrative = there’s a story behind the battle. Fights might have unequal sides, may consider using custom rules that fit this particular battle, especially army construction and special stratagems. May use points or PL, or a themed army.
Matched = This is for all the marbles. Forces are “equal”, by-the-book use of rules. Points or PL to keep things “fair”, but may use a handicap system for more experienced players.
Agree that PL/Points are irrelevant to the game mode.
However, all three can be played with the current organized play rules, with open being "your army must not be battleforged" and narrative just playing a narrative mission. There is zero reason to waste as much as a paragraph on either in the BRB.
Change Open to being "your army does not have to be battleforged", and you've got the proper statement.
Too many people are "competitive only" and it has destroyed metas and driven them from the hobby as well as the game.
Ginjitzu wrote: You're right; it doesn't. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that Matched Play with all that that entails is the only legitimate way to play, and that's fair if that's what they want to do, but then I read posts where people suggest that Games-Workshop should outright get rid of anything that isn't Matched Play, and I'm like, hold-up; I like a lot of the non-Matched Play elements.
Which one of those aren't mission related?
I'm not sure I understand the question; isn't everything that's not background somehow mission related?
Why is it fair for someone to suggest that I can house rule additions to the rules, but it's not fair for me to suggest people house rule subtractions?
I have no idea where you got this idea from.
Not from you specifically Jidmah, but from these forums form time to time.
If anything, my experience with 40k across the last decade is that people would rather let you ignore a rule than create a new one.
While in general, I've had the same experience, I've also seen people suggest that Open Play, as in "Bring what you have and plop it on the table," should be removed entirely because "nobody plays that way."
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a discussion that allows critiques, criticisms and suggestions. Games evolve, and this kind of discussion is invaluable in establishing the direction most want their games to go, but when I hear people just take an entire aspect of the game I love and say "nobody uses this," as if it's an irrefutable fact, it bothers me.
My point was that all three play styles are 100% supported by just having matched play rules. Everything narrative play related works 100% fine even when using matched and organized play rules. Dropping random models on the table and rolling dice without any mission also works with matched play rules. There simply is no reason for open play and narrativ play to exist as separate rule sets.
Again, I agree with you here, after all, the core rules are the same no matter how you play.
For me, those pages in the rule book on Open and Narrative play are more of just an explicit statement from Games-Workshop that you don't have to follow all of the rules precisely as prescribed, and I think there's value in that statement. I mean, you seem like a reasonable enough person to understand that we can tailor as we please to suit whatever game we both want to play, but you'd be amazed at how confusing some other people find this concept. I've legitimately seen people complain about some rule and say that no one in their group likes it, and yet when presented with the possibility of just agreeing as a group to ignore or change it, they'll rail against the idea and say that the rules should work exactly as suits their particular taste without them having to discuss anything with their opponent.
Then again, to be fair to you, these kinds of people still have this problem even with those pages of the rule book, so maybe it doesn't solve many problems after all, but I still like them, and don't see how they detract from the game in any way.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game
And yet somehow everyone in my local gaming group gets by with the BRB, latest CA and their codex (with errata available online on their phones if necessary).
Jidmah wrote: Which one of those aren't mission related?
I'm not sure I understand the question; isn't everything that's not background somehow mission related?
My point was that a matched play game turns into a narrative game by choosing a narrative mission instead of eternal war or maelstrom. Turns, army building, stats all keep working the same. I have played many narrative missions over the course of 8th and every single one was played using the matched play rules - using stratagems or casting the same powers multiple times, null deployments, unit or detachment spam really don't add to narrative games in any meaningful way, quite the opposite.
If anything, my experience with 40k across the last decade is that people would rather let you ignore a rule than create a new one.
While in general, I've had the same experience, I've also seen people suggest that Open Play, as in "Bring what you have and plop it on the table," should be removed entirely because "nobody plays that way."
I think that open play should be removed, but not for that reason - "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games. - Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.
I think we are on the same page in general, I just think that the current fragmentation of the rules into four ways to play hurts the game more than it helps and therefore wished that it would go away. All these arguments whether the detachment limit or rule of three are applicable during a game or not, and armies like GK or Drukhari should no longer get rules that were designed to work with one way to play but not the others.
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.
I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.
You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.
The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.
Brother Castor wrote: I think you meant FezzikDaBullgryn not me. I'm the one who apparently only plays Warhammer 4K.
My humblest prostrations of guilt for libeling you so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: ...using stratagems or casting the same powers multiple times, null deployments, unit or detachment spam really don't add to narrative games in any meaningful way, quite the opposite.
Now you see here's where we disagree: It's often these restrictions that are too restrictive for the purposes of my particular narrative games. While these restrictions certainly have their place in many (if not the vast majority of games), it's this kind of sweeping assumption that everybody uses them all the time without exception that bothers me.
I think that open play should be removed, but not for that reason
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules.
And it doesn't really have any. Like have you checked how many pages of the book Open Play actually takes up recently? It's four. Sure you might think these four pages are redundant, and everyone else may even agree with you, but there are at least two people in this world who think those four pages have value: me and presumably the guy who wrote them. If the easiest solution to rules you don't want to use is to just ignore them, couldn't you just apply the same logic to these four pages?
Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.
Again, you're right here, but many are not all, and I think that's an important distinction.
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.
I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.
You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.
The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.
Perhaps you are the only one in the platoon marching in the step...
It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched. Open Play tells you "While there are not restrictions on or requirements placed on the models you can use in Open Play, it's best to have a chat with your opponent before the game..." There is no pre-game chat at an ITC game about what models you are intending to use in this game, well, besides explaining your army if necessary. There is no negotiation on the list-building restrictions. The players have no decision-making powers regarding the constraints/restraints of the game. Yes there are house rules, but they are set by the House and not the players. It's the exact opposite of Open Play.
An Open Play match is not overly concerned with balance. Throw models down and have fun. An ITC match is very concerned about balance. It's Matched Play. Please note that I am not defending ITC. I respect the format, but I play local tournaments that do not use ITC.
I think they have Open Play to allow them to publish the short rules pamphlets in the small starter sets/free download and have a complete game for beginners.
This is the snapshot that someone took. It was in October. Again, this is not proof that 9th is coming, this is proof that GW goofed in their webteam. I draw the loose conclusion that 9th is coming.
You know they DID re-release the 40k rule book as a pocket size one right? and you do realized this was that right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS, also open/narrative play is very popular. Many locals will run a mix of narrative/match play campaigns. The last one i was in was a Cities of Death campaign actually (and it was great).
Narrative leagues are a thing to, planetary domination with extra rules like "if you are being attack you get a free fortification", etc..
I see more of these in actual play than basic pick up games in real life (Tho ITC events are also popular, they seem to be monthly 1 off events tho).
It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched.
No, they're just playing a version of the game they have made up, they're not playing any version of real 40K. Actual 40K matched play rules are found in GW's publications.
It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched.
No, they're just playing a version of the game they have made up, they're not playing any version of real 40K. Actual 40K matched play rules are found in GW's publications.
There is no "actual" 40K. GW doesn't care enough. The utter lack of terrain standards alone shows this. ITC still does a better job of hampering hordes from a scoring perspective, imo.
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.
I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.
You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.
The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.
Perhaps you are the only one in the platoon marching in the step...
It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched. Open Play tells you "While there are not restrictions on or requirements placed on the models you can use in Open Play, it's best to have a chat with your opponent before the game..." There is no pre-game chat at an ITC game about what models you are intending to use in this game, well, besides explaining your army if necessary. There is no negotiation on the list-building restrictions. The players have no decision-making powers regarding the constraints/restraints of the game. Yes there are house rules, but they are set by the House and not the players. It's the exact opposite of Open Play.
An Open Play match is not overly concerned with balance. Throw models down and have fun. An ITC match is very concerned about balance. It's Matched Play. Please note that I am not defending ITC. I respect the format, but I play local tournaments that do not use ITC.
I think they have Open Play to allow them to publish the short rules pamphlets in the small starter sets/free download and have a complete game for beginners.
The pregame conversation is between you and the hosts. They told you what rules they were using and you agreed when you signed up. Its open play.
Jidmah wrote: ...using stratagems or casting the same powers multiple times, null deployments, unit or detachment spam really don't add to narrative games in any meaningful way, quite the opposite.
Now you see here's where we disagree: It's often these restrictions that are too restrictive for the purposes of my particular narrative games. While these restrictions certainly have their place in many (if not the vast majority of games), it's this kind of sweeping assumption that everybody uses them all the time without exception that bothers me.
