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.

Reecius wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fetterkey wrote: but I'm not sure if it would be good for the game. The only way to find out is to do some tests...

The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.

When you try to force something to be something it isn't you are setting yourself up for dissapointment...

Really?

So the BEST thing for the game is for people whom you don't know to play the game the way you feel it should be played?

I don't care how you play it.

I ask that you accept that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The game isn't designed to allow for the tightness that some want to demand from it. One ony has to read the other thread ("what will we allow and not allow in events") to see that.

You can still choose to attempt to play it as a sport if that is your desire but the flaws and limitations of the game are magnified when you do and will still be present no matter how much duct tape an event organizer wishes to use to make people play the game "the way he fees it should be played".

CT GAMER wrote:

Reecius wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fetterkey wrote: but I'm not sure if it would be good for the game. The only way to find out is to do some tests...

The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.

When you try to force something to be something it isn't you are setting yourself up for dissapointment...

Really?

So the BEST thing for the game is for people whom you don't know to play the game the way you feel it should be played?

I don't care how you play it.

I ask that you accept that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The game isn't designed to allow for the tightness that some want to demand from it. One ony has to read the other thread ("what will we allow and not allow in events") to see that.

You can still choose to attempt to play it as a sport if that is your desire but the flaws and limitations of the game are magnified when you do and will still be present no matter how much duct tape an event organizer wishes to use to make people play the game "the way he fees it should be played".

Your assertion seems to suggest you want us to play the game how you want. By trying to convince others that the way they play the game is wrong you are attempting to get them to play the game the way you see fit. So you can claim all you want that you don't care how we play the game, but your postings show otherwise.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Reecius wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fetterkey wrote: but I'm not sure if it would be good for the game. The only way to find out is to do some tests...

The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.

When you try to force something to be something it isn't you are setting yourself up for dissapointment...

Really?

So the BEST thing for the game is for people whom you don't know to play the game the way you feel it should be played?

I don't care how you play it.

I ask that you accept that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The game isn't designed to allow for the tightness that some want to demand from it. One ony has to read the other thread ("what will we allow and not allow in events") to see that.

You can still choose to attempt to play it as a sport if that is your desire but the flaws and limitations of the game are magnified when you do and will still be present no matter how much duct tape an event organizer wishes to use to make people play the game "the way he fees it should be played".

Your assertion seems to suggest you want us to play the game how you want. By trying to convince others that the way they play the game is wrong you are attempting to get them to play the game the way you see fit. So you can claim all you want that you don't care how we play the game, but your postings show otherwise.

Im asserting that 40K is a bad game to play as a sport because it is flawed for such use by it's own form and design (and always has been). Your desire to want to play a game compeatively is fine. Your choice of vehicle to do so is highlly questionable.

That being said I fully endorse you right to do so anyways if so desire (though it seems to defeat the purpose of wanting to compete in a balanced test of skill).

CT GAMER wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Reecius wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fetterkey wrote: but I'm not sure if it would be good for the game. The only way to find out is to do some tests...

The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.

When you try to force something to be something it isn't you are setting yourself up for dissapointment...

Really?

So the BEST thing for the game is for people whom you don't know to play the game the way you feel it should be played?

I don't care how you play it.

I ask that you accept that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The game isn't designed to allow for the tightness that some want to demand from it. One ony has to read the other thread ("what will we allow and not allow in events") to see that.

You can still choose to attempt to play it as a sport if that is your desire but the flaws and limitations of the game are magnified when you do and will still be present no matter how much duct tape an event organizer wishes to use to make people play the game "the way he fees it should be played".

Your assertion seems to suggest you want us to play the game how you want. By trying to convince others that the way they play the game is wrong you are attempting to get them to play the game the way you see fit. So you can claim all you want that you don't care how we play the game, but your postings show otherwise.

Im asserting that 40K is a bad game to play as a sport because it is flawed for such use by it's own form and design (and always has been). Your desire to want to play a game compeatively is fine. Your choice of vehicle to do so is highlly questionable.

That being said I fully endorse you right to do so anyways if so desire (though it seems to defeat the purpose of wanting to compete in a balanced test of skill).

