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.

skkipper wrote:even with "WC" taking the hardest list evar. It looks like Mike and his chaos could take the circuit again.
the orks are going to get owned by the new marines.

Mike is sitting with 3 people on even standing with him for top player in the Circuit.

Marc Parker (WC)-Las Vegas Overall winner
Neil Cauley (WC)- Chicago Overall winner
and
Scott Simpson (WC)-Guy with the pink polo

Not an easy three to overcome and right now he's 60 pts behind Scott, 20 pts behind Marc, and only 20 pts ahead of Neil.

All three of them are going to baltimore. (I'm assuming Mike is going) Whichever one gets first, second, or third depending will determine the outcome for the year.

My money is on either Parker or Simpson honestly. It's an uphill battle for Meucheller with him depending on BOTH Simpson and Parker to crash and burn with him needing (really) an overall win to make up the points behind Scott.

Vaktathi wrote:Honestly, to me the problem isn't so much Loota's, its the cover saves.

Not really. The expanded cover saves (along with S4 Defensive Weapons) did more to open the game up to non-MEQs than any rule change before. IMO, this is a good thing overall. Orks are just the first major beneficiaries of this, as they normally have crap saves. Guard with Cameoline are quite a bit more durable than before, almost competitive.

Vaktathi wrote:Furthermore, I find his disdain for testing the "extreme" builds (which more often than not turn out to be not so "extreme", I've seen plenty of Holofield skimmer spam lists, double lash lists, etc) rather telling of a poor development team and managerial style,

If you were to look at a Codex in development, how many "extreme" builds could you make (hint, there are typically 2 dozen units to choose from that could be taken to extremes and sub-extremes). And how many other Codices are out there (hint, it's more than a dozen). So if you look at combinations of extremes and combiinations to playtest, from a mathematical probabilistic standpoint, the very idea that GW could do this is laughable. GW tests the primary builds, and the changes to them, and that's well enough.

Besides, we have "Comp" to address extreme builds on the Tournament scene...

Vaktathi wrote:

5th Edition has, bar none, the clearest, tightest ruleset that GW has ever produced for 40k. There are very few problems or grey areas. They even gave guidance about cocked dice, for pity's sake.

You may not like that rules changed, or the direction things changed, but that is very different from saying that there are actual problems with the rules.

5th ed may have a clearer ruleset (I'm not necessarily convinced of that either) but as far as quality of the ruleset (not in terms of clarity/ease of reading, but in balance and function) goes, its a giant sidestep rather than any great leap forward.

No, it's clearly a step forward. Look at the old FAQs and problems. Now play 5th Edition. You hardly need the new rulebook, it's that good.

I don't buy this argument about rules being separate from the minis. If GW were to stop selling 40k rules, and continue selling the minis, their sales would plummet. There's no reason to buy new space marines if there's no awesome new codex to go with them.

GW needs the rules to sell the minis, soon or later they'll realize the rules actually have to be GOOD too.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

If you were to look at a Codex in development, how many "extreme" builds could you make (hint, there are typically 2 dozen units to choose from that could be taken to extremes and sub-extremes). And how many other Codices are out there (hint, it's more than a dozen). So if you look at combinations of extremes and combiinations to playtest, from a mathematical probabilistic standpoint, the very idea that GW could do this is laughable. GW tests the primary builds, and the changes to them, and that's well enough.

Bollocks. Lets take the chaos codex. Oblits were good in the last one, when you could only have one unit. UNLESS you played Iron Warriors, and then you could take 3 units. Did a lot of people play Iron Warriors? Yes, they did.

In the new codex, anyone can have 9 Oblits. Did it ever occur to GW that this would be abused? I honestly don't know. But, it seems to me that the ability to take 3 killer units plus 2 more (Demon Princes or Sorcerors) that could move your opponents units and bunch them up for the big kill is pretty nasty. I noticed this combo right away, right after I said, "You can have 2 Demon Princes?! WTF?"

Are you trying to tell me it is unreasonable to expect professional rule designers to notice stuff like this? If so I say BOLLOCKS and bs. It's what they bloody get paid to do.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Not really. The expanded cover saves (along with S4 Defensive Weapons) did more to open the game up to non-MEQs than any rule change before.