You always have the option to lift restrictions for narrative games. You'll have a hard time implementing restrictions that aren't there, because inevitably someone will cry foul because it ruined his narrative/army.
Let's take the null deployment as an example - there are narrative missions which assume that one player doesn't deploy a single unit and puts everything in reserves. These can even arrive during turn 1. Obviously this is intended, so the narrative missions changed the rules. In other missions, you can ruin the entire mission by playing an army that simply reserves their entire army during the first turn, because the attacker can shell your army with artillery during T1 and you want to dodge that.
Narrative should be given the tools to create narrative games. The basic limit should still be applied, with the option to remove them when it helps the game.
I think that open play should be removed, but not for that reason
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules.
And it doesn't really have any. Like have you checked how many pages of the book Open Play actually takes up recently? It's four. Sure you might think these four pages are redundant, and everyone else may even agree with you, but there are at least two people in this world who think those four pages have value: me and presumably the guy who wrote them. If the easiest solution to rules you don't want to use is to just ignore them, couldn't you just apply the same logic to these four pages?
Open Play isn't just those four pages, there are also quite a few rules which reference open play(Open War deck, for example), plus some things (like build your own landraider or looted vehicles) are only available for open play unless you are playing a narrative mission. I can never play a looted vehicle or certain FW units in a matched game because GW didn't give them point values - just because open play exists.
Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.
Again, you're right here, but many are not all, and I think that's an important distinction.
What's the point of having an official game mode that you can only play with people who would have accepted house-rules anyways?
It's not just quality. I don't think GW sees them as official, so why should we? I think ITC is still better overall, but I despise randomness. ITC blocking ruins are one of the main selling points to me. There's nothing wrong with them, as they are closer to 3rd ed standards that I like. True LoS needs to die in a hole. I like picking secondaries. If I want to draw cards, I'll go play a card game.
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.
I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.
You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.
The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.
Perhaps you are the only one in the platoon marching in the step...
It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched. Open Play tells you "While there are not restrictions on or requirements placed on the models you can use in Open Play, it's best to have a chat with your opponent before the game..." There is no pre-game chat at an ITC game about what models you are intending to use in this game, well, besides explaining your army if necessary. There is no negotiation on the list-building restrictions. The players have no decision-making powers regarding the constraints/restraints of the game. Yes there are house rules, but they are set by the House and not the players. It's the exact opposite of Open Play.
An Open Play match is not overly concerned with balance. Throw models down and have fun. An ITC match is very concerned about balance. It's Matched Play. Please note that I am not defending ITC. I respect the format, but I play local tournaments that do not use ITC.
I think they have Open Play to allow them to publish the short rules pamphlets in the small starter sets/free download and have a complete game for beginners. [/spoiler]
The pregame conversation is between you and the hosts. They told you what rules they were using and you agreed when you signed up. Its open play.
Lance, I think that you have completely missed the point of Open Play and Matched Play in an attempt to cast some shade on ITC. A tournament (any format) is the opposite of Open Play unless it's really a "bring and battle" without scoring, and then it's not a tournament. Please note that I am not an ITC defender or proponent.
For the others who responded about balance, I do think that ITC makes an honest attempt to "balance" the game for the players. Whether they are successful is certainly up for debate, but the intent is clear. This is also true for GW and their Matched Play rules. That intent of balance is absent by design from Open Play and Narrative Play.
I am not casting shade because i dont think open play is bad. Again, YOU are defining open as being wholly without boundries. Open, in fact, is about setting your own boundaries. When itc set their boundries as being different from matched in the book they started playing open. Its not a bad thing. Its just what it is. Nothing about open precludes any rule. The opposite infact. Its all inclusive. Including all the added rules and minutia and structure of matched if you so choose.
ITC is trying to be competitive
And they are doing it using the freedom allotted by the open format.
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.
I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.
You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.
The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.
Um, sorry, but ITC rules are official for events running ITC rules. There are officially published materials produced by the ITC creators for them. They just aren't official for GW events.
Playing outside of GW's sandbox doesn't make them "unofficial" any more than NCAA rules are less official than NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB/FIFA/etc. rules. They are different events so what is official is what the event organizers stipulate.
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.
I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.
You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.
The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.
Um, sorry, but ITC rules are official for events running ITC rules. There are officially published materials produced by the ITC creators for them. They just aren't official for GW events.
Playing outside of GW's sandbox doesn't make them "unofficial" any more than NCAA rules are less official than NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB/FIFA/etc. rules. They are different events so what is official is what the event organizers stipulate.
Hey if you come to my house to play i have a print out of beyond the gates of 40k. Il laminate it too. Its official that when you play at my house you are playing, officially, matched play 40k with my own special format. Officially.
Lance845 wrote:Hey if you come to my house to play i have a print out of beyond the gates of 40k. Il laminate it too. Its official that when you play at my house you are playing, officially, matched play 40k with my own special format. Officially.
If you are having an event at your house, then it is official for that event. If you have an organized club regularly meeting at your house, it is official for that club.
Crimson wrote:Of course ITC rules unofficial! If I publish my houserules on the Internet they do not become official rules.
Then I guess olympic, college, high school, and little league rules are unofficial, too, aren't they, since they aren't from professional ball organizations, right?
Publishing rules isn't what makes them official. What makes them official is their recognized use for events with a group of players, be it a small club, an intercity organization, an interstate organization, or international one. If it is used for a convention, it is official for that convention. Is this too difficult a concept to grasp?
No they just own the copywrite, trademark, ip for the game we are discussing and nobody is allowed to produce official materials for it without their go ahead.
Unlike the irrelevent sports examples being given, the game 8th ed 40k isnt in the public domain where anyone can do whatever the hell they want.
On topic and relevant. 40k doesnt have 3 ways to play. It has 1 way to play and 3 ways to make missions. And mostly people play open, even though they think thats bad for some reason.
IP protections for a game are meaningless if no one plays that version of the game. I don't think GW can stop an ITC-style league even if they wanted to. ITC isn't claiming any IP rights, and exhaustion and fair use comes into play.
Anyone is free to come up with a game that uses GW's models. The protection on the models ends when you buy them.
While you are technically correct, naming is arbitrary and most people recognize organized play as matched play, not open play.
Lance845 wrote:Hey if you come to my house to play i have a print out of beyond the gates of 40k. Il laminate it too. Its official that when you play at my house you are playing, officially, matched play 40k with my own special format. Officially.
If you are having an event at your house, then it is official for that event. If you have an organized club regularly meeting at your house, it is official for that club.
Crimson wrote:Of course ITC rules unofficial! If I publish my houserules on the Internet they do not become official rules.
Then I guess olympic, college, high school, and little league rules are unofficial, too, aren't they, since they aren't from professional ball organizations, right?
Publishing rules isn't what makes them official. What makes them official is their recognized use for events with a group of players, be it a small club, an intercity organization, an interstate organization, or international one. If it is used for a convention, it is official for that convention. Is this too difficult a concept to grasp?
Publishing rules is literally what makes them official. The official games workshop rules are published inside their books.
ITC uses a tournament pack for people to modify the official rules to run in their format. ITC official is something running their tournament packs.
You will lose a lot of court cases that way, but sure.
I'm not claiming anything about being official. I'm claiming that being "official" has no meaning in this scenario. GW has no method or desire to do any kind of enforcement, so therefore, officiality is toothless.
ITC will die when people no longer enjoy it. Maybe another league develops better systems to fix GW's fuckups. Who knows? What's clear going back to 1992, is that GW is never going to take the game end of their product seriously.
Martel732 wrote: You will lose a lot of court cases that way, but sure.
I'm not claiming anything about being official. I'm claiming that being "official" has no meaning in this scenario. GW has no method or desire to do any kind of enforcement, so therefore, officiality is toothless.
ITC will die when people no longer enjoy it. Maybe another league develops better systems to fix GW's fuckups. Who knows? What's clear going back to 1992, is that GW is never going to take the game end of their product seriously.
Whilst true. ITC is still not matched play as per the rules, which was the entire point of the thought exercise.
It's considered matched play, though. It uses all of the matched play conventions such as psyker limitations. Again, naming schemes are arbitrary. I've never met anyone IRL that considers ITC open play.
Martel732 wrote: It's considered matched play, though. It uses all of the matched play conventions such as psyker limitations. Again, naming schemes are arbitrary. I've never met anyone IRL that considers ITC open play.