I am forced to question why you care so much. I assume you don't play in tournaments, to do otherwise would seem highly hypocritical, and if you don't play in tournaments and are so opposed to them what is the purpose of posting in this forum. To attack the way we, and most of the people posting here enjoy the game, because it is against your personal views of how the game should be played seems much more like trolling to me than actually taking part in the conversation we are having. The point of this forum is to discuss tournaments, and the point of this thread was to discuss how to play tournaments in 6th edition. Constantly posting that we shouldn't play tournaments, that 40k is not a tournament worthy game, and that treating the game like a sport is a mistake; makes it feel more like flame baiting to me than constructive comments.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Reecius wrote:

What would be very good for the game is if people stopped trying to impose their opinions on how it should be played on to others.

Pot, meet kettle.

Reece is not, nor has he ever, tried to tell non-competitive players that the only way to play the game was the competitive way. Reece, myself, and competitive gamers like us can play pick up games, league games, narrative campaigns etc and enjoy them. We also play compeittively and enjoy it. I have never tried to insist that people who are not competitive should give up the way some posters on this thread are telling competitive players to give up. I would never presume to tell someone how to enjoy their hobby, don't tell me how to enjoy mine. Thanks.

I don't think the point is "stop playing competitively", more a case of "stop complaining that the game is not balanced for competitive play".

I'm not suggesting that this is a quick and easy answer for every flaw in the system. There are a couple of things that I think may have a negative impact on casual games too.

With regards to the multiple FOC issues - we've been here before (albeit before the tourney scene really matured). Force Organisation restrictions in 2nd ed were practically non existent. You think some of the proposed 6th ed lists are bad? You should have seen some of the lists you could pull off in 2nd ed.

If house ruling at tourneys is going to be the norm then I think it needs to be a collaborative effort and TOs need to work together to come up with a standard list of restrictions based on actual experiences. I can't see it being workable if players need to run half a dozen lists to cater to differing restrictions at tourneys.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Reecius wrote:

What would be very good for the game is if people stopped trying to impose their opinions on how it should be played on to others.

Pot, meet kettle.

What? I said he had every right to play the game non-competitively if he chose to, not that he should play competitively or the way I wanted him to. So take that kettle and put it back in the kitchen, son! haha

@CT Gamer

You said it would be BEST for the game if people stopped trying to make it a sport. You were explicit, actually.

The game isn't perfect but NO game is. Even Chess is not perfectly even. The player going first has a slightly higher chance of winning.

We accept that imperfections (although we may bitch) and enjoy the game in a tournament format anyway. We strive for fairness and an even playing field, but it is a goal you work towards knowing you won;t ever achieve it.

The thing that bugs me so much is people acting like tournament play 40K is somehow wrong, and then demonizing competitive players. It is a pointless, hurtful practice.

You may not FEEL the game is good for tournaments, and that is fine, but that doesn't mean you are right. If other people enjoy it, and are contributing to the hobby then who cares what they do? And why even come into the "Tournament Discussion" area of a forum just to poo poo on other peoples' fun? If you don't like tournaments then why even spend time joining a discussion about them? I won't go into someone's narrative campaign thread and tell them to start using more competitive lists and tactics or they aren't playing the game right, it;s none of my business.

I can appreciate the game in a competitive or non-competitive format. Both ways are fun and enjoyable and both are equally valid.

@OverwatchCNC

Thanks, I appreciate the back-up!

OverwatchCNC wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Reecius wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fetterkey wrote: but I'm not sure if it would be good for the game. The only way to find out is to do some tests...

The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.

When you try to force something to be something it isn't you are setting yourself up for dissapointment...

Really?

So the BEST thing for the game is for people whom you don't know to play the game the way you feel it should be played?

I don't care how you play it.

I ask that you accept that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The game isn't designed to allow for the tightness that some want to demand from it. One ony has to read the other thread ("what will we allow and not allow in events") to see that.

You can still choose to attempt to play it as a sport if that is your desire but the flaws and limitations of the game are magnified when you do and will still be present no matter how much duct tape an event organizer wishes to use to make people play the game "the way he fees it should be played".