The defensive weapons changes I think hurt non-MEQ armies the most, those are the ones that relied on them the most, and really hurt the viability of tanks that aren't based around a single big gun. I really don't think its done anything to improve the game. I can't remember the last time I saw an HB equipped predator or an Eldar tank that wasn't already built and painted before 5E that isn't sporting the EML/Shuricannon combo. As for the cover saves, sure they make non-MEQ armies more survivable and help to get more non-MEQ armies on the table. That doesn't mean its balanced for a 170-200+ Ork army.

IMO, this is a good thing overall. Orks are just the first major beneficiaries of this, as they normally have crap saves.

that was the point. they are supposed to be easy to kill but extremely numerous. Now they are extremely numerous and aren't exactly easy to kill either. When you kill 2 orks from 3 heavy bolters because there are Gretchin in the way, it gets rather frustrating, and massed direct fire anti-infantry weapons are much less effective than they used to be, unfairly so. Under 4th they still weren't an easy army to beat. I don't think Orks are inherently broken, but I do think that Alessio really wasn't thinking too much when he threw the 4+ cover save thing in there (although I happen to think that of most of his stuff)

Guard with Cameoline are quite a bit more durable than before, almost competitive.

I don't really think thats the way IG should have been fixed however, Guardsmen advancing across open terrain really shouldn't be getting 3+ saves just because a squad is in front of them, and then no save (for all intents and purposes when it comes to 90% of shooting) when they don't have a squad in front of them.

I also don't see why a cover saves may still be taken for scattering blast weapons by units out in the open, just because a Battlecannon shell hit farther back than it normally would doesn't mean its going to get magically blocked by whatever was in front of it.

If you were to look at a Codex in development, how many "extreme" builds could you make (hint, there are typically 2 dozen units to choose from that could be taken to extremes and sub-extremes). And how many other Codices are out there (hint, it's more than a dozen). So if you look at combinations of extremes and combiinations to playtest, from a mathematical probabilistic standpoint, the very idea that GW could do this is laughable. GW tests the primary builds, and the changes to them, and that's well enough.

How hard is it to tell the extreme builds, and how hard is it to realize that *someone* (or more likely more than one person) will abuse the crap out of that at just about every store and event? I've seen far more double Lash armies than non-Lash CSM armies at events. It's things like that that GW really should wake up and realize. I'm not asking them to playtest each and every single possible potential list, but there are some things that are just glaringly obvious (old SMF+holofields for instance) that really should just reach up and slap the designers in the face. If they think that there aren't tons of players out there using such things, they really shouldn't be in the jobs that they are.

If I had an employee that couldn't, or wouldn't look at and acknowledge such things, I wouldn't keep them around, as they would be incapable of performing their job. Simply ignoring it and labelling it a "tournament player" problem shows they don't accurately understand their customer, their market, their product, and that they have a poor understanding of cause-effect relationships.

Besides, we have "Comp" to address extreme builds on the Tournament scene...

Some armies can still make horrendously broken armies with perfect comp, typically those with excellent troops (Orks, Lash CSM, etc)

No, it's clearly a step forward. Look at the old FAQs and problems. Now play 5th Edition. You hardly need the new rulebook, it's that good.

In terms of readability and clarity, possibly, but in terms off the quality and/or making sense, not so much. Again refer to my example of area terrain, or why a ubiquitious 4+ cover save is granted that is horrendously biased (and doesn't even make sense from their description given the fluff for most armies) instead of a simple BS modifier.

Also, aside from rulebook FAQ's (since we don't have a 5th ed rulebook FAQ yet) the current FAQ's are garbage, and are mostly a copy-paste from the last edition.

I agree, they have to know people in their personal play group/club that are extreme in their army list choices. Doesn't everyone have TFG in their club or their FLGS?

Thing is, the entire thread could be summed up by saying:
"I play in a no comp environment, but wish for the benefits of comp".

If you don't like cliche builds and OTT combos being spammed, play in a comp environment. Otherwise live with it. I couldnt even dream of running 45 lootas, I wouldnt even be able to place in the top 10 at tourneys with a perfect battle score if I did. There would be 0 point even getting my figures out if I had Ghazgkull, let alone Ghaz AND mad doc. I'd be certain to get either a 0 or a 1 from my opponent.

Furthermore, you play in a system that rewards massacreing the opponent WAY too much, of course that is going to promote building the hardest army ever. If you scrape by with a fairly close win and collect all the various bonus points, and still get a max score - the prospect of an easier army becomes way more viable.

Your actual problem is NOT with the Ork Codex, it is with the tourney system you play in.

To be honest though when you talk about running dual lash princes and oblit spam, your entire argument suddenly just sounds like:
"Dear GW Games Designer,
Rock is Cheesy though Paper's fine.

