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.

Hi all.
This is just me listing some observations , and maybe leading to a discussuion to help us understand the way 40k has-is developed over time.
It is not meant to be a rant against anyone/thing inparticular.
But maybe by understanding how 'external influences' effected-effect development.And we may be able to arrive at a better understanding of why 40k is the way it is!

The original Rogue Trader rule set used WH 3rd ed rules to help WH players cross over to the 40k background.This game was set at the skirmish level and was very much a 3d RPG .This game was heavily narrative driven , and lots of fun but open to abuse.(An umpire games- master helped no end, IMO.)

2nd ed tidied up the plethora of addition rules and stream lined things a bit to allow for more models to be used in the game.
Most gamers thought 2nd ed was a natural progression from RT and was welcomed.(As far as I am aware.)
So all we have at this time is rules development driven by gamers requests and upping the model count(sales.)Win Win.
(Still some abusable things, but they were just not used by friendly gamers,by agreement.)

At this time GW offered a wide range of games suitable for all ages and abilities.
Sci fi games
40k (14 and over?)
Space Crusade. (Ages 8 and up?)
Advanced Space Crusade/Space hulk (Ages 12 and up ?)
Adeptus Titanicus -Epic Space Marine.(Grand battles for ages 14 and over.)

Toward the end of the 1990s the boxed games were dropped.

40k was now required to attract the Space Crusade/ Space Hulk customers, as well as the vet 40k players.

3rd ed was a complete change in direction as reguards to game play.(It was romuored the actual rule set was a bit rushed .)

A larger amount of models on the table , and a wider demographic to attract.

Although a lot of gamers wanted 2n ed to be 'tidied up',many thought 3rd ed threw the baby out with the bathwater.
And quit 40k ....

However most agree the 'get you by lists ' in the 3rd ed book were 'quite well balanced , if a bit bland'


A bareley noticable change from 2nd to 3rd ed was the Codex were sold as Suppliments for 40k in 2nd ed.And were added to by the monthly gameing supliment White Dwarf.(Codex and WD were seen to be equaly valid.)
And the articles in WD supported the free flowing narrative nature of 40k and WH.

Any how as we progress though 3rd and 4th ed , more and more new gamers think 40k and WH are suited to competative play.
They have PV and force composition lists, so this means they are ballanced for competitions ,right?
And during this time the gaming content in WD declines .
GW promotes tournaments and we get ever more special rules to help sell the new minatures....

10 years after 3rd ed hit the shelves , Allessio (SP?) states that 40k is not suitable for 'overly competative game play'.(I am paraphasing as I left my copy is at Phills house..)

So after letting gamers think 40k works ok for ballanced competative play , and has coined in lots of money from tournament players.(And caused a fluff/ power gamer split, maybe?)

The devs admit that 40k is not that well balanced, and according to Jervis it dosent have to be because tournament players only make up 5% of all GW gamers.(After streamlining options to try to get better balance, and failing BTW.)

I suppose the studio staff have ALWAYS seen WH and 40k as a co-operative narrative driven games.And played in this way they work great.(Lots of fun.!!!!)

Perhaps other forces at GW towers enforced the underplaying of this, to help sell more minatures to the more competative gamers?

Compared to how much narrative reinforcment there was in the early 1990s in WD and stores.
Currently thier is very little.ANY optional list -unit in WD gets the same responce.
IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

40K ,(and to a lesser extent WH,)appear to have had thier game play comprimised by external influences.

40K has to appeal to a very wide demoghraphic, and so has to have 'something for everyone.'
And as such, may have lost its focus?

So what was covered by 4 types of seperate rule sets ,(detailed skirmish, large scale skirmish, platoon-company level tactical command, and battalion -regimental level strategy.)
Is now attempted in one rule set.(40k).

I belive 40k attempts to be too many things to be effective at any thing inparticular.And maybe multiple focused rule sets might be a better option?

Anyhow thanks for reading.(I do tend to ramble it is my age... )

TTFN
Lanrak.

I think 40k is pretty well-focused with relatively few compromises.

The 40k5 AoBR starter is a great value and intro to the game. It has lots of cool minis, small scenarios, and first-timer hobby information.

The 40k5 main game (Rulebook & Codices) are relatively tight and with adequate (not "perfect") balance. The core Rulebook has almost NO rules issues, and is a huge improvement over 40k3 and 40k4. Codices are well-themed and distinctive.

Despite the Devs claiming not to care much about balance, 40k actually does a better job of supporting Tournament play than every before. Fundamentally, the rules are at least clearer than before, with less need for FAQ. Balance-wise, it's fair that the Devs admonish the players to take the responsibility of fielding a "fair" army. That certain, vocal players (i.e. TFGs) refuse to do so is more a reflection on those players who want to be TFG than the Devs.

Apocalypse covers all of the fun stuff, permissiveness, and miscellany and just doesn't need to care about balance per se. Wierd, wacky stuff happens with such variety and non-repetition, that seeking perfect balance in detail in all conditions is a fool's errand.

All I can say is that I'm happier in 5th Apocalypse than I ever was in 4th.

Lanrak wrote:IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

Yes, I've grown kind of sick of that as well. I remember having a friend over, and he'd use all my unpainted plastic orks and gretchin and behind them would be a small scrap of paper touting them as Striking Scorpions or whatever. In his defense they were GW models, but were they tournament legal?

Very nice write up. It brought back some fond memories of my first games with the hobby. Particularly when I thought forces were supposed to be deployed upon the LONG sides of the table. I never could figure out why they included HtH rules as models would never make it in time! (Give me a break guys, I was like 10 at the time and I figured it out after a few games).

Thanks enjoyed the read, I disagree on no particular point, all I have to ad is this;

Having played through everything described I am prepared to accept what I have come to find is the reality, the game will always be changing, it will never be about balance or improvement, moving the story forward, or anything else, it will always be planned obsolescence to keep the new products selling. If it were ever perfectly published all at once it would be immposssible to keep selling new material.

Its like the expanding collapsing model of the universe in physics (I am Nerd, heh) cyclical, foreever.

Any player considering long term involvement in the hobby probably ought to realize this or not start in the first place.

Back to painting Marines, LOL

5th Ed is certainly the most playable of it's various incarnation.

Fairly well written rules, pace is good, and some interesting tactical opportunities just by dropping in running and going to ground. Adds a smidge of realism, without requiring clunky mechanics.

But with regard to studio's view, I do agree. The game is designed as a Hobby. A hobby to me is something to be indulged in with like minded people.

And theres the crunch. Like minded. Me, I don't care for Tournaments. Not my bag at all, so I have a group of fellow gamers who see it as your aforementioned co-operative narrative game. None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list, yet we are happy to take on more exotic lists for the change and the challenge (my Dark Elf Monster army being a notorious example).

To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise. The Tournament players are welcome to play as competitively as they want, as long as their demands for greater and greater balance (essentially fewer options and a loss of flavour to my mind) don't start infringing on my enjoyment.

So many times I have read things on the Interwebs *demanding* that Option X become 1 per Y,000 points, or 0-1, or something else should be dropped in points. All healthy debate I'm sure, but by taking up Tournaments, you are tying yourself to the rulebook too much. One of the core principals of GW's games (and others) is to do as you will with the rules. Want to tinker, go ahead. Playtest with your circle, find out what suits you best. The rules as sold can be used as they are, sure. But step back from them a bit, and you'll see a framework for a great game. For example, Campaigns.

I wrote an article on the subject for The Watchman which went down quite well. And I encouraged people to use such things as a testbed for new ideas, and to break out the box of self imposed, slavish rules following. Outside of a Tournament, where things need to be as equal as possible, a game does not need to have equal points. Why? Because it is more than possible to write a Scenario where regardless of points, both sides have an equal chance of winning. And it goes further. Want to use a list from Eye of Terror? Go for it. Was balanced then, it's balanced now. Main reason GW don't back it fully is that as a company, their resources are finite and there are far bigger fish to fry first.

Sorry, went on a bit of a gibber there...time to steer back to topic.

Essentially, compromise is not that possible. I don't want a game where everything has been playtested to destruction, as the armies are likely to become clones of each other, even across Codex and Army Book. I like the variety on offer, even if it means things are a bit shonky. Quick bit of houseruling or a Gentlemans Agreement (example being not directing attacks at characters in Warhammer. Reasoning? It's boring, and there such thing as challenge rules!) and you are there. But Tournament players deny themselves this through their own choice....