Your assertion seems to suggest you want us to play the game how you want. By trying to convince others that the way they play the game is wrong you are attempting to get them to play the game the way you see fit. So you can claim all you want that you don't care how we play the game, but your postings show otherwise.

Im asserting that 40K is a bad game to play as a sport because it is flawed for such use by it's own form and design (and always has been). Your desire to want to play a game compeatively is fine. Your choice of vehicle to do so is highlly questionable.

That being said I fully endorse you right to do so anyways if so desire (though it seems to defeat the purpose of wanting to compete in a balanced test of skill).

I am forced to question why you care so much. I assume you don't play in tournaments, to do otherwise would seem highly hypocritical, and if you don't play in tournaments and are so opposed to them what is the purpose of posting in this forum. To attack the way we, and most of the people posting here enjoy the game, because it is against your personal views of how the game should be played seems much more like trolling to me than actually taking part in the conversation we are having. The point of this forum is to discuss tournaments, and the point of this thread was to discuss how to play tournaments in 6th edition. Constantly posting that we shouldn't play tournaments, that 40k is not a tournament worthy game, and that treating the game like a sport is a mistake; makes it feel more like flame baiting to me than constructive comments.

And I would counter that this being a discussion forum I have just as much right to participate in the dialogue as you or anyone else regardless of my own preferences.

Not to mention I find it a little much to state that pointing out that a particular rules system has design flaws that will ultimately limit it's ability to provided the balanced competative experience that some are claiming to want is flame baiting. We are discussing the viability of said rules system for that very purpose after all with peple offering all manner of "fixes/changes/event limitations"etc.

wow...

Also: define "constantly".

I'll state it again: wanting to participate in balanced competative gameplay of some form in and of itself is fine if thats your thing. 40K still seems like a inherintly flawed vehicle to choose to do so however (as evidenced by the many discusssion in this very forum and others).



That being said please carry on.

Enigma of the Absolute wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Reecius wrote:

What would be very good for the game is if people stopped trying to impose their opinions on how it should be played on to others.

Pot, meet kettle.

Reece is not, nor has he ever, tried to tell non-competitive players that the only way to play the game was the competitive way. Reece, myself, and competitive gamers like us can play pick up games, league games, narrative campaigns etc and enjoy them. We also play compeittively and enjoy it. I have never tried to insist that people who are not competitive should give up the way some posters on this thread are telling competitive players to give up. I would never presume to tell someone how to enjoy their hobby, don't tell me how to enjoy mine. Thanks.

I don't think the point is "stop playing competitively", more a case of "stop complaining that the game is not balanced for competitive play".

I'm not suggesting that this is a quick and easy answer for every flaw in the system. There are a couple of things that I think may have a negative impact on casual games too.

With regards to the multiple FOC issues - we've been here before (albeit before the tourney scene really matured). Force Organisation restrictions in 2nd ed were practically non existent. You think some of the proposed 6th ed lists are bad? You should have seen some of the lists you could pull off in 2nd ed.

If house ruling at tourneys is going to be the norm then I think it needs to be a collaborative effort and TOs need to work together to come up with a standard list of restrictions based on actual experiences. I can't see it being workable if players need to run half a dozen lists to cater to differing restrictions at tourneys.

That 1000% I made this point in Reecius' thread. If we really want to see the game's GT style tournament scene continue then we'll need to make sure the game is played the same or almost the same everywhere. This is why I am in favor of changing as little as possible from the core rule book. It makes it easier if the game we are playing is THE game. Few places actually used the rules for buildings in 5th and it wasn't a problem I assume mysterious terrain will be the same. But if every other tournament treats Warlord Traits, Fortifications, FoC, and Psychic Powers, differently then the tournament scene will be in huge trouble.

Lets be fair here, while I don't want to get stuck in the middle, it must be acknowledged that trying to play 6th edition (well, 40k in general, but especially 6th compared with 5th) like a competitive game is forcing it to do something it wasn't meant to do. That's fine, many things find purpose where they weren't designed, but that should be realized and acknowledged, and that as a competitive ruleset, it is flawed.

Going into it with that realization and understanding will help ensure the smoothest experience for all involved.