Signed
Scissors"

Doctor Thunder wrote:
Mikeguth, there are three ways you can react to the situation:

1) The Beat 'Em Approach. Play against that kind of army and gain experience against it.

2) The Join 'Em Approach. If you think the build is that strong, start fielding it yourself.

3) The Pragmatic Approach. Ask yourself, did you regularly win your local RTT's before? Did you regularly find yourself on the top ten tables at GT's before? If not, then nothing has changed.

You clearly forgot

4) Complain about it on the internet.

proximity wrote:Thing is, the entire thread could be summed up by saying:
"I play in a no comp environment, but wish for the benefits of comp".

If you don't like cliche builds and OTT combos being spammed, play in a comp environment. Otherwise live with it. I couldnt even dream of running 45 lootas, I wouldnt even be able to place in the top 10 at tourneys with a perfect battle score if I did. There would be 0 point even getting my figures out if I had Ghazgkull, let alone Ghaz AND mad doc. I'd be certain to get either a 0 or a 1 from my opponent.

Furthermore, you play in a system that rewards massacreing the opponent WAY too much, of course that is going to promote building the hardest army ever. If you scrape by with a fairly close win and collect all the various bonus points, and still get a max score - the prospect of an easier army becomes way more viable.

Your actual problem is NOT with the Ork Codex, it is with the tourney system you play in.

wait wait wait.


fielding 45 loota's is 100% legal. comp scores and everything else are house rules designed to put restrictions and limits on what people bring to the table. What you are talking about has nothing to do with the Ork codex, as you said its the environment.

Here (assuming there is a problem with the ork codex, I'm not convinced there is, rather with the 5E rules however), its *your* environment thats negating the bad effects of the ork codex, not the other way around. Its your areas *house* rules that are encouraging players not to bring the nasty stuff.

If one is playing a normal pickup game against a random opponent, the only rules that matter are those of the codex, and thus if there is a problem it lies there.

If Codex's didn't have balance problems, then Comp scores wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

To be honest though when you talk about running dual lash princes and oblit spam, your entire argument suddenly just sounds like:
"Dear GW Games Designer,
Rock is Cheesy though Paper's fine.

Signed
Scissors"

[

What *you* are saying is

"dear player, Rock is broken, so just play with Paper".

Vaktathi wrote:snip.

I think you missunderstood where I was coming from.
Firstly, I highly doubt he's having this rant because of the 'pick up game scene'... He's complaining about it in the context of tournaments.

Different people want different things from this game. I'm fine with anyone bringing anything they want, as so are others clearly. I don't whine about what I think is powerful, I try find ways to overcome it. However, if I just plain didnt want to play these armies, and instead wanted to play against armies more in line with the vision of the game developers, there is allready a system in place to accomodate his needs. The rest of the world doesnt need to change just to make him happy

proximity wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:snip.

I think you missunderstood where I was coming from.
Firstly, I highly doubt he's having this rant because of the 'pick up game scene'... He's complaining about it in the context of tournaments.

Even then, the problem would still be with the codex, as Comp scores are a result of balance problems, and Comp scores affect different armies to different degrees, usually those with great Troops have the easiest time skirting these.

Different people want different things from this game. I'm fine with anyone bringing anything they want, as so are others clearly. I don't whine about what I think is powerful, I try find ways to overcome it.

Normally I agree (except when there's just some things that aren't really doable within the confines of an armies design, such as dealing with 8 T6-7 3+ and 2+sv W5/4 MC's with a mech stormtrooper IG army for instance) however there are also some things that the game designers really should have realized would get abused.

However, if I just plain didnt want to play these armies, and instead wanted to play against armies ore in line with the vision of the game developers, there is allready a system in place to accomodate his needs. The rest of the world doesnt need to change just to make him happy

The problem is defining exactly what the game developers envisioned (they may not have envisioned 9 oblits with 2 lash princes, even if they should have, but what do they define as a "fluffy/balanced" army exactly? It varies from place to place), and Comp scoring is also vastly different from place to place, and affects different armies to different degrees.

Vaktathi wrote:
Even then, the problem would still be with the codex, as Comp scores are a result of balance problems, and Comp scores affect different armies to different degrees, usually those with great Troops have the easiest time skirting these.

The problem is defining exactly what the game developers envisioned (they may not have envisioned 9 oblits with 2 lash princes, even if they should have, but what do they define as a "fluffy/balanced" army exactly? It varies from place to place), and Comp scoring is also vastly different from place to place, and affects different armies to different degrees.

