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.

keezus wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Anyone care to take into account relative price reduction of increased plastics from '98 to today?

Nope. Thought not....

If by price reduction you mean steadily increasing in price/model until they are almost at par with the cost of the metals they were supposed to be cheaper than. That's why Sternguard Veterans cost the same as the SM command squad right?

Nah, more the £2.50 for a metal Chaos Warrior around '98, and now paying £20 for 12. That's cheaper. Sure, some stuff has gone up, welcome to the wonderful world of real world, where stuff does get more expensive. £4 for 3 Empire Soldiers...currently £15 for 10. Not as big an increase over what, 13 years?

I'm not saying the Hobby is cheap, just pointing out factors many often fail to take into consideration when berating prices.

When the Chaos Warriors moved into plastic in 1998 they were 12 for £10.

Yup. And 13 years on, they are still a bit cheaper than their metal counterparts 13 years ago.

Overall, the cost of buying an army has gone up, but not as much as you might think. The greater number of plastic kits helps a lot. Sure, this isn't a universal affair, as my all-metal-I-went-mental-and-my-wallet-gently-wept Savage Orc army can attest to, and the like for like cost of plastic kits has shot up over the 13 years since the first 'modern' multiparter, but the increase is sometimes overstated.

Take EMpire, which was the first army to have all non-character choices in plastic. Flagellants are now half the price they used to be. Ergo whilst your state troops cost you more, the Flagellants cost you less. The Steam Tank went plastic and dropped £15 off it's metal equivalent price.

Yes, it depends almost entirely on your chosen units, but the fact remains the price of an army hasn't increased as far as many might think.

notprop wrote:I would suggest that if you only have 6x4 you shouldn't be playing more than 1500 point, if that. You really need to cut your cloth to the space you have, the 2000, 2500 and 3000 point games I read about are massively over sized for the game space that most have available, but this is not the fault of the game or indeed GW.

Eilif wrote:Considering scale and table size, 2nd edition battles were more "realistic" than 5th edition if such a term can be allowed anywhere within 50 yards of 40k.

True that, but one/two vehicles per force was quite limiting and had to change.

I see what you're saying and I agree that in the demented world of 40k, the simple equasion is that more vehicles often equals more fun. After all, if you've already got a world where a sword is as usefull as an assault rifle, why not have 12 tanks duking it out on a patch of land the size of a football pitch?

And now for a genuine aside....

As the points have decreased, game sizes have increased. But why? Sure, after a few renditions and reductions, you will need to adjust your army to make everything fit, but why do gamers often feel compelled to fit the size of game a company dictates?

Mr Mystery wrote:And now for a genuine aside....

As the points have decreased, game sizes have increased. But why? Sure, after a few renditions and reductions, you will need to adjust your army to make everything fit, but why do gamers often feel compelled to fit the size of game a company dictates?

I would say mostly to balance and a 'general' consensus of 'standard' play.

I never play in a tournament less that 1500 and not over 2500. It seems to be the 'best' state the game plays at, depending on what army you bring.

Now rules and meta affect this, but I'm speaking in generalities, not specifics.

imweasel wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:And now for a genuine aside....

As the points have decreased, game sizes have increased. But why? Sure, after a few renditions and reductions, you will need to adjust your army to make everything fit, but why do gamers often feel compelled to fit the size of game a company dictates?

I would say mostly to balance and a 'general' consensus of 'standard' play.
I never play in a tournament less that 1500 and not over 2500. It seems to be the 'best' state the game plays at, depending on what army you bring.

Yep. Most people gravitate toward the consensus, and for tournament players, they will do what the tournament scene requires.

There are those who go outside the standard game sizes and codex limitations and even go outside the common games, but they pay a price in terms of finding opponents and like-minded people to game with.

Mr Mystery wrote:And now for a genuine aside....

As the points have decreased, game sizes have increased. But why? Sure, after a few renditions and reductions, you will need to adjust your army to make everything fit, but why do gamers often feel compelled to fit the size of game a company dictates?

