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.

insaniak wrote:Maybe its worth running this idea past whoever's running GW's events section these days and seeing if they can get some sort of official word on what GW's position would be on home-grown rules in GW tournaments before investing too much effort in trying to sell this idea.

Their responce is obvious.

They'll be happy to let people run whatever armies they want, as long as they use GW minis and a GW Codex.

So if you want to use your heavily converted and carefully created Hrud army, Kroot army, Zoat army or whatever, they're probably cool with that, as long as most of your minis started off as GW minis, and that you use an existing Codex to use your army as 'counts as'.

BYE

Hey Insaniak, what is the prize package for a rogue trader event in Australia? In the U.S. there have been several styles of painted resin trophies over the years. When I started, overall won a pile of skulls, followed by a griffon on a pedestal, and now it's a warrior priest and a space marine on a pedestal. The best sportsman, best painted and best general used to get cool marble plaques with pewter and resin details. After those ran out GW sent cheap paper certificates. Now they have resin plaques.

The prize package used to cost a tournament organizer $150.00, but after the latest trophy and the addition of the resin plaques for the other three places, the price went up to $250.00. When I first started playing 40K 7 or 8 years ago, tournaments would draw quite a few people, anywhere from a couple dozen to 100 or more. Then, tournaments were not as common and were a really special event for players. As time went on, more local stores started running rogue trader events once or twice a year, in addition to convention and club events. For a while, I could find a rogue trader within 300 miles at least twice a month.

But as tournaments became more common, attendance dropped. Nowadays we have trouble drumming up a dozen players for some events. When the prizes cost $150.00, you could charge $15.00 per person and cover expenses (on the prizes anyway). When it went up to $250.00, game stores and organizers got discouraged and either awarded store credit or stopped running tournaments.

GW had a national ranking system in place, but unless your tournament organizer was dutiful about submitting results, the info wouldn't even make it to GW. Even if he did, GW screwed it up half the time. I won events that were run by GW employees that never showed up in their ranking system. As time went on, I believe GW started caring less about local and even convention events, and put all their efforts into Gamesday and GT events. They pulled out of Origins game con in Columbus, Ohio. They pulled out of Gencon, the biggest gamer convention in the U.S., maybe the world (I know, I know, Essen in Germany).
This served the uber gamers that could afford plane fare all over the U.S., but hosed the enthusiasts without bottomless pockets.

What I see happening is a lot of clubs and independant retailers running their own "rogue trader" events, without the prize package. Many of these tournamnets don't show up on GW's event pages. I get the impression talking to store owners and TO's that it's not worth the hassle for very limited benefits.

That's why I would be supportive of a grass roots official ruling and ranking body for 40K. Make it like the Imperium, with chapters in different areas of the U.S. or world. Each chapter must have a minimum member requirement, perhaps a dozen or so. Each chapter would elect officers, including a chapter master. All the chapters would work to take care of the things GW doesn't, like organized play and ranking, proper faq and errata documents, updated army lists for the armies GW ignores, etc...

I think if players were given the opportunity to create their own local chapter, name it, and participate in the global community, the response would be phenomenal.

Pariah Press wrote: What is your opinion about the INAT FAQ, if you don't mind me asking?

You asked, so I'll be happy to answer. I don't see a problem with it's use. A poorly written rule and a clarification is one thing. Creating a whole new codex is another.

I may not agree with 100% of whats in the INAT FAQ, but I understand why it was written. I'm also well aware that there is no way the writers could ever please 100% of us, so they did what they could.

Again, I'd like to say that I think stamping an answer on a rules question is a lot different than creating a new codex.

Krak_kirby wrote:Hey Insaniak, what is the prize package for a rogue trader event in Australia?

These days? I have no idea.

I know they used to just send out a bundle of assorted boxed sets to use as prizes... but it's been quite a few years now since I had anything to do with organising a tournament. I vaguely recall hearing at one point that they were sending out some terrain and trophies as well, but don't know for sure if that was actually the case.

Real life caught up with me for a couple of days, but I should be able to get back to work on the new list tonight. And it is, as Marneus Calgar's Sibling suggests, quite easy to write.

Krak_kirby wrote:That's why I would be supportive of a grass roots official ruling and ranking body for 40K. Make it like the Imperium, with chapters in different areas of the U.S. or world. Each chapter must have a minimum member requirement, perhaps a dozen or so. Each chapter would elect officers, including a chapter master. All the chapters would work to take care of the things GW doesn't, like organized play and ranking, proper faq and errata documents, updated army lists for the armies GW ignores, etc...

I think if players were given the opportunity to create their own local chapter, name it, and participate in the global community, the response would be phenomenal.

I hadn't even considered something like this. Sounds like another thing for INAT-or-whatever-we're-calling-it to handle.

Thanks for the response, Lormax. I think that I understand you position now. So far most of the responses have been positive, however, so I think I'll keep going on this for the nonce.

Krak_kirby wrote:That's why I would be supportive of a grass roots official ruling and ranking body for 40K. Make it like the Imperium, with chapters in different areas of the U.S. or world. Each chapter must have a minimum member requirement, perhaps a dozen or so. Each chapter would elect officers, including a chapter master. All the chapters would work to take care of the things GW doesn't, like organized play and ranking, proper faq and errata documents, updated army lists for the armies GW ignores, etc...

Now this is something I could get behind and even be a part of. If that kind of movement got started and could integrate/incorporate Adepticon, Games Days and GT's, it would be great. Why integrate with those? Just because I don't see GW really wanting a tournament circuit competing with their own "circuit" with their game. If anyone is familiar with Magic: The Gathering and the DCI rankings that WotC has, I bet a simillar sort of system could be put into place. I still remember my DCI ranking #, seeing that it's only 4 digits long Old-school ftw eh?

Great idea, pariah. And I think starting with LaTD and sticking close to the old codex is a very wise idea.

Lormax wrote: A poorly written rule and a clarification is one thing. Creating a whole new codex is another.

Which is exactly why an update of LatD that sticks as closely as possible to the EoT list is a great idea. Incremental change, not a new set of rules from a new (and therefore untrusted) source.

It's only been a year or so since they dropped LaTD, right? So tourney players should still be familiar with them, especially if the new list is functionally identical to the old one.

After LaTD, either other EOT lists or Kroot Mercs would be a logical second update to do.

After that, you may have earned the respect to begin putting out your own min-dexes for event use. But until then, you've got to borrow authority rather than generate your own.

I'm willing to help.

The first draft is up.

I confess that I've never played with or against a LatD army, so wiser heads than I should start fighting over what needs tweaking. Once there's a consensus that it's ready for blast-off, we'll freeze the list, give it a 0.1 version number, and start playtesting.

I haven't read through the document yet, I was just trying to clean up the formatting a bit.

I added wiki headers to the sections and I changed the unit entry boxes to grey and the text to black to make it more readable.

To change the font for the actual characteristics seemingly requires each individual characteristic to be separately tagged. I did it for the first unit entry, but I'll have to get around to the other later when I have time.

Right now is pretty bad for me (on time) because I'm madly painting to get done for Adepticon.

After Adepticon I should have plenty of time for things like this.