I have to agree with John, i was very worried about 5th ed 40k with TLOS and some of the other rules that were introduced, but in effect is what in my eyes at least GW have done is combined both 2nd Ed and 3/4th Ed and make a complete new rules set that works, it works for tournament play it works for friendly games, the game feels slightly more complete now, forget the balancing issues, as said if you want to TFG in your FLGS or Club go ahead, not many people will play you if you continue along that road

Interesting read.

Anything regarding White Dwarf having too little gaming content is entirely the fault of White Dwarf editors putting in too little gaming content. I too would love to see something relevant to my love of the 40k hobby beyond the 8 page blurb sandwiched between umpteen pages of LotR and advertisements.

ZamboniKnight wrote:I remember having a friend over, and he'd use all my unpainted plastic orks and gretchin and behind them would be a small scrap of paper touting them as Striking Scorpions or whatever.

The 2nd Ed ork dreadnought punchout counter! Super legal! I take 5 in my ork armylist!

turn sideways no true los, be funny to find one of those and put it in an Ork buggy...

I agree with what's been said about 5th editions ability to cater to a broad range of players.

I do have to chuckle a bit at the casually allusions to power gamers and TFG, particularly as associated with "vocal" and tournament gamers. The implication being that the vocal minority of "win at all costs" style gamers are destroying the fluff and options you love so much because they have no decency and exploit every loophole. In short: they're why we can't have nice things.

I find this increasingly disturbing for a couple of reasons. Partially because it's a thinly veiled way to openly mock and/or hate the way other people play the game (or possibly even the people themselves), but mostly because it's completely untrue! TFG wants books riddeled with loopholes and exploitable combos. He wants to bully people into his rules interpretations. He wants sickly over powered lists that he can build and dominate with.

Even beyond TFG, power gamers understand that there are some units that are only for fun. Who are complaining aren't the power gamers, but the tournament gamers who run into those folks! Now, we all know that no matter how minutely more powerful one unit is than another, that'll be enough to take it. This is true in any field of human endeavor with low transactional costs. The notion that the game can be perfectly balanced is simply untrue. What people want is a little more consideration paid to balancing units, to allow for, wait for it, MORE variety at the tournament level.

It took people about a day to figure out unkillable falcons back in 4th, or the possiblities of loota spam in for orks. I contend that a little more playtesting, and maybe a bit of stress testing, could have upped the costs of those units/options by a bit.

Another option would be for GW to sanction a 40k tournament board that simply places tournament restrictions on units/upgrades etc. Basically a group of high level tournament gamers decide that lottas are a 0-2 choice, for example.

Now, I know that the difference between a top shelf tournament army and a pretty well built army is pretty narrow, while the skill difference in players is pretty wide. Some match ups become very difficult, and that's what a little regulation could avoid, but the current state of tournament 40k is fundamentally very, very solid.

So, my rejoinder to those that cast aspersions on the tournament gamer is to remember that the balance rules and codices you are enjoying are at least partially a response to the gross imbalances discovered and abused by tournament gamers. The split into Apocolypse also offers a bulletproof "not for tournament use" environment for truly interesting stuff. I think that the modern environment is better for all players, and the requests of tournament players will only continue to improve everybody's play.

Polonius wrote:So, my rejoinder to those that cast aspersions on the tournament gamer is to remember that the balance rules and codices you are enjoying are at least partially a response to the gross imbalances discovered and abused by tournament gamers.

I don't think that the tournament players are the tail that wags the dog, simply because GW generally ignores TFG from a rules / balancing perspective.

No, I think it's the kiddies who buy GW new, without preconceptions and ask questions that drive GW's attention.

Really, the tournament players owe Jervis' son (and all of the other n00bs who get confused) a word of thanks and apology.

Lanrak wrote:IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

JohnHwangDD wrote:Balance-wise, it's fair that the Devs admonish the players to take the responsibility of fielding a "fair" army. That certain, vocal players (i.e. TFGs) refuse to do so is more a reflection on those players who want to be TFG than the Devs.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Me, I don't care for Tournaments ... None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Tournament ... demands for ... balance [shouldn't] start infringing on my enjoyment.

99MDeery wrote: forget the balancing issues, as said if you want to TFG in your FLGS or Club go ahead,

Wow... how Dakka has fallen.

Now the guy who wants a balanced ruleset is suddenly TFG?

People who want a balanced ruleset want to have less and less options?

When the feth did these fallacies and outright lies become home truths at this website? WHEN???

It's disgusting.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Really, the tournament players owe Jervis' son (and all of the other n00bs who get confused) a word of thanks and apology.