That would be because you have cause and effect reversed.

2nd Edition was designed for 200 point games. What wound up happening as 2nd edition aged was that people started playing bigger and bigger games. By the end of 2nd edition, at least half of the games I was playing were 8-10000 points. Huge multi-player mega-games were fairly commonplace.

GW took onboard the fact that people wanted to play bigger games, and stripped the rules down to create 3rd edition, which gave bigger armies for the standard points level, and allowed for bigger games through the rules not being as complicated (close combat in big games in 2nd edition was just painful).

The cynics can claim that the push to smaller points per model is just a sales tactic, and to a certain extent it's probably right. But it was all started by the players asking for it.

insaniak wrote:The cynics can claim that the push to smaller points per model is just a sales tactic, and to a certain extent it's probably right. But it was all started by the players asking for it.

I've been the cynic in this particular argument for a long time, but I have to admit that I've heard from a couple different sources in cluding a FLGS owner that the players drove much of the progression of 40k from a skirmsh/RPG to the more streamlined (relatively speaking), model heavy, tournament focused ruleset that it is today.

The game also changed, from skirmish level with individual combats, to company level with squad based combats.

Aside from stats, turn structure, and the relative spread of weapon and armor, 2nd edition has little in common, rules wise, with 3rd edition.

I'll concur with the observation that the players (at least in part) drove the move to a company-level game with more stuff on the table. I joined in when 3rd was new, but everyone I knew who played 2nd played BIG games on a regular basis. Frequently 2000, 3000, or more. Then as now, guys collect more and more toys, and want to use their stuff.

Personally I don't enjoy the feel of skirmish-level games nearly as much, and I generally hate overpowered supercharacters, so 2nd ed entirely lacked appeal for me. 3rd suited me very well after I had tried out 5th ed WHFB (which was my first choice, preferring the setting), and found it too unbalanced as a competitive game.

Mannahnin wrote:I'll concur with the observation that the players (at least in part) drove the move to a company-level game with more stuff on the table. I joined in when 3rd was new, but everyone I knew who played 2nd played BIG games on a regular basis. Frequently 2000, 3000, or more. Then as now, guys collect more and more toys, and want to use their stuff.

Isn't this pretty much natural progression? I've heard couple of Warmachine players note/complain that gameplay has moved towards larger (50 points, or even more) matches. Dunno if it's true, though as I know next to nothing about WM/H scene.

I believe it's happened in that game too, yes.

sourclams wrote:The big conclusion to be drawn from this is how much the GW playerbase has shrunk over the years. ...

This means that for GW to continue to declare very similar overall sales numbers, then half as many people are playing their game (with twice as many models) assuming prices stay the same.

I don't know if that is true, but it bears consideration. Economics is full of irony, after all!

Signed,
Other Voices

For once I think that GW did the right thing. The appeal of 40K to me is about big numbers of troops running around the table, for a skirmish game I can play better games than 40K (e.g. Infinity).

Lower points means more miniatures and yeah the need to buy more stuff, but unless you are a hardcore tournament player, you can always play lower than the 1500 standard.

So, marketing ploy or not, the 5th ed IG codex with its lower points cost made me start a new army due to the seer number of figures that you could put on the table compared to the prior ed codex.

M .

Eilif wrote:I've been the cynic in this particular argument for a long time, but I have to admit that I've heard from a couple different sources in cluding a FLGS owner that the players drove much of the progression of 40k from a skirmsh/RPG to the more streamlined (relatively speaking), model heavy, tournament focused ruleset that it is today.

There is zero, and I do mean and stress zero, in anything that is tournament focused rule set in the current incarnation of 40k. Period.

imweasel wrote:

Eilif wrote:I've been the cynic in this particular argument for a long time, but I have to admit that I've heard from a couple different sources in cluding a FLGS owner that the players drove much of the progression of 40k from a skirmsh/RPG to the more streamlined (relatively speaking), model heavy, tournament focused ruleset that it is today.

There is zero, and I do mean and stress zero, in anything that is tournament focused rule set in the current incarnation of 40k. Period.

