Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I finished reading through 6th Edition rules and listing the the initial podcasts discussing first impressions. I'm hearing a lot of concern from the competitve folks that they think games will be longer, the scenarios are unbalanced, broken allies, etc. When reading through the book I saw lots of emphasis on "developing the narrative" which makes me wonder if GW has essentially made a statement about competitve play? By crafting a rules set that may have inherently unbalanced scenarios that empasize cinematic game play as opposed to competitve gameplay, lengthens game time and complicates the game (two FOC, allies, boatload of USRs) are they telling gamers we prefer people have fun with this game as opposed to gearing it towards tournament play?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either supposition but I know from listening to podcasts and reading blogs over the past 2 years that competitive players have been complaining that they generally get the short end of the stick from GW and over on the Fantasy side apparently 8th edition has really hurt competitve play so is the 40k 6th edition rule set following that general theme? Is the competitve side getting the short end of the stick? Is it too early to tell? Is it just a matter of pruning away rules and scenarios to make it competitve?

I actually got the same distinct impression. It certainly feels like GW is making a conscious effort to reward fluffier play at the expense of competitive.

Personally, that actually doesn't bother me all that much. I think that previous versions of the rules encouraged an amount of competitive play incongruous with a game of chance like 40k.

It's pretty obvious from the rulebook itself and the aforementioned "forging a narrative" boxes that the point of the game is not to be an exacting chess match, but rather a big spectacle of a cinematic game. That's the impression I'm getting from the new rules, and I like them a lot. I play this game to have big cool battles between my spacemen with my buddies and it just serves to make that even better.

I dont know for sure as I have only a scratch of games played under 6th. But lets look at this:
1) Crazy FOC and Allies Rules that "force" people to buy models outside of their chosen army - Marketing Ploy? No..GW would NEVER do that
2) GW Tournament support gets worse and worse every year, and the best events are def NOT GW events

So I dont think its that GW doesnt care about competitive players, more that GW just doesnt care about players period. They are going to continue to produce a product and adjust rules that will warrant the most figure sales, whatever business model that is. Also look at how much better your basic infantry guy is now, and how much weaker vehicles are. Last edition MECH was brutal, now they are meh. They did the same thing in WHFB. Last edition CAV was brutal, now they pretty much suck, with certain exceptions. Making one army virtually unplayable (wasnt a popular army anyway, so GW didnt really care). This causes you to adjust your list of your chosen army, or start a new army (i.e. buy more models either way). Next edition you will probably see a switch back to vehicles being brutal, with a price increase right before the release. Look at how good flyers are in this edition and how much of a push on flyers there has been in the past 6 months prior to this edition. Its the same as codex creep, and again I will say it, GW doesnt care about its players (competitive OR casual), they care about sales. To be honest if I didnt enjoy the painting and converting aspect of this hobby as much if not MORE than the playing....I would have bailed on GW a while ago, but I am in it for the complete hobby, not just playing (competitve and casual).

I'd say that the answer to the OP's question is a definite yes. (This is not meant to be negatively critical of what 6th edition is as a game, but part of my own evolving evaluation of the new game. I've posted over the last week that I think 6th ed is a poor game system, however, the more I play the more I'm enjoying it and it still feels wonky but it's fun. I tend to giggle every time I get to use "Look Out Sir!" Do I think 6th is well designed? No. Do I think it's fun? Yes. Do I think it's tournament friendly? Heck no!)

GW's attitude toward the competitive tournament scene is no secret. They don't like it. They don't engage it and their pulling of support for competitive events is clearly indicative of their position. This rule set is absolutely a beer and pretzels narrative focused ruleset that requires TOs to remove a great deal of substance to get a tournament rule set.

I'm very curious to see what the Nova Open does with 6th edition. The sheer number of house rules tournaments that are going to issue forth from the launch of 6th edition is going to be something to watch. I do not envy the guys working on these issues. GW made a clear and stark statement with 6th edition regarding the tournament scene either actively or passively.

Not a rant, but man is this going to be interesting to watch. I wonder if this won't kill competitive play in some ways... I also wonder if TOs won't just codify 5th edition rules and codexes and keep playing 5th... Interesting times...

Well, considering fantasy is incredibly balanced compared to 40k... competitive play should be easier, as most lists are competitive!

If GW tried to take 40k in the same direction, kudos to them! I'm sick of 'autowins/loses' just because you want to take a cool unit, or make a fluffy list.