Vaktathi wrote:Lets be fair here, while I don't want to get stuck in the middle, it must be acknowledged that trying to play 6th edition (well, 40k in general, but especially 6th compared with 5th) like a competitive game is forcing it to do something it wasn't meant to do. That's fine, many things find purpose where they weren't designed, but that should be realized and acknowledged, and that as a competitive ruleset, it is flawed.

Going into it with that realization and understanding will help ensure the smoothest experience for all involved.

Have you played a tournament using 6th edition yet?

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Lets be fair here, while I don't want to get stuck in the middle, it must be acknowledged that trying to play 6th edition (well, 40k in general, but especially 6th compared with 5th) like a competitive game is forcing it to do something it wasn't meant to do. That's fine, many things find purpose where they weren't designed, but that should be realized and acknowledged, and that as a competitive ruleset, it is flawed.

Going into it with that realization and understanding will help ensure the smoothest experience for all involved.

Have you played a tournament using 6th edition yet?

Not yet a tournament, but have played several weeks of a league (which basically plays out as a tournament over 6 weeks) with it.

Vaktathi wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Lets be fair here, while I don't want to get stuck in the middle, it must be acknowledged that trying to play 6th edition (well, 40k in general, but especially 6th compared with 5th) like a competitive game is forcing it to do something it wasn't meant to do. That's fine, many things find purpose where they weren't designed, but that should be realized and acknowledged, and that as a competitive ruleset, it is flawed.

Going into it with that realization and understanding will help ensure the smoothest experience for all involved.

Have you played a tournament using 6th edition yet?

Not yet a tournament, but have played several weeks of a league (which basically plays out as a tournament over 6 weeks) with it.

While several games in 2 weeks is good playing an actual tournament with the rules is the only true way to test out the viability of the rule set in a competitive setting. 3-5 games in a day in a competitive environment is the only real way to tell. We just had a 6th ed tournament last Saturday and it went very well. This is the thread on that tournament. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/457767.page There is just so much rabble going on with a 3 week old game that has had 1 tournament played under it so far that I feel the game is in danger of not getting a fair shake.

regarding 6E from my local gaming group's perspective, we tend to have lots of fun with what we have done with 6E (been playing every week since it came out) and we have gotten the most out of 6th edition from a shiggles (read sh*ts and giggles) standpoint. we have also run smaller tournament style events.

By far people have had more satisfaction out of hastily thrown together non competitive style lists that have a fluffy feel to them

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Lets be fair here, while I don't want to get stuck in the middle, it must be acknowledged that trying to play 6th edition (well, 40k in general, but especially 6th compared with 5th) like a competitive game is forcing it to do something it wasn't meant to do. That's fine, many things find purpose where they weren't designed, but that should be realized and acknowledged, and that as a competitive ruleset, it is flawed.

Going into it with that realization and understanding will help ensure the smoothest experience for all involved.

Have you played a tournament using 6th edition yet?

Not yet a tournament, but have played several weeks of a league (which basically plays out as a tournament over 6 weeks) with it.

While several games in 2 weeks is good playing an actual tournament with the rules is the only true way to test out the viability of the rule set in a competitive setting. 3-5 games in a day in a competitive environment is the only real way to tell.

Why does 3-5 games in one day tell you more than 3-5 in a couple of weeks? I've played 7 or so games total so far, and (at least in my experience) it's been really...wonky. Gimmicky is the best word to describe it in my experience, though that also may be due to lots of games playing against and watching necrons.

We just had a 6th ed tournament last Saturday and it went very well. This is the thread on that tournament. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/457767.page There is just so much rabble going on with a 3 week old game that has had 1 tournament played under it so far that I feel the game is in danger of not getting a fair shake.

Well, to be fair, the designers themselves stated they intentionally moved away from a competitive ruleset with 6th at their open day.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Reecius wrote:

What would be very good for the game is if people stopped trying to impose their opinions on how it should be played on to others.

Pot, meet kettle.

Reece is not, nor has he ever, tried to tell non-competitive players that the only way to play the game was the competitive way. Reece, myself, and competitive gamers like us can play pick up games, league games, narrative campaigns etc and enjoy them. We also play compeittively and enjoy it. I have never tried to insist that people who are not competitive should give up the way some posters on this thread are telling competitive players to give up. I would never presume to tell someone how to enjoy their hobby, don't tell me how to enjoy mine. Thanks.