I think you're wrong about that, and I think most old-timers and folks who play more traditional senario based games will agree with me. It likely doesn't compare to other more games that were tournament focused from the beginning (Warmahordes, Magic, etc), but comparing RT and 2nd ed to 5th edition, 5th edition is far more tailored to tournaments in it's streamlined nature of the rules and especially in the limited way it constricts army choices, limits variation, and shortens game time.

As a positive note, this streamlining does make pick-up games easier and a bit more predicatable.

Eilif wrote:I think you're wrong about that, and I think most old-timers and folks who play more traditional senario based games will agree with me. It likely doesn't compare to other more games that were tournament focused from the beginning (Warmahordes, Magic, etc), but comparing RT and 2nd ed to 5th edition, 5th edition is far more tailored to tournaments in it's streamlined nature of the rules and especially in the limited way it constricts army choices, limits variation, and shortens game time.

As a positive note, this streamlining does make pick-up games easier and a bit more predicatable.

Comparing the state of 'tournament quality' 40k to itself from early on to today is like comparing an old rotten corpse to just a rotten corpse.

Of course it's 'probably' better.

It's still a corpse. 40k might have come some ways to making it more 'tournament ready'.

It's still got a long, long ways to go before anyone should consider it 'tournament ready'.

insaniak wrote:
2nd Edition was designed for 200 point games. What wound up happening as 2nd edition aged was that people started playing bigger and bigger games. By the end of 2nd edition, at least half of the games I was playing were 8-10000 points. Huge multi-player mega-games were fairly commonplace.

GW took onboard the fact that people wanted to play bigger games, and stripped the rules down to create 3rd edition, which gave bigger armies for the standard points level, and allowed for bigger games through the rules not being as complicated (close combat in big games in 2nd edition was just painful).

Forget close combat, the BLIND GRENADE phase alone must have taken all afternoon!

I think monthly tournaments with decent attendence show that the came is clearly capable of being played as a tournament game. It might not meet every person's standards as a competitive game, but the fact that it works is evidence that it can work.

Conversely, I think it's more reflective of the loyalty of fans to GW's setting and the IP and possibly models in general that people try so hard to sustain a tournament scene. Magic, Warmachine, Malifaux, game systems built with competition in mind from the ground up and with the support of the parent company don't need the multitudinous gyrations of an INAT FAQ, elaborate YMDC, comp scoring, and other complications that seem unique to GW.

sourclams wrote:Conversely, I think it's more reflective of the loyalty of fans to GW's setting and the IP and possibly models in general that people try so hard to sustain a tournament scene. Magic, Warmachine, Malifaux, game systems built with competition in mind from the ground up and with the support of the parent company don't need the multitudinous gyrations of an INAT FAQ, elaborate YMDC, comp scoring, and other complications that seem unique to GW.

Oh, 40k clearly isn't a great tournament game (it take too long, if nothing else).

But it's neither as bad as it was, nor as bad as people claim.

it's not like Magic doesn't have (or had, I'm out of the loop) extensive errata and FAQs, they just keep them official and timely updated.

Comp no longer exists as a pervasive element in all tournaments, and doesn't exist at all in many of them.

While I gladly agree that there are better competitive games, and games that are truly designed "from the ground up" for competitive play, it's a gross exaggeration to say that there is zero tournament focus in 5th edition 40k.

Polonius wrote:While I gladly agree that there are better competitive games, and games that are truly designed "from the ground up" for competitive play, it's a gross exaggeration to say that there is zero tournament focus in 5th edition 40k.

Not a gross exaggeration at all.

There are rules that simply don't work.
These have not and will not be addressed.
Some of the things that have been addressed are changed at a later date on a whim.
There is no precedent used in the rules/errata/faq.

All of this is easily achieved. It's not.

Why? There is zero tournament focus in 40k. This is not limited to 5th edition.

You are confusing the words "no" with "not enough to my liking."

Missions that are balanced amongst each other. Missions that shape list construction. Decently balanced army books.