In fantasy, a fluffy army is still a good army, in 40k, a fluffy army generally sucks, with a few exceptions. I am of the opinion that if 40k becomes LESS competitive and more fluffy, everyone wins. In tournaments, you won't see the same style of list over and over, and people can have fun with their army instead of gearing it to win and fielding grey models because they cba painting, and just want to win with their internet army.

/rant


Von Chogg

Also, does the 6th ed rulebook make any mention of 'ard boyz? I'm pretty sure the 5th ed rulebook did.

Now that I think about it, I don't seem to recall 6th ed mentioning tournaments at all - they only referenced general events like games day and played up things like golden demon more than before.

Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetance. The only public discussion about competitive players that has come out of GW at all in the last three years has been Jervis pontificating in his monthly emotional tampon article in WD. The company as a whole just wants to sell stuff and any effect on tournements is purely accidental.

The design staff stated rather plainly they moved away from designing a balanced competitive ruleset at their open day seminar, and the book really does reflect that.

There's a lot of "Oh well you just haven't played any games yet/it's only been out X days" etc comments, but there is zero secret from GW's staff and the rulebook itself that this edition wasn't intended to be a competitive balanced ruleset to fix the issues of previous editions, it's there to provide a framework to create imaginary epic moments with GW's plastic army men.

The rules are not there for the "game", they are there to provide a purpose for the models.

The rules are still conductive to competitive play and in many ways it leveled the playing field for everyone.

The scenerios are well structured and the addition of fortifications adds a new element to the game.

Wouldn't custom rules for tournaments work fine? I mean, plenty of other games have tournament rules.

When I hear people complaining over 6th edition in tournament setting it mostly boils down to not being able to use the same combinations they were used to.

In CCG's the meta shifts every 6 months, when a new set is released In 40K the meta shifts every Edition, and to a lesser extent whenever a new ocdex is released.

I think the complaining is just a Knee Jerk reaction to "change".

Whatever strategy is dominant is usually blunted in the next edition. When I played the RAW DEAL CCG the best new strategy in each expansion had cards that would deliberately foil it in the next expansion.

When the Meta changes players are forced to come up with new strategies. Players learn to adapt and not just play the same ube combination over and over.

I'm all for competitive play, but, when I go to a tourney and out of 20 players I see 10 lists that are almost the same, it really takes any fun out of it.

I personally hope that 6th will get more people to bring what they like instead of the current interwebs power list, but alas your average tourney player has no imagination, and only wants the prizes.

Vaktathi wrote:The design staff stated rather plainly they moved away from designing a balanced competitive ruleset at their open day seminar, and the book really does reflect that.

There's a lot of "Oh well you just haven't played any games yet/it's only been out X days" etc comments, but there is zero secret from GW's staff and the rulebook itself that this edition wasn't intended to be a competitive balanced ruleset to fix the issues of previous editions, it's there to provide a framework to create imaginary epic moments with GW's plastic army men.

The rules are not there for the "game", they are there to provide a purpose for the models.

Yep, sadly. They are rich enough to create some stunning wargame, it would sell anyway maybe even better yet they go the cheap route nontheless. Imagine the great fluff + those great models + best wargame rules, complete win. They're too small for that apparently, for total quality.

It dosent bother me what people say that much, there is always someone complaining about something. Personally i like the 6th edition.

Im glad they seem to have eliminated such options from WH40k. I dont ever recall a feel to play against such players who only desire is a quick win, I play the game to enjoy myself and not to be a WAAC/competative person. I loved what GW did to 8th in fantasy, and Im glad to see that they continued the trend with 6th. And if the tournament scene suffers I must say I acctualy dont care,. So to sum it up I love 6th

Yes because it's all about quick win and WAAC, not a good ruleset and balance at least equal to those 8+ boardgames. And yes competitive excludes fluff/ casual. Oh wait...

Plumbumbarum wrote: there's Calgar walking in the front with 10 tactical marines and they get under fire - it's either 10 man doing nothing but jumping to catch bullets with their bodies or papa smurf doing nothing but ducking and hiding behind their backs and making tiny jumps from one to another as they get shot ..

Epicly amusing.

The rest of your post, not soo much.

While I can certainly see the greivance this has caused the competitive scene, I haven't had this much fun playing 40k since 2nd edition. So I can't be too mad at GW.