You probably never will and on closer inspection pg 213 validates ITC, it outlines the definition of matched play and even caveats that some match play events may alter rules.
I genuinely thought the matched play rules were limited to their missions but apparently not.
Lance845 wrote:No they just own the copywrite, trademark, ip for the game we are discussing and nobody is allowed to produce official materials for it without their go ahead.
Unlike the irrelevent sports examples being given, the game 8th ed 40k isnt in the public domain where anyone can do whatever the hell they want.
On topic and relevant. 40k doesnt have 3 ways to play. It has 1 way to play and 3 ways to make missions. And mostly people play open, even though they think thats bad for some reason.
The sports examples are not irrelevant because every single one of those games have many different levels of play, including in your backyard. Each of those levels of play have rules that are official for those levels of play and for the environs they play in. Citing the NBA rules at your local park will get you laughed at, while conversely, expecting college rules to be followed at the Olympics is equally laughable.
Dudeface wrote:Publishing rules is literally what makes them official. The official games workshop rules are published inside their books.
ITC uses a tournament pack for people to modify the official rules to run in their format. ITC official is something running their tournament packs.
Not entirely true. Publishing something means absolutely nothing if nobody uses them. It is the groups of people that use them that make them official. That is why I cited specific groups which have some authority to declare something official for the sports examples.
Lance845 wrote:Also technically correct is the best kind of correct.
I'm so glad you said that because "official means "authoritative, authorized, or recognized as authorized" by Merriam-Webster, the official dictionary of our country. Oxford Dictionaries, the official dictionary for the entire English language who passes online duties to Lexico, defines it as, "Relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilties" or "having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body".
So long as a ruleset is being use by a public body, it is official, and ITC rather fits in to that description as it is a public body and their rules are used by public bodies for events. That is a technically correct definition.
If you hold a tournament and you use "most of the rules" and then publish your "house rules" it is conditional for use within that tournament, it is official enough.
"Official" is of course from the developer and publisher of the game BUT they do not hold and host the majority of the tournaments out there and do not seem to have a system to "force" them to adhere to the letter of the rules.
Most of these tournaments do the same thing as we do with our friends picking what scenarios we will play and scoring criteria.
Plus anything to help the look of the game along may be applied.
Harassment and competition with your friends is changed to bribery and competition in tournaments (maybe even bragging rights).
So yeah, maybe 8th or 9th could stand to have an update and ACTUALLY have clear tournament rules so we can be as official as we can be.
Some prize support or GW sanctioned local events would be wonderful as well.
Lance845 wrote:No they just own the copywrite, trademark, ip for the game we are discussing and nobody is allowed to produce official materials for it without their go ahead.
Unlike the irrelevent sports examples being given, the game 8th ed 40k isnt in the public domain where anyone can do whatever the hell they want.
On topic and relevant. 40k doesnt have 3 ways to play. It has 1 way to play and 3 ways to make missions. And mostly people play open, even though they think thats bad for some reason.
The sports examples are not irrelevant because every single one of those games have many different levels of play, including in your backyard. Each of those levels of play have rules that are official for those levels of play and for the environs they play in. Citing the NBA rules at your local park will get you laughed at, while conversely, expecting college rules to be followed at the Olympics is equally laughable.
Dudeface wrote:Publishing rules is literally what makes them official. The official games workshop rules are published inside their books.
ITC uses a tournament pack for people to modify the official rules to run in their format. ITC official is something running their tournament packs.
Not entirely true. Publishing something means absolutely nothing if nobody uses them. It is the groups of people that use them that make them official. That is why I cited specific groups which have some authority to declare something official for the sports examples.
Lance845 wrote:Also technically correct is the best kind of correct.
I'm so glad you said that because "official means "authoritative, authorized, or recognized as authorized" by Merriam-Webster, the official dictionary of our country. Oxford Dictionaries, the official dictionary for the entire English language who passes online duties to Lexico, defines it as, "Relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilties" or "having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body".
So long as a ruleset is being use by a public body, it is official, and ITC rather fits in to that description as it is a public body and their rules are used by public bodies for events. That is a technically correct definition.
Way more effort than i was willing to put in; props to you.
Dudeface wrote:Publishing rules is literally what makes them official. The official games workshop rules are published inside their books.
ITC uses a tournament pack for people to modify the official rules to run in their format. ITC official is something running their tournament packs.
Not entirely true. Publishing something means absolutely nothing if nobody uses them. It is the groups of people that use them that make them official. That is why I cited specific groups which have some authority to declare something official for the sports examples.
Which is all good and well, but again that just makes them "the official ITC rules". Which is irrelevant at the end of the day, just play what you want where you want.
Dudeface wrote:Publishing rules is literally what makes them official. The official games workshop rules are published inside their books.
ITC uses a tournament pack for people to modify the official rules to run in their format. ITC official is something running their tournament packs.
Not entirely true. Publishing something means absolutely nothing if nobody uses them. It is the groups of people that use them that make them official. That is why I cited specific groups which have some authority to declare something official for the sports examples.
Which is all good and well, but again that just makes them "the official ITC rules". Which is irrelevant at the end of the day, just play what you want where you want.
I wish it was "irrelevant". Remember how a group makes the rules official? If your local meta is the "tournament-only" type and all the tournaments they go to use ITC rules, then that makes it official for your local group. Guess what happens if someone who comes from the ETC crowd is visiting for the night, but no one bothers to mention it, either way? What if you're a new player and not ready to be facing off against the tournament crowd, but the only game you can get is with a tournament-only guy, and he doesn't bother going over the ITC rules with you? It's those situations which make it relevant.
And yes, some "heated discussions" have arisen at my meta at times because one person had an ITC expectation, the other hadn't, and they hadn't bothered talking about it first.
Much of this last page looks like a lot of butthurt that ITC is house rules ?
It doesn't matter if many people play ITC, it's still not the official GW rules.
Sure, GW can't kick open the door and tell them not to use those rules, they can choose not use them in house though. They can say the core rules aren't designed around ITC and they can if they really wanted to say they don't endorse them.
People could keep playing what they play but GWs say does hold much weight with a great many players and if they did take a firm stand against the favored house rules for matched play formats, many would listen.
They can't force people to not use them, but they aren't official GW rules and if GW closed tomorrow, those house rules wouldn't mean anything in pretty short order. If GW actively railed against them they would probably suffer a similar fate.
To claim the company that makes the game has no impact on how the game they make is played is really a bit daft. Just accept these tournaments run on house rules, take a breath and move on. They aren't the official GW rules, missions, scoring, etc, etc.
Just because more people like it more doesn't make it the standard, it can only make it the local standard.
Arguing how that wouldn't fly in court or whatever is equal stupid as we aren't talking about a legal case, we're talking about a company owned IP that many play with house rules and not following the GW standard. If you can't handle that, best get a cup life comes at you hard I guess.
That's fine, I think most of us played GW in various stages of house rules since we've played the game, I know I have.
The GW official rules are different from the ITC rules or the ETC, or any other house rules no matter how popular they become until they get published in the GW rule books as the ways to play, they are at best refined house rules. I can't imagine why some take that so personally aside from not liking the implication they aren't being " Official " sorry though, you aren't.
Just because GW have a certain shill relationship with the folks who put out those tournament house rules doesn't mean they can't change their mind at any time, nor does it make them official, it just makes them for now accepted by GW.
The tournament house rules are Lando, and GW is Vader, and if they wanted to, that deal could keep getting worse if they choose to alter their agreement. All the power here resides in the game makers hands, they would be good with or without the shills as new ones would be eager to spring up in their place who will follow the company line if they lay it down.
Well as the OP only mentioned GW and CA2019, and did not mention ITC, I presume all of this ITC discussion is off topic, no?
I think that open play should be removed
Open Play isn't just those four pages, there are also quite a few rules which reference open play(Open War deck, for example), plus some things (like build your own landraider or looted vehicles) are only available for open play unless you are playing a narrative mission.
I can never play a looted vehicle or certain FW units in a matched game because GW didn't give them point values - just because open play exists.
I think I get your point. Are you saying that you wish you could use the Open War deck and build-your-own rules in matched play too? Because I totally agree there. Those things absolutely should have Matched Play points, but I don't think the existence of Open Play is to blame for their absence. I have the inverse view, I believe that were it not for existence of Open Play, those things wouldn't be available for anyone.
AngryAngel80 wrote:Much of this last page looks like a lot of butthurt that ITC is house rules ?