You are telling me how to play. How naive can you be? I get together at a local tournament once a month with guys I've played with for years and others. Last year the tourney was turned over to two guys who love to travel to National tournaments. I don't travel to national tournaments. They have said they want to wait and see how this 'national rules for 6th edition' turns out and they could very well implement those rules for this tournament. Hence I will be stuck playing with your damn house rules. Why would they do that? So they can practice for when they travel.

If you keep your house rules to yourselves, ie in California and no where else, I wouldn't have a problem. But you want to make sure that the way you play is the way everyone plays. This goes way beyond the INAT giving everyone the same interpretation of the rules. This involves major changes to the rule book that you are forcing down others throats. You might not realize you are doing it, but it's happening.

Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. California has a reputation for over regulation and micro managing the daily lives of their citizens. Please leave that out of this game.



And your definition of competitive is not mine. A competitive tournament is not one where every missions the same, every board has equal terrain and you try to jam in as many games as possible over a weekend. Competitive, to me, means being the best to think on your feet, react to the unexpected and come out on top. You know like a true competitive sport. They still count the win in the NFL if you beat the Packers with Aaron Rogers injured and there is no shame in winning agame because his objective blew up. A win is a win in a competitive environment and the best player mwill come out on top in the long run even with some games stacked against them.

Vaktathi wrote:Lets be fair here, while I don't want to get stuck in the middle, it must be acknowledged that trying to play 6th edition (well, 40k in general, but especially 6th compared with 5th) like a competitive game is forcing it to do something it wasn't meant to do. That's fine, many things find purpose where they weren't designed, but that should be realized and acknowledged, and that as a competitive ruleset, it is flawed.

Going into it with that realization and understanding will help ensure the smoothest experience for all involved.

This is a good comment. I have already made previous postings on what my belief is why 6th ED rule set was created so if you want to look at previous postings please do so. As far as GW leaving the tournaments all together, I'm calling BS on what they are stating. Strictly a money decision I believe and that is that.

As far as the rule set for tournament use? TO's will decide what to use and how to use it. There is no real way on what it right and what is wrong.

Reecius must be doing something right as people from all over the country go to his tournament. More power to him.

The same goes to the people at NOVA and Adepticon and many, many others.

Unless I get a specific request from people that I know, I generally run a small tournament now, twice a year now for 6 years straight. Don't run big tournaments anymore. I know the pain the keester off all of the logistics involved. Let the young people do that.

Already broke down the rule set and all of its quirks and I'll make it work to suit my needs. My style of promoting a game is casual/competitive. It works well for myself and the players that play, play hard, have fun in the process, get free food and drink and cash prizes. Lots of cash prizes. Cash is King you know.

But in the end it comes down to what is successful. At the end of the day if the large majority had fun in the tournament that they were in then that is a success. Regardless if it is a casual tournament or a highly competitive one. It is still a success.

6th ed sucks. Rules aren't really balanced, it seemed like ward went "lololol this sounds cool!" and it wasn't playtested enough. The wound allocation rules are just as broken as 5th, and if anything, slow down the game to an unneeded degree.

I know 40k wasn't "meant" to be competative, but as with all games, there are those that love tourneys and love the challange of facing good players on an even playing field. 5th had its flaws, but it made for a decent environment for competative games. 6th feels like the power gamers edition; people seem to be ok with broken combos that make games almost completely one sided. A game that once took a bit of skill for the most part is now done with a bunch of premeasuring (so you will almost never miss a shot!) And who has the most dice (oh, and don't get me on stupid fliers).

Either way, 6th sucks and has caused a bad taste in my mouth. Couple that with insane pric inflation, eff it, I can go play warmahordes, have a better balanced game, quarter of the cost, and games that don't take 4 hours to complete. Did I mention they have people who answer rules debates on forums within hours rather than wait months for faqs? GWs too busy trying to sell models than salvage a game that is on the breaking point. Something has to give, and I'm sick of gw, and sick of a game that is no longer any fun

DarthDiggler wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Reecius wrote:

What would be very good for the game is if people stopped trying to impose their opinions on how it should be played on to others.