I never planned on playing this game for tournaments, just for fun.

A quick note, having a tight, well written ruleset that works for a competitive scene doesn't take away from "fun/casual/fluff/scenario" games or gamers, if anything, it should enhance those experiences as well by ensuring that everyone gets to use their toys without feeling like they're fielding dead weight (which can take away from the fun and/or narrative experience) and making sure everything is functioning in a proper manner without interruptions to the narrative, or games going awry when one side utter crushes another (which very often does not make for fun games).

Many other games manage to much better write their rules, balance their units types and their factions, and still be very fun and perfectly able to portray a fluffy/narrative atmosphere.

GW has decided to go...a different route.

Vaktathi wrote:A quick note, having a tight, well written ruleset that works for a competitive scene doesn't take away from "fun/casual/fluff/scenario" games or gamers, if anything, it should enhance those experiences as well by ensuring that everyone gets to use their toys without feeling like they're fielding dead weight (which can take away from the fun and/or narrative experience) and making sure everything is functioning in a proper manner without interruptions to the narrative, or games going awry when one side utter crushes another (which very often does not make for fun games).

I'm not so sure. Every time GW has tried to tighen up the game to be more balanced, it's resulted in a very stale game with no flavour. While it's the way they've done it, I'd rather they didn't try. 40k is at its best when it's over the top, random and crazy, and 6th is proving to be buckets of fun.

Vaktathi wrote:A quick note, having a tight, well written ruleset that works for a competitive scene doesn't take away from "fun/casual/fluff/scenario" games or gamers, if anything, it should enhance those experiences as well by ensuring that everyone gets to use their toys without feeling like they're fielding dead weight (which can take away from the fun and/or narrative experience) and making sure everything is functioning in a proper manner without interruptions to the narrative, or games going awry when one side utter crushes another (which very often does not make for fun games).

Many other games manage to much better write their rules, balance their units types and their factions, and still be very fun and perfectly able to portray a fluffy/narrative atmosphere.

GW has decided to go...a different route.

QFT. Malifaux and Dark Age are both better-balanced (not flawlessly-so, but significantly better), and yet follow systems of rules which are greatly more streamlined and intuitive, while still creating an immediate narrative (look at Malifaux's scenarios and subplots, by way of example). If GW meant anything by their commitment to 'excellence' they would have done the work necessary to achieve this with 40k, as it is, they've presented us with a game, even if it successfully simulates 'cinematic battles' (by which I'm far from convinced, unless Abaddon killing five sergeants and nobody else is 'cinematic'), has less tactical weight and more randomness than ever.

Better cinematics come from good tactical resolves than dice throws for space marines drowning in the mud, imo. It's like epic war movie with battles showed from eagle eye perspective vs Anaconda 4.

There were a lot of awesome moments in 5th and not forced by rules or random throws. Rarer maybe, but so even better for me. I am not by any means saying 5th was perfect or sth and 6th has its highs too but with that whole cinematic route, it's not exactly good at being cinematic imo.

adamsouza wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote: there's Calgar walking in the front with 10 tactical marines and they get under fire - it's either 10 man doing nothing but jumping to catch bullets with their bodies or papa smurf doing nothing but ducking and hiding behind their backs and making tiny jumps from one to another as they get shot ..

Epicly amusing.

The rest of your post, not soo much.

Care to elaborate? Not meant to be amusing tbh (the rest) but not sure what you mean, post, signature?

40k has always been about cinematic experience rather than game balance. People who play tournaments are playing it in a way that it is not designed to be played, hence why they tend to whine a lot more.

Having said that, there are some things that are just plain stupid - the warlord traits are irritating as hell, as are pretty much all the random things.

Vaktathi wrote:The design staff stated rather plainly they moved away from designing a balanced competitive ruleset at their open day seminar, and the book really does reflect that.

I think this is only because they are incapable of making a balanced game, not because they wouldn't want to.

-Loki- wrote:I'm not so sure. Every time GW has tried to tighen up the game to be more balanced, it's resulted in a very stale game with no flavour. While it's the way they've done it, I'd rather they didn't try. 40k is at its best when it's over the top, random and crazy, and 6th is proving to be buckets of fun.

Again, they're inept, and the reason their idea of balance is flavourless is because they're incapable of doing basic game design. The "lead designer" for 5th was a translator with no actual game design credentials, and it appears as if their hiring criteria for game designers is to give the job to whatever 20-something is hanging around the studio that day. Balance & Flavour are not mutually exclusive.

As for 6th being fun - I can buy that, if you're playing with a limited set of players and trust them all. It will cease to be fun the first time you play someone outside of your small circle who puts an army on the table where one model can soak over 50 wounds and you're left feeling unable to do anything to it.

Redbeard wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:The design staff stated rather plainly they moved away from designing a balanced competitive ruleset at their open day seminar, and the book really does reflect that.

I think this is only because they are incapable of making a balanced game, not because they wouldn't want to.

You could say the same thing about pretty much every RTS game ever made. Look at the release version of warcraft 3, or dawn of war. The only ones that ARE balanced are boring, for good reason. You can mathematically balance a system easily, but it'd be boring as hell and lack any fun whatsoever. If you want to balance something AND make it fun to play, you have to playtest it thousands, tens of thousands of times, which is impractical. They also playtest in a "casual" environment, rather than playing with dicks who're trying to win by whatever means possible. It's not GW's fault if you choose to play with such people.

Vaktathi wrote:A quick note, having a tight, well written ruleset that works for a competitive scene doesn't take away from "fun/casual/fluff/scenario" games or gamers...

Except that it does. If you emphasise competitive play in the rules, then you will get more competitive players. If you emphasise narrative play, you will get more narrative players. Look at Warmachine; their initial attitude was very much "this is a game for stomping face, play our tabletop RPG if you want narrative, you pansies", the rules reflected that attitude, and those rules were not as conducive to narrative play as other rulesets - "Counts As" as a concept was explicitly banned initially. When they moderated that attitude somewhat, the immediate response from the competitive community was "you're sacrificing OUR gameplay to cater to narrative players", and they were correct, just as it is correct to say that making 40K more competitive would sacrifice the options which make it such a useful narrative gaming ruleset in order to provide the tighter, more focused rules that competitive gamers want for tournaments.

GW has decided to go...a different route.

And good for them, they've been trying to pretend that they are all things to all gamers for several editions now, and the result were rules that didn't work particularly well for either crowd.

Redbeard wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:The design staff stated rather plainly they moved away from designing a balanced competitive ruleset at their open day seminar, and the book really does reflect that.

I think this is only because they are incapable of making a balanced game, not because they wouldn't want to.

-Loki- wrote:I'm not so sure. Every time GW has tried to tighen up the game to be more balanced, it's resulted in a very stale game with no flavour. While it's the way they've done it, I'd rather they didn't try. 40k is at its best when it's over the top, random and crazy, and 6th is proving to be buckets of fun.

Again, they're inept, and the reason their idea of balance is flavourless is because they're incapable of doing basic game design. The "lead designer" for 5th was a translator with no actual game design credentials, and it appears as if their hiring criteria for game designers is to give the job to whatever 20-something is hanging around the studio that day. Balance & Flavour are not mutually exclusive.

As for 6th being fun - I can buy that, if you're playing with a limited set of players and trust them all. It will cease to be fun the first time you play someone outside of your small circle who puts an army on the table where one model can soak over 50 wounds and you're left feeling unable to do anything to it.

"I don't like what they do, so that means they're incompetent."

Really mature

The fact that they didn't even try to toss Nids a bone regarding the Allies rule tells me they don't really care.

"Here is an official system that open tons of new strategies and balance issues. No, you can't have it. No, you have no alternative rule to make up for it".

Many of the rules are also borderline anti-competitive. Victory points for going first? Victory points for having drop pods on your list?

I don't see it so much as incompetence as sheer laziness. smaller studios update their books more often, even using this fancy Intrawebs thingamabob to change units and rules almost in real-time, and have forums where they can deal directly with their whining but ever-paying fans.

GW's olympic indifference is very much calculated. They don't think it's worth the effort and so far they are right, as people keep buying.

Every time someone compares GW to other game companies, though, I've got to chuckle.

If GW were really so terrible and everybody else were really so awesome, why hasn't 40k been taken over by other games? To me, this is disproof of said hypothesis.

Yes, people now talk about infinity and malifaux, but a few years ago, everybody was talking about confrontation and AT49 and heroclix, and who plays those anymore? Not as many people as play 40k, not by a long shot.

40k, despite its imperfect rules set, is still the best game with the most players and the best minis. That's why people play it. That's why you're on a 40k forum for goodness sake. Whining about it is just that - whining.