It doesn't matter if many people play ITC, it's still not the official GW rules.
Nobody has called them official GW rules, just official rules. They are the official rules for many of the events here in America, and that makes them the official rules that many of the people work from. It's that simple. Again, Olympic rules are official in the Olympics, but the NBA will operate by their own rules for their events. Sometimes they will work off each other.
Ginjitzu wrote:Well as the OP only mentioned GW and CA2019, and did not mention ITC, I presume all of this ITC discussion is off topic, no?
Actually, since ITC will update along with CA2019 and/or 9th Edition and (as I pointed out above) a considerable number of American metas use ITC as their official ruleset, it rather is on topic, no matter how dismissive people are of them.
Ginjitzu wrote:Well as the OP only mentioned GW and CA2019, and did not mention ITC, I presume all of this ITC discussion is off topic, no?
Actually, since ITC will update along with CA2019 and/or 9th Edition and (as I pointed out above) a considerable number of American metas use ITC as their official ruleset, it rather is on topic, no matter how dismissive people are of them.
I'm not dismissing the ITC; merely pointing out the the OP didn't ask about it.
Ginjitzu wrote:Well as the OP only mentioned GW and CA2019, and did not mention ITC, I presume all of this ITC discussion is off topic, no?
Actually, since ITC will update along with CA2019 and/or 9th Edition and (as I pointed out above) a considerable number of American metas use ITC as their official ruleset, it rather is on topic, no matter how dismissive people are of them.
I'm not dismissing the ITC; merely pointing out the the OP didn't ask about it.
Do not read more in to my words than what I said. People have been dismissive about how official the ITC rules are. If you haven't been dismissive, then I obviously wasn't referring to you.
Considering how intertwined they are in such a large market, it doesn't matter that the OP didn't mention it. The ITC will get involved whether there will be a 9th in the summer of 2020 or not.
Heck, 9th Age of Warhammer Fantasy Battles demonstrates that even if GW closes complete shop on 40K (like that would happen), someone will make a 9th Edition at some point.
ITC is as offical to ITC as my opinions are official to me. If all we are saying is something is as official as the people involved, well done, we all agree. However as I play 40k I really just care about whats official to that and anything else is by that standard un official house rules, like ITC, ETC, and how care to play.
You can get a billion people to start drinking Mayo tomorrow, that won't ever be my official way to use the product.
Sure, someone will make a fan based tournament rules, or rules for 40k if GW goes belly up but it won't last long and will be a shadow of its former glory, just like 9th age.
As well if GW ever decide to out right dismiss ITC, I bet it would impact it quite a lot as many would then consider it to be the " wrong " warhammer. Regardless how loved some people find it.
Charistoph wrote: Actually, since ITC will update along with CA2019 and/or 9th Edition and (as I pointed out above) a considerable number of American metas use ITC as their official ruleset, it rather is on topic, no matter how dismissive people are of them.
In many European countries, ITC is basically non-existent. In any case the whole ITC discussion is just a "well, actually"-comment that derailed the discussion from anything worth reading.
Almost all of 8th editions main issues stem from the ITC house rules being so prevalent, people seem to want GW to balance the game for there favoured house rule set rather than balancing for actual 40k.
What concerns me is how much sway the itc crowd have in the play testing.
I disagree. Our group almost exclusively plays Wh40k by the books and most of the big issues are prevalent there just as they are in ITC.
Usually it's quite the opposite - things that are obnoxious in ITC are just ok in regular games because there are no magic boxes or secondary objectives.
SeanDrake wrote: Almost all of 8th editions main issues stem from the ITC house rules being so prevalent, people seem to want GW to balance the game for there favoured house rule set rather than balancing for actual 40k.
What concerns me is how much sway the itc crowd have in the play testing.
Because the ITC crowd care about balance, and GW doesn't give a gak.
SeanDrake wrote: Almost all of 8th editions main issues stem from the ITC house rules being so prevalent, people seem to want GW to balance the game for there favoured house rule set rather than balancing for actual 40k.
What concerns me is how much sway the itc crowd have in the play testing.
Because the ITC crowd care about balance, and GW doesn't give a gak.
So how does GW get it right if people don't play the game as designed? If people don't play with GW missions and instead play test potentially with houserules then the feedback they receive is wrong.
If we assume the playtesters are testing using core GW rules and then still having to create ITC formats afterwards then the playtesting isn't good enough or has a bias.
SeanDrake wrote: Almost all of 8th editions main issues stem from the ITC house rules being so prevalent, people seem to want GW to balance the game for there favoured house rule set rather than balancing for actual 40k.
What concerns me is how much sway the itc crowd have in the play testing.
This may be the first time I've ever been in 100% agreement with SeanDrake. I don't have any illusions that GW's rules are balanced, but how can they be expected to balance their game against a different ruleset than what they put out?
GW wasn't getting it right before ITC. They aren't interested in balance. I don't think they have playtesters, which is why they lean on the ITC crowd.
Martel732 wrote: GW wasn't getting it right before ITC. They aren't interested in balance. I don't think they have playtesters, which is why they lean on the ITC crowd.
Well they factually confirmed the presence of in house playtesters in FAQ's, in articles, white dwarf and other publications. I really don't know what more you need?
Add to this the "massive 40k announcement" that GW has lined up at Adepticon and I think it's fair to say this isn't the usual doomsaying or random guessing.
People reading what they want to read.
2020’s AdeptiCon Warhammer Preview is going to be the BIGGEST and BEST Warhammer preview EVER.
Warhammer preview. Not 40K. Not AoS. Because they preview many facets of the hobby. Not just 40K.
SeanDrake wrote:Almost all of 8th editions main issues stem from the ITC house rules being so prevalent, people seem to want GW to balance the game for there favoured house rule set rather than balancing for actual 40k.
What concerns me is how much sway the itc crowd have in the play testing.
same here.
I've said it many times before, GW needs a specific "balanced" tournament ruleset.
otherwise the game we play @ flgs is perfectly fine.
Jidmah wrote: I disagree. Our group almost exclusively plays Wh40k by the books and most of the big issues are prevalent there just as they are in ITC.
Usually it's quite the opposite - things that are obnoxious in ITC are just ok in regular games because there are no magic boxes or secondary objectives.
Exactly. ITC creates just as many problems as it fixes. In truth most of my games lately have just been CA missions without any special terrain rules. The main issue with this kind of game is the game being over in 3 turns and objectives not mattering much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Its possible to get costs sufficiently accurate that book missions and itc both work.
Yes - actually balanced point costs fix both game modes.
Martel732 wrote: GW wasn't getting it right before ITC. They aren't interested in balance. I don't think they have playtesters, which is why they lean on the ITC crowd.
Well they factually confirmed the presence of in house playtesters in FAQ's, in articles, white dwarf and other publications. I really don't know what more you need?
Things like ironhands and CF and infiltrating or turn 1 DS assault cents? Like...Play testers don't matter when I can look at the rules for 45 seconds and know more about the game than they did playing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Castor wrote: Ask a dumb question, but what are the ITC rules beyond only using Eternal War missions and the ground floor of ruins blocking LOS?
3x secondary objectives chosen by the player at the start of the round. They basically get to pick objectives against your army composition that work best for them. On top of the standard objectives in ITC (hold more)(kill more) per turn. A big complaint is a lot of these objectives revolve around killing. For some strange reason "power level" is a factor in the secondary objectives. My big complaint is you can build your army to be hard to score against (which is dumb) composition should not effect my ability to score against you.
SeanDrake wrote:Almost all of 8th editions main issues stem from the ITC house rules being so prevalent, people seem to want GW to balance the game for there favoured house rule set rather than balancing for actual 40k.
What concerns me is how much sway the itc crowd have in the play testing.
same here.
I've said it many times before, GW needs a specific "balanced" tournament ruleset.
otherwise the game we play @ flgs is perfectly fine.
I've said repeatedly that 40K's real problem is a lack of a baked-in check-mate condition in the core rules because without one it's nigh impossible for the player who is losing to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and if the game isn't built around having a check-mate it's really hard to bolt one on after the fact.
Nobody seems to be listening to me on the matter though.
SeanDrake wrote:Almost all of 8th editions main issues stem from the ITC house rules being so prevalent, people seem to want GW to balance the game for there favoured house rule set rather than balancing for actual 40k.
What concerns me is how much sway the itc crowd have in the play testing.
same here.