Does you sycophantic behaviour know no bounds DD? Does it?

Looking at the new Marine Codex, it's clear that GW doesn't know the first thing about making a simple and uncomplicated Codex. It's all well and good they draw pretty pictures now so people can tell the difference between a Bolt Pistol and a suit of Terminator Armour, but have you read that Wargear section? Half of it is just lines telling us to look in other places in the book.

What in the high hell is the point of having a Wargear section where half of it tells you to look elsewhere to find rules? Why even have it in the first place? Why have an army list where the rules for one unit are contained in four different sections?

We owe Jervis and his son feth all.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Really, the tournament players owe Jervis' son (and all of the other n00bs who get confused) a word of thanks and apology.

What basis do you have for this statement? Tournament players generally care most about balanced rules sets, and Jervis has supposedly stated an indifferent position towards balance, and an assumption that everyone "knows how it should be played."

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanrak wrote:IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

JohnHwangDD wrote:Balance-wise, it's fair that the Devs admonish the players to take the responsibility of fielding a "fair" army. That certain, vocal players (i.e. TFGs) refuse to do so is more a reflection on those players who want to be TFG than the Devs.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Me, I don't care for Tournaments ... None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Tournament ... demands for ... balance [shouldn't] start infringing on my enjoyment.

99MDeery wrote: forget the balancing issues, as said if you want to TFG in your FLGS or Club go ahead,

Wow... how Dakka has fallen.

Now the guy who wants a balanced ruleset is suddenly TFG?

People who want a balanced ruleset want to have less and less options?

When the feth did these fallacies and outright lies become home truths at this website? WHEN???

It's disgusting.

BYE

Agreed. I just report trolling like that when I see it, and that's all it is...Trolling.

sourclams wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Really, the tournament players owe Jervis' son (and all of the other n00bs who get confused) a word of thanks and apology.

What basis do you have for this statement?

Tournament players generally care most about balanced rules sets,

and Jervis has supposedly stated an indifferent position towards balance, and an assumption that everyone "knows how it should be played."

I'm drawing from Jervis' own statements.

JJ sez GW doesn't pay attention to the tournament players, so it's the other 95% of "the GW Hobby" (tm) that matters. Of the non-tournament crowd, the guys with the questions are going to be the n00bs who simply don't know. JJ stated that his son was an example of such a n00b, as the catalyst or eye-opener that got GW to rethink the game's direction. So the increased clarity, etc. can be attributed to trying to meet the needs of n00bs like Jervis' son.

What TFG / Tournament Player cares about, GW could care less.

As I interpret Jervis' comments on balance, my sense is that GW only aims for shotgun hits. Not rifle precision. If GW gets the balance "close enough", they call it done and move on to something else.

IIRC, the assumption that "everybody knows" was clarified to only refer to the studio staff, not players at large, much less n00bs like Jervis' son.

skyth wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lanrak wrote:IS IT TOURNAMENT LEGAL!!!(And every time I see/hear this, I just die a little inside... )

JohnHwangDD wrote:Balance-wise, it's fair that the Devs admonish the players to take the responsibility of fielding a "fair" army. That certain, vocal players (i.e. TFGs) refuse to do so is more a reflection on those players who want to be TFG than the Devs.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Me, I don't care for Tournaments ... None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Tournament ... demands for ... balance [shouldn't] start infringing on my enjoyment.

99MDeery wrote: forget the balancing issues, as said if you want to TFG in your FLGS or Club go ahead,

Wow... how Dakka has fallen.

Now the guy who wants a balanced ruleset is suddenly TFG?

People who want a balanced ruleset want to have less and less options?

When the feth did these fallacies and outright lies become home truths at this website? WHEN???

It's disgusting.

BYE

Agreed. I just report trolling like that when I see it, and that's all it is...Trolling.

I have decided to stick with 4th edition, regardless of the so-called improvements that are being forced on me. See you in 2004, where I belong, apparently.

JohnHwangDD wrote:What TFG / Tournament Player cares about, GW could care less.

And there we have it folks. In the wonderful world of DD, Tournament Gamers are synonymous with TFG.

If that is the view that Dakka shares, and it seems to share that now, then all I have to say is congratulations - This website just lost The Game.