Pot, meet kettle.

Reece is not, nor has he ever, tried to tell non-competitive players that the only way to play the game was the competitive way. Reece, myself, and competitive gamers like us can play pick up games, league games, narrative campaigns etc and enjoy them. We also play compeittively and enjoy it. I have never tried to insist that people who are not competitive should give up the way some posters on this thread are telling competitive players to give up. I would never presume to tell someone how to enjoy their hobby, don't tell me how to enjoy mine. Thanks.

You are telling me how to play. How naive can you be? I get together at a local tournament once a month with guys I've played with for years and others. Last year the tourney was turned over to two guys who love to travel to National tournaments. I don't travel to national tournaments. They have said they want to wait and see how this 'national rules for 6th edition' turns out and they could very well implement those rules for this tournament. Hence I will be stuck playing with your damn house rules. Why would they do that? So they can practice for when they travel.

If you keep your house rules to yourselves, ie in California and no where else, I wouldn't have a problem. But you want to make sure that the way you play is the way everyone plays. This goes way beyond the INAT giving everyone the same interpretation of the rules. This involves major changes to the rule book that you are forcing down others throats. You might not realize you are doing it, but it's happening.

Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. California has a reputation for over regulation and micro managing the daily lives of their citizens. Please leave that out of this game.



And your definition of competitive is not mine. A competitive tournament is not one where every missions the same, every board has equal terrain and you try to jam in as many games as possible over a weekend. Competitive, to me, means being the best to think on your feet, react to the unexpected and come out on top. You know like a true competitive sport. They still count the win in the NFL if you beat the Packers with Aaron Rogers injured and there is no shame in winning agame because his objective blew up. A win is a win in a competitive environment and the best player mwill come out on top in the long run even with some games stacked against them.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't want you to do anything the way California or Reece does. Never said I do. In fact what I have been saying all along, even inReece's thread, is that I want people to change as little as possible. If by stating I want people to keep the rules from the book and not stray too far from the actual rules is telling people how to play, then yes. I am telling you to play by the rules and am telling you how to play in that case.

I don't want over regulation, I want as little regulation as possible, and that includes inat. I have never really been a fan of the "everyone must use inat" kick that a lot of people get on.

Reecius Wrote:
So the BEST thing for the game is for people whom you don't know to play the game the way you feel it should be played?

I would like to point out that you and a number of TO's getting together and trying to figure out which rules to keep, which rules to toss, and which things to modify for "The good of the tournament scene.." is really very much the same thing. I understand you aren't sitting around in the Fortress of Doom plotting out how to both kill Superman and how to impose your will on all of 40k 6th edition, but I'd really appreciate it if there wasn't a body of GT TO's getting together and telling me that if I want to participate in their events, I can't buy terrain at my discretion, I can't roll warlord traits as per the rules because I might get a good one and someone elses might suck, I can't use the double FoC chart because someone might bring a lot of missiles, I can't take allies because not everyone likes them.. etc etc.

I like the new rules. I like all of them. It would be nice if GT's didn't form a superpac to rule them all and decide that I'll never get to use my Eldar Wraithtower of Redemption because it's unfair... or that I can't run a Farseer, Rangers, and 6 Wraithlords. THE NEW EDITION IS HERE. Warhammer 5.5 events are starting to bug me.. not because there's going to be one or two but because it seems like any event worth traveling to isn't going to be playing 6th. They'll be playing 5.5 instead, and all because some people decided the BEST thing for the game is for people they don't know to play the game the way they feel it should be played. +1 to the OP. Let 6th ed be 6th ed with as little change as possible.

40K, like all GW games, aren't designed for competative play and never have been. People can modify the rules all they like but unless they completely overhaul the game (and all the codices) the game will never allow completely fair games. To be honest this is a good thing as the type of ruleset that would be required for truly competative play would be flat and featureless.

GW's continued reluctance to make a serious effort to internally and externally balanced their codices highlights their attitude to competative gaming. after all its not as if balancing is particularly hard.

Competative players need to accept that the game simply wasn't designed for them in the same way that I need to accept that it wasn't designed for adults.