I've said it many times before, GW needs a specific "balanced" tournament ruleset.
otherwise the game we play @ flgs is perfectly fine.
I've said repeatedly that 40K's real problem is a lack of a baked-in check-mate condition in the core rules because without one it's nigh impossible for the player who is losing to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and if the game isn't built around having a check-mate it's really hard to bolt one on after the fact.
Nobody seems to be listening to me on the matter though.
And if they do they usually say "What, like Warmachine? Thbbt. I signed up to play a long bloody slog where one player gets a decisive advantage a third of the way through the turn limit but the rules say you're supposed to keep going to the end, not Capture the Flag!"
The Newman wrote: I've said repeatedly that 40K's real problem is a lack of a baked-in check-mate condition in the core rules because without one it's nigh impossible for the player who is losing to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and if the game isn't built around having a check-mate it's really hard to bolt one on after the fact.
Nobody seems to be listening to me on the matter though.
I think this is true, in the few games of Warmachine I played I really liked how you could assassinate the warcaster to snatch victory despite getting stomped.
I don't think there is a good way to implement such a think in 40k though. Something like killing the warlord wouldn't work because some armies simply can't do that and some warlords are night impossible to kill.
The Newman wrote: I've said repeatedly that 40K's real problem is a lack of a baked-in check-mate condition in the core rules because without one it's nigh impossible for the player who is losing to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and if the game isn't built around having a check-mate it's really hard to bolt one on after the fact.
Nobody seems to be listening to me on the matter though.
I think this is true, in the few games of Warmachine I played I really liked how you could assassinate the warcaster to snatch victory despite getting stomped.
I don't think there is a good way to implement such a think in 40k though. Something like killing the warlord wouldn't work because some armies simply can't do that and some warlords are night impossible to kill.
In chapter approved they added the open war cards system, which includes "sudden death cards" that give you instant-win conditions. The covert operations game mode they introduced for it is apparently pretty fun too, where both players draw 2 secret sudden death cards and whoever achieves both first wins.
Dunno what you guys talking about.
The balance is much better than it ever was.
If you cut iron hands, and push some of the worst army's out there
The best win ranking army has about 3-6% more than the 10th
That's so near to how perfekt it can be
cole1114 wrote: In chapter approved they added the open war cards system, which includes "sudden death cards" that give you instant-win conditions. The covert operations game mode they introduced for it is apparently pretty fun too, where both players draw 2 secret sudden death cards and whoever achieves both first wins.
Did you ever try those cards? I did, it works terribly. At some random point during the game, it grinds to a screeching halt and just ends, leaving both players shrugging. Not to mention that these cards aren't exactly fair to certain armies.
Jidmah wrote: I disagree. Our group almost exclusively plays Wh40k by the books and most of the big issues are prevalent there just as they are in ITC.
Usually it's quite the opposite - things that are obnoxious in ITC are just ok in regular games because there are no magic boxes or secondary objectives.
Exactly. ITC creates just as many problems as it fixes. In truth most of my games lately have just been CA missions without any special terrain rules. The main issue with this kind of game is the game being over in 3 turns and objectives not mattering much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Its possible to get costs sufficiently accurate that book missions and itc both work.
Yes - actually balanced point costs fix both game modes.
Balanced points costs for ITC will be different to balanced points costs in the book missions and especially in the latest CA19.
I played against the supposedly-so-broken-all-we-can-do-is-cry Iron Hands stuff in a tournament last week. Literally all the stuff the internet is raging about. CA19 missions, I played the mission and got tabled on turn 6 with such a big VP lead it did not matter. So is that IH stuff broken and massively undercosted for CA19 missions? On the evidence of the day, I would say there is a problem there - it is absolutely horrible for less experienced players to deal with - but no way broken. Given the experience of the day, I would suggest that with CA19 missions and enough experienced players around that stuff will be a flash in the pan - a brief fad for a horribly boring list that will go away because it is a classic mid-table bully that does not win on the top tables so does not win tournaments.
If I had the exact same match-up in ITC mission I would have been crushed without any possible route to victory - so in ITC that stuff is broken because it really only leaves a handful of viable army builds in the whole game that can deal with it. In ITC that stuff needs a nerf either to its rules or to its points values, in CA19 missions I think it is a bit too strong but not so much that any sort of nerf is urgently needed and failing to win tournaments will sort the problem out naturally.
I have no idea how you are getting to turn 3 tablings in CA19 missions in your games, everyone must just be going all-in on ridiculous glass cannon lists where you are. I had none of that and where my opponents did concede it was because by turn 4 or so I had an unassailable VP point lead in progressive scoring (and they fancied a drink), not because they were even that close to getting tabled.
I was stung pretty badly by GW at the end of 7th. The Traitors Hate supplement came out just a few months before it was invalidated by 8th edition. My memory is poor but I think it was released in March 2017 and 8th was June.
This sudden rush of books through psychic awakening feels like the same pattern from 7th with Gathering Storm campaign and Traitors Hate.
I won't be buying any of the psychic awakening books just in case it happens again.
I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.
And behold, after the rain ends and the clouds disperse, there shall be sunshine!
Jidmah wrote: I disagree. Our group almost exclusively plays Wh40k by the books and most of the big issues are prevalent there just as they are in ITC.
Usually it's quite the opposite - things that are obnoxious in ITC are just ok in regular games because there are no magic boxes or secondary objectives.
Exactly. ITC creates just as many problems as it fixes. In truth most of my games lately have just been CA missions without any special terrain rules. The main issue with this kind of game is the game being over in 3 turns and objectives not mattering much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Its possible to get costs sufficiently accurate that book missions and itc both work.
Yes - actually balanced point costs fix both game modes.
Balanced points costs for ITC will be different to balanced points costs in the book missions and especially in the latest CA19.
I played against the supposedly-so-broken-all-we-can-do-is-cry Iron Hands stuff in a tournament last week. Literally all the stuff the internet is raging about. CA19 missions, I played the mission and got tabled on turn 6 with such a big VP lead it did not matter. So is that IH stuff broken and massively undercosted for CA19 missions? On the evidence of the day, I would say there is a problem there - it is absolutely horrible for less experienced players to deal with - but no way broken. Given the experience of the day, I would suggest that with CA19 missions and enough experienced players around that stuff will be a flash in the pan - a brief fad for a horribly boring list that will go away because it is a classic mid-table bully that does not win on the top tables so does not win tournaments.
If I had the exact same match-up in ITC mission I would have been crushed without any possible route to victory - so in ITC that stuff is broken because it really only leaves a handful of viable army builds in the whole game that can deal with it. In ITC that stuff needs a nerf either to its rules or to its points values, in CA19 missions I think it is a bit too strong but not so much that any sort of nerf is urgently needed and failing to win tournaments will sort the problem out naturally.
I have no idea how you are getting to turn 3 tablings in CA19 missions in your games, everyone must just be going all-in on ridiculous glass cannon lists where you are. I had none of that and where my opponents did concede it was because by turn 4 or so I had an unassailable VP point lead in progressive scoring (and they fancied a drink), not because they were even that close to getting tabled.
Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean its not happening. You can't play the mission when your units are dead. Savvy IH players are not going to let you build such a huge lead in CA 2019. The points may be slightly different, but broken in one format is likely broken in the other. Killing always works if the player is good.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.
And behold, after the rain ends and the clouds disperse, there shall be sunshine!
I know a random guy on the internet isn't proof, I just wanna link to this when it drops and gloat while saying I told you so.
Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean its not happening. You can't play the mission when your units are dead. Savvy IH players are not going to let you build such a huge lead in CA 2019. The points may be slightly different, but broken in one format is likely broken in the other. Killing always works if the player is good.
Dude, I just literally played that game last weekend. This is not theory-hammer, this is practical experience.
The Newman wrote: I've said repeatedly that 40K's real problem is a lack of a baked-in check-mate condition in the core rules because without one it's nigh impossible for the player who is losing to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and if the game isn't built around having a check-mate it's really hard to bolt one on after the fact.
Nobody seems to be listening to me on the matter though.
I think this is true, in the few games of Warmachine I played I really liked how you could assassinate the warcaster to snatch victory despite getting stomped.
I don't think there is a good way to implement such a think in 40k though. Something like killing the warlord wouldn't work because some armies simply can't do that and some warlords are night impossible to kill.
Other armies field 9 Snipers who hit on 2's and ignore line of sight. If you make killing a Company Commander or an Ethereal an instant-win, then Marine players will just build around using Eliminators get to that Turn 1 every game (even more than they already do).
Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean its not happening. You can't play the mission when your units are dead. Savvy IH players are not going to let you build such a huge lead in CA 2019. The points may be slightly different, but broken in one format is likely broken in the other. Killing always works if the player is good.
Dude, I just literally played that game last weekend. This is not theory-hammer, this is practical experience.
Gotta love Dakka sometimes.
I believe Martel was stating that your IH opponents were poor quality otherwise you would have been shot off before you could cap objectives, not that you can't envision people being wiped turn 3 which is commonplace in ITC.
Just trying to translate - I agree with your stance that IH are an issue but being able to play to a mission should be more important than a killing focused game.
Nithaniel wrote: I was stung pretty badly by GW at the end of 7th. The Traitors Hate supplement came out just a few months before it was invalidated by 8th edition. My memory is poor but I think it was released in March 2017 and 8th was June.
This sudden rush of books through psychic awakening feels like the same pattern from 7th with Gathering Storm campaign and Traitors Hate.
I won't be buying any of the psychic awakening books just in case it happens again.
I don't blame you. They did do well on compensating people who bought those later books though. Were you able to take advantage of that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.
This is the kind of comment that creates these rumors.
Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean its not happening. You can't play the mission when your units are dead. Savvy IH players are not going to let you build such a huge lead in CA 2019. The points may be slightly different, but broken in one format is likely broken in the other. Killing always works if the player is good.
Dude, I just literally played that game last weekend. This is not theory-hammer, this is practical experience.
Gotta love Dakka sometimes.
I am skeptical of that sort of success as well, but I will remain open minded. Not sure if my store will do non-ITC this month.
Martel732 wrote: If i kill you before you can cap, format ceases to matter.
Sure if you are noob stomping. The best lists in 8th stack defenses. Good luck ignoring the mission and just killing against triple riptide lists with 30+ shield drones.
I believe Martel was stating that your IH opponents were poor quality otherwise you would have been shot off before you could cap objectives, not that you can't envision people being wiped turn 3 which is commonplace in ITC.
Just trying to translate - I agree with your stance that IH are an issue but being able to play to a mission should be more important than a killing focused game.
He was asserting it without any understanding of the facts, essentially in denial of the stated facts. I'm not going to waste too much of my life trying to persuade people like that.
I am not going to comment on the quality of my opponent, I am going to say that I am definitely no Nick Nanavati and no extreme differences in skill level were involved. I had never played that mission before and now having played it I know I could and should have played it better, as I will next time.
We can agree that IH are an issue right now and that the crazy upgrades to Techmarines were neither needed nor wanted by anyone but IH players looking for easy-win buttons to press. There are marine units I would agree are too cheap for what they do and some of those are prevalent in IH lists. None of that means that they are broken just that they are very strong and happen to be exactly the sort of thing that is a bad experience for a lot of mid-table players.
I'm not denying what happened at all. Read it again. I don't need to know the details of your match if I'm taking you at your word.
Despite your match, turn 3 wipes happen, and turn 3 cripplings are even more common. You can't cap with a crippled list. The real power of IH is to park on objectives and force people trying to "play the objectives" to feed themselves into a blender. IG has been doing this since 5th, with varying degrees of success.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.
This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.
To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.
Jidmah wrote: I disagree. Our group almost exclusively plays Wh40k by the books and most of the big issues are prevalent there just as they are in ITC.
Usually it's quite the opposite - things that are obnoxious in ITC are just ok in regular games because there are no magic boxes or secondary objectives.
Exactly. ITC creates just as many problems as it fixes. In truth most of my games lately have just been CA missions without any special terrain rules. The main issue with this kind of game is the game being over in 3 turns and objectives not mattering much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Its possible to get costs sufficiently accurate that book missions and itc both work.
Yes - actually balanced point costs fix both game modes.
Balanced points costs for ITC will be different to balanced points costs in the book missions and especially in the latest CA19.
I played against the supposedly-so-broken-all-we-can-do-is-cry Iron Hands stuff in a tournament last week. Literally all the stuff the internet is raging about. CA19 missions, I played the mission and got tabled on turn 6 with such a big VP lead it did not matter. So is that IH stuff broken and massively undercosted for CA19 missions? On the evidence of the day, I would say there is a problem there - it is absolutely horrible for less experienced players to deal with - but no way broken. Given the experience of the day, I would suggest that with CA19 missions and enough experienced players around that stuff will be a flash in the pan - a brief fad for a horribly boring list that will go away because it is a classic mid-table bully that does not win on the top tables so does not win tournaments.
If I had the exact same match-up in ITC mission I would have been crushed without any possible route to victory - so in ITC that stuff is broken because it really only leaves a handful of viable army builds in the whole game that can deal with it. In ITC that stuff needs a nerf either to its rules or to its points values, in CA19 missions I think it is a bit too strong but not so much that any sort of nerf is urgently needed and failing to win tournaments will sort the problem out naturally.
I have no idea how you are getting to turn 3 tablings in CA19 missions in your games, everyone must just be going all-in on ridiculous glass cannon lists where you are. I had none of that and where my opponents did concede it was because by turn 4 or so I had an unassailable VP point lead in progressive scoring (and they fancied a drink), not because they were even that close to getting tabled.
When armies are actually fighting each other and every unit is engaging - a 2000 point list only last about 3-4 turns. It is simple math. The mission rarely comes into play - especially if you are just fighting for objectives in the middle. When the mission does matter its usually like...The player with 1 model left has more points than me but I am on literally every objective and going to double him in 1 turn. Just gotta roll a 3+ to see who wins if the game goes another turn.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.
This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.
To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.
They have plenty of churn even without a new edition.
I believe Martel was stating that your IH opponents were poor quality otherwise you would have been shot off before you could cap objectives, not that you can't envision people being wiped turn 3 which is commonplace in ITC.
Just trying to translate - I agree with your stance that IH are an issue but being able to play to a mission should be more important than a killing focused game.
He was asserting it without any understanding of the facts, essentially in denial of the stated facts. I'm not going to waste too much of my life trying to persuade people like that.
I am not going to comment on the quality of my opponent, I am going to say that I am definitely no Nick Nanavati and no extreme differences in skill level were involved. I had never played that mission before and now having played it I know I could and should have played it better, as I will next time.
We can agree that IH are an issue right now and that the crazy upgrades to Techmarines were neither needed nor wanted by anyone but IH players looking for easy-win buttons to press. There are marine units I would agree are too cheap for what they do and some of those are prevalent in IH lists. None of that means that they are broken just that they are very strong and happen to be exactly the sort of thing that is a bad experience for a lot of mid-table players.
Ironhands have too many free rules. It is undebateable. Compare an IH stormhawk to literally any other marine faction. It does more damage just because (cause it's 3's reroll 1's compare to everyone else hitting on 4's with no rerolls) Same for basically every marine unit with a heavy weapon. That is broken. IH are winning 70% of their games in ITC and they are going to do just as well in every other format because they just blow you off the table by ignoring all marines weaknesses. Sure IH can lose - they aren't indestructible. Thing is - marines are playing with a 9th edition codex in 8th edition. That is why they are so strong. Every army is going to have this kind of setup in the next edition.
You guys are giving way to much credit to the rule sets in regards to balance. The army that wins is usually the army that pays less to get more. That is never balanced in 40k is the problem.
The Newman wrote: I've said repeatedly that 40K's real problem is a lack of a baked-in check-mate condition in the core rules because without one it's nigh impossible for the player who is losing to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and if the game isn't built around having a check-mate it's really hard to bolt one on after the fact.
Nobody seems to be listening to me on the matter though.
I think this is true, in the few games of Warmachine I played I really liked how you could assassinate the warcaster to snatch victory despite getting stomped.
I don't think there is a good way to implement such a think in 40k though. Something like killing the warlord wouldn't work because some armies simply can't do that and some warlords are night impossible to kill.
Other armies field 9 Snipers who hit on 2's and ignore line of sight. If you make killing a Company Commander or an Ethereal an instant-win, then Marine players will just build around using Eliminators get to that Turn 1 every game (even more than they already do).
You could add "may not be targetted if it's not the closest model" to the Warlord rules to get around that, since as stands all the sniper weapons explicitly ignore the Character targetting restrictions. That would also get around the problem of (10+ wounds = no character protection) + (dead warlord = win) making it suicidal to make a Flyrant or a Greater Daemon your warlord, but there's almost certainly something I'm overlooking that would be completely broken/unplayable garbage under such a rule.