BYE

Hi all.
Just thought I would clear up a point or two.
My comment about asking if elements-units in WD were tournament legal or not.
Was simply that WD used to be the main medium to update codexes/armies as needed, SO ALL WD material was used without question.
Currently if a gaming article appears in WD its that rare,people question its legitimacy!This is what I found so sad.

I was not trying to say that competative gamers have not got a legitimate play style.
But GW studio have NEVER made 40k or WH with a suitable level of balance for 'serious competition'.
Kewl looking and relaxed co-operative fun are the order of the day.(Along with sub par proof reading and playtesting. )

But maybe that message was comprimised by corperates desire to shift product?
And through most of 3rd and 4th ed the narrative bias of the gameplay was quietly underplayed to the point of not being promoted much at all.
And alot of gamers though that the game SHOULD be suited to tournament play as GW supported and promoted tournaments.

I agree with the comments about 5th ed (AoBR) rule book being an improvment on layout and clarity over past editions.
But GW insisted on changing at least 2 things that didnt need changing, cover and VP.(IMO.)
(I am sure they put in obvious errors so they can have easy fixes to sell the next edition of the rule book.)

But my main proposal was that the GWs 40k gamers, might be served beter with several 40k rule sets.Each focused on a specific style of play.

Rather than the 'comprimised' 40k development we curently have?;-
Rules and mechanics fixed by a comprimise for WH cross-over which is not a high priority any more?

Comprimise on gameplay with micro and macro managment of elements. (Detailed skirmish rules to support minature sales clashing with gross abstraction to make them fit current model count.)

Comprimising tactical interaction because of unsuitable rules structuring /game mechanics.

Comprimising proportionality (modifiers) with abstract results, in the name of simplicity(rolling dice.)

Comprimising player options to attempt to improve ballance.

Compimising simplicity with lots of exeptions and contradictions,(Special rules.)

If we had 4 seperate rule sets ...

Narrative skirmish.(Kill team-Necromundia size.Starter game)
Narrative Platoon level.(Curent game size with more narrative driven rules.)
Ballanced rule set for tournament play .(At current game size.)
Apoc rules.

Perhaps this would meet more gamers expectations ?

Again no offence was intended to any one.
I just tend to ramble on sometimes.(Its not just you anymore MDG. )

TTFN
Lanrak.

i have to agree with H.B.M.C. that not all tournament gamers are power gamers
i go to all the tournaments at my flgs and try my best towin every single time but i dont run chees list
and i do know TFG and i hate him more than the person who still hasnt goten a rulebook

And I'm sorry, but saying that TFG is the type of guy who wants to have a balanced ruleset? TFG is the guy who goes looking for imbalances, bends (and even breaks) rules? What would an idiot like that want with a balanced and well-play-tested ruleset.

It's just yet another attempt to vilify the tournament scene by the 'casual crowd', make them out to be a group of fringe players with their own aims that are mutually exclusive to the 'proper way' to be involved in this hobby.

The arrogance people like JohnHwangDD and his the other vocal and vacant cohorts display over this issue - that it's their way or the highway - is just mind boggling.

Pyromaniac wrote:i have to agree with H.B.M.C. that not all tournament gamers are power gamers

There just as many power-gamers in the 'casual' side of things than there is the tournemnt side, no matter how much the 'casual gamers' think that they have a halo over their heads and play the game 'properly'.

BYE

Lanrak wrote:I agree with the comments about 5th ed (AoBR) rule book being an improvment on layout and clarity over past editions. But GW insisted on changing at least 2 things that didnt need changing, cover and VP.(IMO.)

(I am sure they put in obvious errors so they can have easy fixes to sell the next edition of the rule book.)

But my main proposal was that the GWs 40k gamers, might be served beter with several 40k rule sets.Each focused on a specific style of play.

From a literalist standpoint, GW doesn't really *need* to change anything in the ruleset. But that doesn't sell new books or new minis. So if 40k remains static, it becomes stagnant and dies. So GW generally changes a few things, just because they can or feel like it.

I don't think GW put in any obvious errors per se - in fact, for the most part GW put in a lot of clarifications along with "suggestions". GW got rid of "bonus movement" by inconsistent measurement along with cocked dice and tricky rolling. This totals a full extra fold of rules (several pages) over the old book. It's why there are so few rules problems now.

Right now, GW has multiple rule sets: AoBR for n00bs & small games, 40k rulebook for regular-sized games, and Apocalypse for for large games. What else do you think GW needs a ruleset to cover?