I agree, but we now move into an entirely different discussion, along the lines of the merits of different comp systems, whether there should be one at all, etc. A discussion for another thread another day perhaps, not that it hasn't been done to death again and again I guess !

ah true I guess

What is the primary difference between uber-competitive lists and the WD-style lists?

SPAM! (and I am not talking about the delicious sandwich/fritter filling...)

The lists that have been mentioned as highly competitive in this thread are ork looter-spam, chaos oblit/lash-spam, eldar falcon/holo-spam (from 4th ed), etc.

If you look at most WD battle reports (or for that matter at most beginners collections) you get a mix of lots of different stuff. Obviously, WD wants to promote lots of models so it includes lots of different stuff in its reports. New gamers are encouraged to have different stuff so they can try things out.


Fixing tournaments is therefore a matter of either making spam illegal or making it fair.
Option 1: Enforce balanced armies by saying you have to take at least one elite, FA and HS choice before you can have a second of any of them and two of each before you can take a third (I have seen this done and it works quite well).
Option 2: Include at least one 'broken' unit in every new codex and let tourney players go nuts with rock/paper/scissors as they spam out their favourite unit (analogous to what some people have said about MtG).
Option 3: Do a ground-up rewrite of the codex system to ensure fairness by playtesting the crap out of every single unit in the game.

I have a soft-spot for Option 1, but I can see the drawbacks and I know a lot of tourney players would hate it.
Option 2 seems to be what we have at the minute and most people would agree it doesn't work.
Option 3 may well be the best but we all know it will NEVER HAPPEN (unless anyone has the $300M it would cost to buy GW and fancies a summer project... ).

Since it's a game, rather than a historical simulation, I don;t see the point in forcing players to use units that they don't like.

So the ideal solution would be to thoroughly playtest all units in a codex and use a combination of combat abilities, points values and FOC slots to make any possible build equally viable if used with the proper tactics.

That would work better for tournaments and does not stop players using Tau Sniper Drone spam just for fun in friendly games.

It would also remove the need for Comp scoring, which often becomes just an extra layer of metagame in the winning of tournaments.

Sadly, I doubt this will ever come about since GW don't think it's necessary and probably do not have the resources to do it anyway.

open_sketchbook wrote:I consider myself pretty hardcore as a warhammer player. I've been playing since around my tenth birthday, I've played all the major Warhammer games and all the specialist games, I've got two armies over three thousand points right now. I don't really consider tournaments a part of my hobby, nor do the vast majority of my friends. I've played all of three or four, and the experience left a sour taste in my mouth. Competive, rude and arrogent players obsessing over minute details and caring only about the hot builds is frankly a bit pathetic. It's a game. It's supposed to be enjoyed. I know I'm not one of that sort of gaming in the first place, as despite the obvious tactical drawbacks, I rank my troops up on the field because it looks awesome, and I play mechanized space marines because it's really really fun, but, damn.

QFT

mikeguth wrote:
Jervis lives in a fantasy world where everyone plays nice and doesn't care about winning, just admiring the pretty figures and rolling some dice and making random moves-since winning isn't important.. Why have 90 pages of rules then? Why have a points system?? Why not just let everyone bring what they want and decide if it 'looks fair'....

Rubbish. I play nice, and I play with my friends. Winning is the objective, but not the be all and end all. I'd rather have a fun game. I've played at FLGCs where this is also the case. I don't think I know ANYONE who plays like a powergaming tournament player (I realise that not all tournament players are beardy broken-list building powergamers, but from what I can gather on here, quite a few of them ARE). I think my sort of 'casual' gamer outnumbers tournament players 100-1, not just 15-1. Think of all the kids playing in their bedrooms with their friends, who never have any intention of going to GT

Jervis is right. We play a GAME, it's not a SPORT. Tournaments turn this friendly, casual game into something appromixating a highly competitive sport, and then complain when the rules don't work, or when people stop playing nice and taking advantage of loopholes in the list.

mikeguth wrote:Orks field 45 Lootas. These units have the range of the board. These units average 30 strength 7 hits a turn, or a dead marine squad a turn. At strength 7 they can also penetrate most light armor. And that still leaves 1000 other points of Ork infantry and special units to deal with.

And finally, to the OP. Yes, a 45 Lootas list is broken. But you KNOW that list wasn't designed for you to take 45 of the buggers, if you do this you're just abusing the army-building rules because you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to win. And that's quite sad...