Which gets back to what I was saying in the first place, that having a checkmate condition almost requires building the game around that mechanic from the ground up.
I gotta say, I have yet to play a game against space Marines that makes it to the 4th turn, and I run Custodes, which are SUPPOSED to be the hardest thing to kill in 8th.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I gotta say, I have yet to play a game against space Marines that makes it to the 4th turn, and I run Custodes, which are SUPPOSED to be the hardest thing to kill in 8th.
Could be tricky, marines seem to be very good at killing hard targets.
I don't know Custodes well enough to know what counter-play they might have - nobody around here is playing them at the moment and they are the exact opposite of the sort of thing that suits my playstyle.
What I will say is that we are less likely to see an IH list like that in our local store again because he left empty-handed. It is not that suddenly all the other players have the tools to beat that list, it is more that by being beaten we are less likely to see that list so often in the future. There is a tendency for players to copy-cat just in order to compete but I don't think anyone will do that knowing that I have a strong counter which they have seen beat it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I gotta say, I have yet to play a game against space Marines that makes it to the 4th turn, and I run Custodes, which are SUPPOSED to be the hardest thing to kill in 8th.
They are not the hardest per point by a long shot. Guardsmen are a lot tougher.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.
This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.
To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.
Great, got back into 40k, spent a small fortune on Rules and the codex's over the last month and xmas.......
Why is everyone surprised when this happens? This literally happened the same way from 7th to 8th. Weren't Custodes and SOS released in March 2017? Didn't 8th drop in April 2017? Also, Sisters dropped in December 2016, with makes it exactly 3 months if anyone cares about that rumor.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.
This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.
To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.
Great, got back into 40k, spent a small fortune on Rules and the codex's over the last month and xmas.......
All the rumours suggest 9th will be a "soft" reset, so the codexes (codices?) should stay mostly relevant, especially the most recent ones. And all the great art and fiction and background stuff in them is still nice to have!
As far as I can tell, the rumors of a June release for 9th edition started with Larry Vela from BoLS using his "industry insider" source. You know. The one who said Slaanesh was going to be squatted. Since then, I've seen other sites and blogs use his article as their source, and I've seen BoLS link to those articles to reinforce their argument. It's a laughably obvious example of circular referencing.
Xenomancers wrote: Ironhands have too many free rules. It is undebateable. Compare an IH stormhawk to literally any other marine faction. It does more damage just because (cause it's 3's reroll 1's compare to everyone else hitting on 4's with no rerolls) Same for basically every marine unit with a heavy weapon. That is broken. IH are winning 70% of their games in ITC and they are going to do just as well in every other format because they just blow you off the table by ignoring all marines weaknesses. Sure IH can lose - they aren't indestructible. Thing is - marines are playing with a 9th edition codex in 8th edition. That is why they are so strong. Every army is going to have this kind of setup in the next edition.
You guys are giving way to much credit to the rule sets in regards to balance. The army that wins is usually the army that pays less to get more. That is never balanced in 40k is the problem.
I think we are getting deep into semantics here on what we call broken. I reckon if a semi-competitive player like me can comfortably beat something it can't be "broken", you are using a different metric.
Even a broken analogue clock is right twice a day. Being wrong on one aspect doesn't mean they're wrong on everything.
That being said, if they don't "refresh" the edition's rules ala 9th or GHB 2, it will be the first time they've waited so long to do so with their main games in quite a long time.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.
This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.
To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.
Great, got back into 40k, spent a small fortune on Rules and the codex's over the last month and xmas.......
Worrying what the future will bring only keeps you from enjoying what you have. Play what you got, when 9E comes, It comes. In the meantime, you’ll have had plenty of enjoyable games, rather than twiddling your thumbs waiting for the Next Great Version.
VAYASEN wrote: Great, got back into 40k, spent a small fortune on Rules and the codex's over the last month and xmas.......
I wouldn't worry too much. It's only a rumour, and even if true may only result in needing to buy a new BRB.
I got back into 40K a year and a half ago and built an SM army like the one I used to play in to '90s. All I heard for a year was how Primaris marines were going to replace my entire army. Then there were rumours of a new SM codex that would 'definitely' spell the end with all their rules being removed from the game. And guess what? The new SM codex still contains all the old units and they benefit from all the new rules too.
Don't believe everything you hear on internet forums...
Charistoph wrote: Even a broken analogue clock is right twice a day. Being wrong on one aspect doesn't mean they're wrong on everything.
That being said, if they don't "refresh" the edition's rules ala 9th or GHB 2, it will be the first time they've waited so long to do so with their main games in quite a long time.
Sure. But that just makes the "rumour" extra-dodgy.
If click-bait sites like BoLS throw out "rumours" about things you can "reasonably" guess are gonna happen more or less anyhow, it's the ultimate red light to the rumour being actually a legitimate rumour. Doubly so if they cannot even be bothered to be precise on whether its a genuine new edition, just the annual box in the spirit of Dark Imperium/Shadowspear with an errata-updated rulebook or something inbetween.
That just reeks of "let's make reasonable guesses that might more or less turn out correct with reasonable probability just so we can obscure the waters on our bad rumour-track record and continue to produce click-bait. And lets make it extra vague, so we spin-doctor it into a "correct rumour" later as much as possible".
Charistoph wrote: Even a broken analogue clock is right twice a day. Being wrong on one aspect doesn't mean they're wrong on everything.
That being said, if they don't "refresh" the edition's rules ala 9th or GHB 2, it will be the first time they've waited so long to do so with their main games in quite a long time.
Sure. But that just makes the "rumour" extra-dodgy.
If click-bait sites like BoLS throw out "rumours" about things you can "reasonably" guess are gonna happen more or less anyhow, it's the ultimate red light to the rumour being actually a legitimate rumour. Doubly so if they cannot even be bothered to be precise on whether its a genuine new edition, just the annual box in the spirit of Dark Imperium/Shadowspear with an errata-updated rulebook or something inbetween.
That just reeks of "let's make reasonable guesses that might more or less turn out correct with reasonable probability just so we can obscure the waters on our bad rumour-track record and continue to produce click-bait. And lets make it extra vague, so we spin-doctor it into a "correct rumour" later as much as possible".
Oh, no argument from me. Every time I hear, "I heard a rumor," the phrase, "every rumor is probably not true, so you should tell everyone you know," comes to mind.
It's one of the things that helps keep the salt mines busy ever since some doctors tried to convince everyone their heart disease came from the salt on their potato chips.
Spikeybits has some rumors. Probably bs but hey worth talking about.
1) There are about 4 PA books left before 9th.
2) Endless spells are coming to 40k. They will get a box like malign portents.
3) the psychic phase will be before the movement phase
4) Flyers are getting a total rules rework
5) New heavy skitarii called hephaestons that will take up two slots in duneriders, accidentally revealed in concept/sketch art for those
cole1114 wrote: Spikeybits has some rumors. Probably bs but hey worth talking about.
1) There are about 4 PA books left before 9th.
2) Endless spells are coming to 40k. They will get a box like malign portents.
3) the psychic phase will be before the movement phase
4) Flyers are getting a total rules rework
5) New heavy skitarii called hephaestons that will take up two slots in duneriders, accidentally revealed in concept/sketch art for those
Spikey Bits said last month that Blood of the Baal would be the last Psychic Awakening book.
cole1114 wrote: Spikeybits has some rumors. Probably bs but hey worth talking about.
1) There are about 4 PA books left before 9th.
2) Endless spells are coming to 40k. They will get a box like malign portents.
3) the psychic phase will be before the movement phase
4) Flyers are getting a total rules rework
5) New heavy skitarii called hephaestons that will take up two slots in duneriders, accidentally revealed in concept/sketch art for those
Spikey Bits said last month that Blood of the Baal would be the last Psychic Awakening book.
They're… really not that great a source.
Oh they're terrible. But I wanted to talk about those ideas at the very least.
cole1114 wrote: Spikeybits has some rumors. Probably bs but hey worth talking about.
1) There are about 4 PA books left before 9th.
2) Endless spells are coming to 40k. They will get a box like malign portents.
3) the psychic phase will be before the movement phase
4) Flyers are getting a total rules rework
5) New heavy skitarii called hephaestons that will take up two slots in duneriders, accidentally revealed in concept/sketch art for those
1) Sounds about right
2) Seems like the foot to lead with. It's something I expected, but given that in AoS they're mostly faction linked it makes this much less likely.