I was not saying it is I was just saying it might be a side effect.

I just played a 2000 point game with all the random stuff. It was fun. The rules aren't that much different. They added fliers, allies, random charges, and some extra special rules. The game doesn't seem any more or less unbalanced than it was in 5th. The dynamics have simply shifted, not up or down, but laterally.
I don't see it being a problem in a tournament. There. I said it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thunderfrog wrote:

Reecius Wrote:
So the BEST thing for the game is for people whom you don't know to play the game the way you feel it should be played?

I would like to point out that you and a number of TO's getting together and trying to figure out which rules to keep, which rules to toss, and which things to modify for "The good of the tournament scene.." is really very much the same thing. I understand you aren't sitting around in the Fortress of Doom plotting out how to both kill Superman and how to impose your will on all of 40k 6th edition, but I'd really appreciate it if there wasn't a body of GT TO's getting together and telling me that if I want to participate in their events, I can't buy terrain at my discretion, I can't roll warlord traits as per the rules because I might get a good one and someone elses might suck, I can't use the double FoC chart because someone might bring a lot of missiles, I can't take allies because not everyone likes them.. etc etc.

Unfortunately, old boys clubs are the nature of the scene.

Thunderfrog wrote:

Reecius Wrote:
So the BEST thing for the game is for people whom you don't know to play the game the way you feel it should be played?

I would like to point out that you and a number of TO's getting together and trying to figure out which rules to keep, which rules to toss, and which things to modify for "The good of the tournament scene.." is really very much the same thing. I understand you aren't sitting around in the Fortress of Doom plotting out how to both kill Superman and how to impose your will on all of 40k 6th edition, but I'd really appreciate it if there wasn't a body of GT TO's getting together and telling me that if I want to participate in their events, I can't buy terrain at my discretion, I can't roll warlord traits as per the rules because I might get a good one and someone elses might suck, I can't use the double FoC chart because someone might bring a lot of missiles, I can't take allies because not everyone likes them.. etc etc.

I like the new rules. I like all of them. It would be nice if GT's didn't form a superpac to rule them all and decide that I'll never get to use my Eldar Wraithtower of Redemption because it's unfair... or that I can't run a Farseer, Rangers, and 6 Wraithlords. THE NEW EDITION IS HERE. Warhammer 5.5 events are starting to bug me.. not because there's going to be one or two but because it seems like any event worth traveling to isn't going to be playing 6th. They'll be playing 5.5 instead, and all because some people decided the BEST thing for the game is for people they don't know to play the game the way they feel it should be played. +1 to the OP. Let 6th ed be 6th ed with as little change as possible.

No edition of the game has been used in its entirety in the tournament scene since at least 3rd edition. For instance, I attended ~100 tournaments between 4th and 5th edition and never once saw one where the rules for buildings were used. Likewise, very few events (and even less serious ones) used an unmodified version of the Capture & Control mission from the 5th edition rulebook (also known as "the draw mission").

The reality is that certain parts of the game do not function well, do not facilitate (and perhaps even hamper) competitive play, and/or are so obviously tacked-on to the core rules that they can be excised without interfering with other parts of the game. In some instances, no amount of prescience is required to work out the effects of rules or their removal. There's about as much need to see how double FOC "pans out" as there is see your hand start to smoke and char before removing it from a hot stove. Some things are just obviously bad.

Danny pretty much hit the nail on the head. Hell, if you go back as far as 2nd I can tell you that Virus and Void grenades were almost universally banned from the tournaments of that era, along with Armorcast units (the forgeworld of that era) because they simply busted the game.

You have to understand that in the task of keeping 50-100 guys playing happy and getting their games on time, you have to look at things that are going to hamper this. Some things are logistical issues, like Fortifications and the narrow table edge deployment type. Some are elements that can lose a game on a single die roll early in the game, like random/odd numbers of objectives. Those are easy to fix and the fact that they sit on about 5 pages of the book should tell you how much thought GW actually put into them.