Why does everybody hate Temple Flameguard

In my opinion, tournament players usually fall into one of three catagories:

1. People who want to use their internet having skills to copy and paste broken lists and stomp on people, so that they can feel superior. These people don't really want the game to be balanced, as they rely on unbalanced lists to win. They will usually argue for "RAW," when they think they can get an advantage from it. They don't want their opponent to know RAW, because it could be used against them, and they want RAW to be the final word so that people can't argue against their rules exploitations. They generally don't like FAQs or erratas because it's likely this will mess up their ability to "rules lawyer." These players are hopefully the least common, but make up for it by the amount of hatred they create.

2. People who want to compete tactically, often (but not always) with a list that is as powerful as they can make it (so as not to lose to someone who is a worse tactician due to being handicapped by their list). These people really want the game to be balanced, so that they can make any army they want without having to worry about it weighing them down.They want RAW to the final word in all cases, so that they can be sure how every issue will solved in-game. They want their opponent to know and believe RAW as much as they do so that they will be on the same page from the game's begining, and their opponents can't contest the win. They generally like FAQs and erratas, as they (hopefully) help to balance the game within the confines of RAW. These people are often the second most common.

3. More casual gamers who nonetheless apear at tournaments. This is really sort of an "all the rest!" catagory, but these people usually play with what they like, what they have painted, what was really good last edition, and so forth. They prefer RAI over RAW, whenever RAW becomes counter-intuitive. The fact that they often don't know/care about what's RAW occasionally leads to friction with people from catagory 2, and attracts people from catagory 1 who are trying to get an easy win. They want the game to be balanced so that their forces won't be automatically stomped by people from catagory 1, but don't want the game to give up too many options/fluff for this to happen (as they primarily play amongst friends, etc). These people are often the most common, although they are more common in smaller events than big ones.

So, what to do about the 1st catagory (which is, no doubt, the evil one)? Well, a more balenced rule set is mostly what's needed, followed by more clearly defined rules and more timely FAQs and erratas.

A more intuitive ruleset helps catagory 2 and 3 people get along better, as it causes less RAI vs RAW arguments.

I might really just be totally off here, I didn't get all that much sleep last night.

Orkeosaurus wrote:1. People who want to use their internet having skills to copy and paste broken lists and stomp on people, so that they can feel superior.

Would you say this type of person does not exist within local ponds and is only present in tournament gaming?

BYE

No, definately not, but they have an easier time in a tournament setting. You can't just outright refuse to play the person you're matched up against in a tournament. You can call over a judge to settle rules disputes, but often times judges have other things to be doing; they don't want to ref your whole game. Also, tournaments are more public, which alows them to parade their victories around more easily.

There are people somewhat like this who woudn't ever set foot in a tournament as well. Those people tend to do less "rules lawyering" and more blatent cheating. They also tend to go after people who don't know the rules well. Even a casual tournament goer would know the rules to well to be suckered by this kind of guy, so they just sort of lurk.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, GW has multiple rule sets: AoBR for n00bs & small games, 40k rulebook for regular-sized games, and Apocalypse for for large games. What else do you think GW needs a ruleset to cover?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all- how is AoBR for small games? The AoBR rules are the same as the "regular-sized" game rules. There is basically one rule set for 40k with one expansion to those rules (Apocalypse). Rules for skirmish sized games (that are actually supported- not forgotten like the specialist games) would be nice.

Beyond this, how would having a balanced system for tourney gamers take anything away from "casual" gamers? And what's with the assumption that casual game play would be hurt with balanced rules? I can't see who would be worse off with consistently updated and playtested rules.

theHandofGork wrote:Rules for skirmish sized games (that are actually supported- not forgotten like the specialist games) would be nice.

I fully agree with this; Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Kill-Teams, and Spacehulk could all be wrapped into one set of skirmish rules. One of the problems with specialist games is there's so many to keep track of; combining a few would help with this, as well as making small scale games easier for people who are just getting started with the hobby (although they would have keep some similarities in the rules for that to work).

theHandofGork wrote:Beyond this, how would having a balanced system for tourney gamers take anything away from "casual" gamers? And what's with the assumption that casual game play would be hurt with balanced rules? I can't see who would be worse off with consistently updated and playtested rules.