3) Also seems like an assumption based on AoS 4) Out of left field
5) If they were accidentally revealed are there images to look at?
cole1114 wrote: Spikeybits has some rumors. Probably bs but hey worth talking about.
1) There are about 4 PA books left before 9th.
2) Endless spells are coming to 40k. They will get a box like malign portents.
3) the psychic phase will be before the movement phase
4) Flyers are getting a total rules rework
5) New heavy skitarii called hephaestons that will take up two slots in duneriders, accidentally revealed in concept/sketch art for those
1) Sounds about right
2) Seems like the foot to lead with. It's something I expected, but given that in AoS they're mostly faction linked it makes this much less likely.
3) Also seems like an assumption based on AoS 4) Out of left field
5) If they were accidentally revealed are there images to look at?
cole1114 wrote: Spikeybits has some rumors. Probably bs but hey worth talking about.
1) There are about 4 PA books left before 9th.
2) Endless spells are coming to 40k. They will get a box like malign portents.
3) the psychic phase will be before the movement phase
4) Flyers are getting a total rules rework
5) New heavy skitarii called hephaestons that will take up two slots in duneriders, accidentally revealed in concept/sketch art for those
Spikey Bits said last month that Blood of the Baal would be the last Psychic Awakening book.
They're… really not that great a source.
Oh they're terrible. But I wanted to talk about those ideas at the very least.
Well, that's fair.
Personally, the only one I give real credence to is the Hephaeston, and that's only because we've also already seen the new Archaeocopter, and there's been some other quite clearly Skitarii stuff on Rumour Engine.
The idea that there's only 4 more PA books is almost certainly incorrect. After Ritual of the Damned, I think they need at least 6 more to really cover all the factions they initially said would get new rules in it (and that's the ones from before they backtracked and claimed ALL factions would). Also, Spikey Bits has already made the mistake of thinking an announced "wave" of PA was the entirety of what would come up. They probably just made that exact same mistake a second time and thought Saga of The Beast (which anyone with a brain can guess will be Space Wolves vs Orkz) would be the final release.
Like, assuming Saga of the Beast is Orkz / Space Wolves, and Greater Good is T'au and Who-Knows, that still leaves us:
Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Custodes, Necrons, Chaos Daemons, Death Guard, Knights, and maybe also Genestealer Cults, Harlequins and Death Watch.
So I'm imagining one more additional "wave" of three books following Saga of the Beast.
"Endless Spells" in 40k MIGHT happen, but I think that's just them making a guess based on AoS, Psychic Awakening, and some of the phenomena described in the PA lore (like Imperial citizens in Talledus manifesting golden eagles to fight off the Alpha Legion). Educated guesses aren't rumours.
I think they're just pulling "Psychic will come before movement" completely out of their asses, because that's how AoS does it, and we've already seen rules ideas "tested" in AoS and then moved over to 40k. So it seems like them just going for a guess that SOUNDS like solid information but is just random ideas with no actual source that just happen to have a better chance of being correct than other random ideas would.
And as for flyers getting a total rework? I'll file that in "complete garbage", the kind of thing any "psychic" or fortune teller or cold reader or "medium" or whatever says because they know their correct guesses based on playing the odds will be remembered better and taken as stronger evidence than all their totally inaccurate garbage guesses.
I'm really interested in anything new for Admech, Big Bird is what I'm excited for, a heavy option in the elite slots sounds fun.
If endless spells are released and the psyker phase is before moving may be fun, and what interactions it has with the players can have interesting in-game effects.
flyers getting reworked can be cool, have more of a differentiation for skimmers, hover & supersonic. if they redo the hit/save modifiers for whichever mode of flight for the attacker should help to make it more "realistic".
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:It raises a good point. I really hope 9th adds IGOUGO mechanics.
I take it you mean alternating activation? 40K is already wholly IGOUGO.
Alternating activation a la Kill Team or Apocalypse is my holy grail for 40K. Even if it's just per-phase, I think it'd make a huge difference in how swingy the game can be.
(IGOUGO is a bit of a confusing term, isn't it? Because alternating activation does mean I go, then you go, then I go again, and so on to complete a single turn- the difference is really whether the alternation is within a turn, or from turn to turn)
Martel732 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I gotta say, I have yet to play a game against space Marines that makes it to the 4th turn, and I run Custodes, which are SUPPOSED to be the hardest thing to kill in 8th.
They are not the hardest per point by a long shot. Guardsmen are a lot tougher.
Custodians are 24 times harder to kill with bolters than Guardsman, for 12.25 times the cost. They are, point-for-point, twice as hard to kill.
Against lasguns, Custodians are 18 times harder to kill. Still 12.25 times the cost. Still more efficient.
Against bolt rifles, or bolters in Tactical doctrine, Custodians are 15 times harder to kill. Still 12.25 times the cost. Still more efficient.
Against actual heavy weapons... Guardsman start to become point-for-point tougher. Go figure. And you have to go all the way up to lascannons for Guardsmen to be twice as tough as Custodes for the points.
I've heard a rumor that 9th Ed will ship with a small stuffed Primaris doll so Marine players can demonstrate to the court where the Infantry Squad touched them.
All I can say is I was really excited to play 8th when it dropped, there were rough spots of course but it was fun. Now there's just too much going on, and I feel like building any army must start with a battalion or suck for lack of CP. I can't just... build an army then play a game. I need codex, campaign book(s), chapter approved, whatever the hell ITC is doing, on top of main rules, then I have to figure out how to build an army such that it is actually viable, and somewhere in all that I lose my will to try.
Something else that really bugs me is how the terrain rules allow for units that cannot be charged by any means, because my models won't fit on the platform they're on.
NinthMusketeer wrote: All I can say is I was really excited to play 8th when it dropped, there were rough spots of course but it was fun. Now there's just too much going on, and I feel like building any army must start with a battalion or suck for lack of CP. I can't just... build an army then play a game. I need codex, campaign book(s), chapter approved, whatever the hell ITC is doing, on top of main rules, then I have to figure out how to build an army such that it is actually viable, and somewhere in all that I lose my will to try.
Something else that really bugs me is how the terrain rules allow for units that cannot be charged by any means, because my models won't fit on the platform they're on.
Have you considered taking a step back from competitive play? I had a go at a tournament myself recently with my patently innefficient Dark Angels army, and it wasn't a lot of fun. Somehow, getting tabled by turn two just didn't give me a good time. When I expressed my lack of interest in any future tournaments, the competitive guys tried to explain that I would enjoy it a lot more if I just brought some better units (Azrael, Sammael, Hellblasters) but the thing is, I just don't want to use those units; I want to use the units I like the look an fluff of, but many of the competitive guys just don't seem to get that. On the other hand, there are a couple of fellow souls who seem to get exactly where I'm coming from, so I've just focused on playing more narrative based games with them, and we've been having a blast!
With respect to not being able to charge units on a raised platform, my local store has a house rule that allows charging units to imagine that the platform in question extends another 1" all around, but I actually don't like this rule, as I think the current rule actually makes narrative sense. A group of Warriors give up control of the battlefield to take up a highly defensible position, and hope to weather the storm. Well, within reason of course. Looking at you and your "High Ground" Obi Wan.
But yeah, I can see why competitive play shouldn't have these sorts of shenanigans.
cole1114 wrote: Spikeybits has some rumors. Probably bs but hey worth talking about.
1) There are about 4 PA books left before 9th.
2) Endless spells are coming to 40k. They will get a box like malign portents.
3) the psychic phase will be before the movement phase
4) Flyers are getting a total rules rework
5) New heavy skitarii called hephaestons that will take up two slots in duneriders, accidentally revealed in concept/sketch art for those
That Spikeybits articles was almost immediately pointed out to have been "sourced" from the unsourced BoLS article. It's exactly the article I was thinking of when I referred to circular sourcing.
Why exactly do people read Spikey Bitz or the appropriately named load of BoLS? I mean, do developments in our hobby really move with such speed and ferocity that we need to keep our fingers pressed hard on its pulse? Is it really so difficult to wait for the at least weekly updates from Games Workshop themselves that we'd rather go and read something that's likely mostly a load of taurox gak.
I still check BoLS regularly because they do often have some good articles about the state of the game. You just have to avoid anything written by Vela. I wouldn't look at Spikey Bits on someone else's computer. Not only is the content garbage, I feel like I need to run three virus/malware scans and disinfect my PC every time I unintentionally click a link to it.