So if Jervis doesn't care about balance and likes his fluffy books full of character....why then has he got rid of all the wargear options, variant lists, etc?

For example, surely the old Chaos Codex fit better within this mindset than the new one?

I don't play much 40k anymore, but boy is it nice to read people complaining about Orks being a super-dominant power game army.

10 years in the making baby!

ArbitorIan wrote:Yes, a 45 Lootas list is broken. But you KNOW that list wasn't designed for you to take 45 of the buggers, if you do this you're just abusing the army-building rules because you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to win. And that's quite sad...

Or maybe people are maxing out on looters because they REALLY REALLY REALLY love the Deathskulls fluff. It seem to me that the difference between an extreme power list e.g. maximum looters and a niche theme list e.g. maximum Storm Troopers is power not composition.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jervis is kind of an idiot that doesn't really understand the underpinnings of a functioning game environment but he has a few things right. If you pay too much attention to the tournament format you end up with a situation similar to that found in Warmachine/hordes. A balanced game that functions very well in a tournament environment but isn't very fun to play outside of it. Even wizards of the coast has a known set development process where it releases essentially 2 different sets per expansion. Mixing more interesting casual cards with powercards that will exist in the extended tourny formats. It's an intentional imbalance within the design to cater to both segments of its population.

Warmachine does have a more casual environment, I believe, which is their league
system. Well, it's really a hardcore environment in some ways, but some tourney players
seem to hate the changing victory conditions, army composition rules and terrain types,
so I'll label that hardcore casual.

The "Sportsmachine" aspect of the hobby only helps the casual players in that they do
a lot of the research we'd have learned the hard way.

But whenever I sit down across from an opponent, sometimes we negotiate how we
want to play: tourney or what-the-frick-ever. Sometimes my opponents look at me
and decide to pull the weird gimp list.

But that's beside the point.

It's unfortunate that Jervis dismisses the tourney crowd as an aberration of their
hobby. Adepticon drew its share of pure hobbyists, but I don't know how many would
have traveled far and wide to a non-competitive environment.

Redbeard wrote:I talked to Jervis a bit on Saturday, after the gaming of the day was over.

I asked what sort of playtesting did they do, what sort of process was involved (I'm a software developer, and there are many many parallels between game development and software development, so I'd think they could benefit a lot from the sorts of process type things that we go through with our QA cycles), and what was their thought about 'extreme' builds.

He told me, unapologetically, that they don't test extreme builds, that they don't care about tournament gamers when they write the rules because we only account for 5% of the gamers out there, and that they had no interest in developing better rules for tournament play. we tournament players should "understand that [we] exist on the far fringes of the hobby", and that we should expect problems related to this. Quoted/Paraphrased.

The emphasis in their testing was, in Jervis's words, about whether they had fun, and was focused on the sorts of armies that you see in W.D. battle reports. He said that he doesn't believe anyone who says one army always wins or can't win, and said that he believes that the 'unbeatable' build actually only wins about 55-60% of its games, and that the army that can't win actually only loses about 40-45% of its games.

And, I brought up how other game companies (WotC, Eurogames, video-fighting games) have managed to achieve systems that work for both casual players and tournament players, and he replied that they're just not interested. That as a game developer, he wants to write games that show you how to play the game the way that they do, and that their failure is a failure to communicate to us how they play, not actually a failure of the rules. He even said that they don't even look at FAQs when they playtest in the studio, because they all 'just know' how it is suposed to be played.

So, yeah, disenheartened to be sure. It's one thing to note that things don't work well. It's another to be told by the lead developer that, not only do they not believe there is a problem, but that even if there was, they wouldn't want to fix it. They want a game that you play in your basement with a beer or two, not a game that works in a competative environment.

And then, he said that they encourage people to write stuff about what changes they've made to how they play. Which seemed almost like an invitation to the competative community to come up with needed changes... almost. I'm sure GW's legal team would squash it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

mikeguth wrote:

I give in, the Ork Codex is NOT broken; the only reason they are winning is because the wreckingcrew team are such skilled players compared to everyone else, and I'll just wait a few years to play until Eldar get Dire Avengers with 48 inch range S 7 Ap 4 troops at 15 points each.....

So - everyone who ran Ork's was at the top of the tourney? Or do the WC guys take it serious and play the heck out of their lists, fine tune them, and bring a winning build? Same for the Codex Toledo guys.

It's less the codex and the builds than the players. The same guys are the top tier pretty much every year - a lot like MTG. It's because they are very good players. A lot of the top end competitive players are also joining the same clubs and working on their builds/army lists together.

It's a choice you make if you are going to do the tourneys. If you want to be competitive, you need to have a hard army, that you know how to play - and beat - most if not all of the other lists - or be the one who comes up with the "unexpected" builds that no one has seen before. If you don't care so much about that - and just want to go have fun - run whatever you want that you enjoy playing - and don't expect to be on the top tables. That's why they have Sportsmanship, best army, favorite opponent, etc awards - of which I wish they did more of.

George Spiggott wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Yes, a 45 Lootas list is broken. But you KNOW that list wasn't designed for you to take 45 of the buggers, if you do this you're just abusing the army-building rules because you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to win. And that's quite sad...

Or maybe people are maxing out on looters because they REALLY REALLY REALLY love the Deathskulls fluff. It seem to me that the difference between an extreme power list e.g. maximum looters and a niche theme list e.g. maximum Storm Troopers is power not composition.

You're right - and, being a hypocrite, I have no problem with 'fluffy' spam lists, as long as they're done for fluff, not because they offer some huge advantage. Question is, how do we decide if this person loves his fluff or just loves beating people? Pretty easy if it's an entirely footslogger and roughrider 'ancient' guard army. Harder if it's some one who REALLY REALLY REALLY loves the Land Raider model...!

On the other hand, if they're competing in a tournament, they should be expected to know when an army is broken???

IMNSHO, the biggest problem isn't so much the spam-(insert favorite unit to hate here), but its a combination of a couple of other factors.

#1 - A deliberate dismissal of competitive gaming by the Studio, to justify a lax attitude towards the rules. With the result that they seem to fail to look into second, third, or longer-order consequences of rules changes. (i.e. True LOS, units providing cover saves, Kill Points, etc.)

#2 - Terrain collections built on the 40K 4 model. Area terrain was a cheap and effective way of providing LOS blockage in 4th, and is totally useless for that purpose now. But since people have been spending years building up terrain collections they're loath (and sometimes don't have the resources to create good looking 40K 5 terrain...which involves building things that are at least 4" high and completely solid so that you can't see through.

#3 - Reluctance to limit unit selection by the Studio. I believe that this is because GW is a model company, not a rules company, but essentially they don't want to do something that would restrict model sales. So they are extremely reluctant to put the (0-1) or (0-2) modifier next to anything...which leads to things like loota spam, nidzilla spam, 9-oblit armies, etc. They seem to think that the "backstory" will somehow limit players from taking these kinds of things...while overlooking the fact that in real life, military doctrine generallly involves CONCENTRATING like units together. WW1 v WW2 tank use, anyone?

To be fair, they may be operating under some kind of influence from the suits here.

I'm not sure I like where this line of thought is leading me. Which is namely that its up to the tournament community to police ourselves here...which would largely involve the return of the dreaded "composition" score.

Yeesh. Adapt and overcome already.

Thank you, Jervis.

Centurian99 wrote:I'm not sure I like where this line of thought is leading me. Which is namely that its up to the tournament community to police ourselves here...which would largely involve the return of the dreaded "composition" score.

We came up with the INAT FAQ, why couldn't we devise tourney rules?

Redbeard wrote:And, I brought up how other game companies (WotC, Eurogames, video-fighting games) have managed to achieve systems that work for both casual players and tournament players, and he replied that they're just not interested. That as a game developer, he wants to write games that show you how to play the game the way that they do, and that their failure is a failure to communicate to us how they play, not actually a failure of the rules. He even said that they don't even look at FAQs when they playtest in the studio, because they all 'just know' how it is suposed to be played.

This is the real problem.

Jervis is a good guy, and I understand his desire to avoid having 40K turn into Advanced Squad Leader. I get that. But the studio completely misunderstands its role. Their job isn't to tell us HOW to play, it's to give us the tools TO play. Yet they keep twisting themselves into knots trying to dictate the HOW -- as if their way is the one true right way, revealed by a vision from God.

Jervis, I like you, and I like 5th edition. But you're a rules designer and not the Pope.

Yeah, it's as if there's some Holy Scripture, a text by which we might know how to play The Game, some sort of book; a codex, if you will.

H.B.M.C. wrote:*cackles with glee*


Can't wait to see the apologist brigade explain this one away.

BYE

No different from the Nay-sayer Horde, of which you are at least a nob.