All of those are aspects of the game that show at least some focus on competitive play.

You seem to be fixating on after support, rather than internal construction.

Polonius wrote:You are confusing the words "no" with "not enough to my liking."

Missions that are balanced amongst each other. Missions that shape list construction. Decently balanced army books.

All of those are aspects of the game that show at least some focus on competitive play.

You seem to be fixating on after support, rather than internal construction.

Missions that are balanced? Dawn of war is balanced? Decently balanced army books? Maybe ones that are space marines.

None of those are aspects that show focus on competitive play.

After support is critical to providiing a competitive environment. Internal construction has improved for space marine armies.

Tournament focus should be for all aspects of the game. There is no attempt at that. You don't have an ad hoc approach to providing tournaments.

You do or you don't. It is black and white.

-Loki- wrote:

RatBot wrote:Loki, are you sure? Because damn near every tournament I ever saw, and every game I played, was 1750 or 2000 points in 3rd ed.

That doesn't mean that's what GW balanced it for. Even they run tournaments still over 2000 points ('Ard Boyz, I'm looking at you). Since 3rd edition, 40k has been balanced towards 1500 points.

There's some blog post from an old playtester floating around where he talks about it, though I've lost the link.

I question the assertion that GW has ever attempted to "balance" any of their games for any point level.

Polonius wrote:You seem to be fixating on after support, rather than internal construction.

The lack of internal construction is evident in the laissez-faire gaming terminology and lack of technical writing in the rules. I just happened to look at YMDC earlier today and saw yet another thread asking if Gate of Infinity can be used to teleport out of combat. GW expects gamers to know how to play the game as GW intended the game to be played, and thus some rules require players to work together to reach a common consensus--which is not consistent with head-to-head adversarial play. In all other systems, rules exist to provide the framework for conflict. In GW games, players actually have to establish the framework for the framework for the conflict... sometimes with guidelines as broad as 'd6 it'.

The lack of support after the fact just reinforces that it's not a competitive system from the get-go.

imweasel wrote:

After support is critical to providiing a competitive environment. Internal construction has improved for space marine armies.

Tournament focus should be for all aspects of the game. There is no attempt at that. You don't have an ad hoc approach to providing tournaments.

You do or you don't. It is black and white.

Sez who?

Really, by your logic 40k is as useless as a tournament game as say, Descent. Which is completely absurd assertion.

imweasel wrote:

Polonius wrote:You are confusing the words "no" with "not enough to my liking."

Missions that are balanced amongst each other. Missions that shape list construction. Decently balanced army books.

All of those are aspects of the game that show at least some focus on competitive play.

You seem to be fixating on after support, rather than internal construction.

Missions that are balanced? Dawn of war is balanced? Decently balanced army books? Maybe ones that are space marines.

And Orks. And IG. And Demons. And Dark Eldar.

And the missions are balanced among themselves.

There's a solid attempt.

None of those are aspects that show focus on competitive play.

After support is critical to providiing a competitive environment. Internal construction has improved for space marine armies.

Tournament focus should be for all aspects of the game. There is no attempt at that. You don't have an ad hoc approach to providing a tournaments.

You do or you don't. It is black and white.

So, out of curiosity, what is required to show focus on tournament play?

If it's back and white, than every game built for competitive play has every aspect of comepetive play. I'm curious to see what those requirements are, and if all games considered competitive posses all of those qualities.

I've never heard of a definative set of criteria, so I'm really excited to see one.

Backfire wrote:Sez who?

Really, by your logic 40k is as useless as a tournament game as say, Descent. Which is completely absurd assertion.

I would suggest you take a look at the YMDC forum for your answer. There are literally several ways to play a given rule.

How is this conductive to a 'tournament focus'? Sure you can play 40k in a tournament setting.

To say there is any 'focus' on tournaments is the absurd assertion.

It's like saying 'well duh, because there are tournaments should be proof enough of 'tournament focus'. That's like saying that tic-tac-toe is 'tournament focused' because there is a tic-tac-toe tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post: