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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squig Herder certainly seems to get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calle wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squig_herder wrote:

Calle wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For me, thats not tactics, thats common sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

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

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

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

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

Money and marketing, obviously.

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

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

Are they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redbeard, you say what is in my heart.

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

Steelmage99 wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

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

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

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

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

Money and marketing, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See 1.

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

See 1.

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

See 1.

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

Which I didn't.

Edit.

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

Well said, greenskinned git.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--/end ramble.

Blood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This.

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

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

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

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

Steelmage99 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what's the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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