Making the rules perfectly balenced would likely require limiting many of the options that casual gamers really care about. However, I think that without really taking away any options, the game could be balanced quite a bit better than it is already is (and balanced well enough for the vast majority of 40k players to be happy with it).

H.B.M.C. wrote:And I'm sorry, but saying that TFG is the type of guy who wants to have a balanced ruleset? TFG is the guy who goes looking for imbalances, bends (and even breaks) rules? What would an idiot like that want with a balanced and well-play-tested ruleset.

It's just yet another attempt to vilify the tournament scene by the 'casual crowd', make them out to be a group of fringe players with their own aims that are mutually exclusive to the 'proper way' to be involved in this hobby.

The arrogance people like JohnHwangDD and his the other vocal and vacant cohorts display over this issue - that it's their way or the highway - is just mind boggling.

I'm going to agree, that while more powergamers might be drawn to the tournament scene, that there are casual ones, and they are not all TFG. The affectionately dubbed TFG is the guy who tries to call you on every rule you might have broken, bends anything to his advantage, and tries to fire his heavy weapon squad twice if he doesn't think you're paying attention, whilst powergamers are just people who like to play competitively, with most likely unfluffy lists.

My friends and I don't do tournaments, but when we play games we find it fun to tailor our lists for our respective opponents since we've known each other for so long and bring the cheese just to mix things up, but I can see how other people wouldn't like that. We acknowledge that this isn't a fair representation of the game, but we've known each other so long, it doesn't make a big deal. That said, we do run normal lists too, especially when playing with other people outside of our circle.

If you want to play in the fluff, and make backstory for you lists, but don't get angry at others for finding enjoyment in other aspects of the game. Though, some guy you've never met showing up, seeing what you got, then changing his army on the spot to specifically counter whatever it is you have can be pretty annoying.

Orkeosaurus wrote:In my opinion, tournament players usually fall into one of three catagories:

1. People who want to use their internet having skills to copy and paste broken lists and stomp on people,

2. People who want to compete tactically, often (but not always) with a list that is as powerful as they can make it (so as not to lose to someone who is a worse tactician due to being handicapped by their list). These people really want the game to be balanced

So, what to do about the 1st catagory (which is, no doubt, the evil one)? Well, a more balenced rule set is mostly what's needed, followed by more clearly defined rules and more timely FAQs and erratas.

The 1st category is solved by restoration of heavy weight on everything *except* Battle. That means significant weight on Sports, heavy weight on player-judged Comp. Red-flagging, ejecting, and banning "problem" players. Zero Tolerance for TFG.

Except that the game cannot ever be completly balanced for the simple reason that power is multiplicative or exponential, not additive. That's why nobody cares about single units, but when you max those very same "fair" units out, suddenly, they're no longer fair. The other thing is synergy. Some units and options are worth very little on their own, but become tremendously powerful in combination. All that one can expect is for a reasonable cost for "ordinary" play, but to try and balance everything at optimal build, means that sub-optimal builds become unplayable. Or costing becomes non-linear.

For example, a single Drop Pod in an otherwise vehicle-free list is probably only worth 20 pts, because it generates very little advantage and is destroyed immediately. But even 40+ pts per pod probably isn't too much in an all-Pod list.

theHandofGork wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, GW has multiple rule sets: AoBR for n00bs & small games, 40k rulebook for regular-sized games, and Apocalypse for for large games. What else do you think GW needs a ruleset to cover?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all- how is AoBR for small games? The AoBR rules are the same as the "regular-sized" game rules.

Beyond this, how would having a balanced system for tourney gamers take anything away from "casual" gamers? And what's with the assumption that casual game play would be hurt with balanced rules?

AoBR doesn't use the full scope of the rules. A lot of the rulebook doesn't apply. No Monstrous Creatures. No Psykers. etc. So the scope is smaller for teaching / starting.

Having a separate "tourney" system necessarily takes resources away from non-Tourney play. If GW makes a Tournament set, those resources aren't available for Apocalypse or anything else. If GW notes that Tournament players are 5%, then the market of any product is naturally limited. Why do you think GW no longer cares about Tournaments? OTOH, new armies have potentially huge sales. Ogre Kingdoms and Tau proved that pretty handsomely. And Apocalypse pushing huge armies among the casual gamer crowed. Yeah, that pretty much sealed things up for GW. When the 5% buys very little and can never be satisfied, wheras the other 95% is easy to please and buys far more stuff, even Tom Kirby can figure out what gets supported...