There are, as it stands, enough rules that cannot be fixed as they are fundemental rules, like the nightmare that is cinematic wound allocation, which is going to be abused to hell and back and slow games to a crawl. What the "Legion of Doom" is trying to do is have a sensible discussion among their peers (the nerd herders who sacrifice large chunks of their time to run these events) about what they can and should alter to make things go as smooth as possible. This is nothing new and happens among TOs all the time. You are just seeing it more out in the open because there is a new ruleset and a short time before events have to start using it.

Fetterkey wrote:I find it sadly funny that the thread about how we should stay calm and see what happens across events with multiple different sets of rules has turned into people arguing about what should and shouldn't be allowed.

It seems that you have inadvertantly discovered a powerful new form of trolling - calling for calm reason. It's like reverse psychology, or something.

Something that in general addresses, for me, the issue of whether or not 40k is a "tournament" or "competitive" game is the misunderstanding of whether ANY game is.

Game developers have no say in, and no real formal input in, whether their games are used "competitively" or "in tournaments."

The game of Baseball can be played with basic rules on a sandlot in a very non-competitive way, simply for fun. It also can be played using the extremely detailed rules put forth by Major League Baseball at its most competitive level.

People don't spend a great deal of time trying to argue about whether Baseball was intended to be a "tournament" game or professional game played competitively, or something fun for a bunch of Knickerbockers in the 1850's. It certainly wasn't originally designed as a competitive thing, but as a social and active outdoorsy thing to do.

The truth is, ANY game can be played competitively, and it can be played in tournaments. ANY game requires modification of SOME sort to be played in such a setting. There are probably competitive MONOPOLY events ... D&D events ... tiddlywinks events ... pick one. Games are games, and some people play them b/c they want to play a game ... others play them b/c they want to win a game. Who cares?

All that really matters is whether tournaments are FAIR and FUN, and there are multiple ways to evaluate this. Certainly, however, they ALL have to do SOMETHING other than play the rules as written. There isn't a tournament out there where everyone shows up, random rolls missions, plays at whatever points level they want, and scores no points or recognition for winning or losing. That's not a tournament, even ... it's a mass gathering ... and you can do that too!

VERY few games and sports were ever originally designed to be played in tournaments. Basketball wasn't, and what would basketball be today without March Madness? Baseball wasn't, the World Series is not an invention of Baseball's original designers. The Super Bowl isn't a ruleset released by the founders of Football.

40k is a FAR less large and restrictive thing, and FAR less prohibitive in tournament settings. It simply isn't ... like ALL of the sports and games above ... designed by its originators for tournament play. That doesn't mean ANYTHING toward whether it can or can't be played competitively, or can or can't be played in tournaments.

All that really matters is - like nearly every sport and game that ever existed - that those who run ORGANIZED events do their best to create additions and modifications to the base rules that respect the spirit of the game, and provide a fun and fair environment for those who choose to attend. Tournament and League Organizers in EVERY game and sport out there plug NON-TOURNAMENT-GAMES into rules and addendums they've created to enable their events to be successful. From Soccer to Warhams, this is universally the case (though to varying degrees).

The World Series is an awesome time for baseball players and fans. So is playing with a whiffle ball in your backyard. The same can be said, and should be said, for the pageantry of 40k out there for 40k players and fans ... from AdeptiCon, NOVA, WGC, BAO and others ... all the way to this Saturday, where I'll be sipping whiskey and smoking cigars with a bunch of close buddies over a few laid back games.


PS - As an addendum for Darth Diggler, NOBODY in terms of the established events is going to pick up BAO, NOVA, etc. as the National Rule for tournaments. You're not going to see AdeptiCon copycatting BAO, or NOVA copycatting WGC, or vice versa for any. That's both silly, and doesn't reflect understanding of WHY the big national tournament organizers do what they do (hint: it has something to do with freedom). We all do like to talk all the time, and take good ideas from each other, but you should suggest to your local event guys that there won't be a "nationalized" format of any sort for them to overly worry about.

MVBrandt wrote:Something that in general addresses, for me, the issue of whether or not 40k is a "tournament" or "competitive" game is the misunderstanding of whether ANY game is.

Game developers have no say in, and no real formal input in, whether their games are used "competitively" or "in tournaments."

Of course not but 40K is clearly not designed for competitive play. In fact you could say that games designers probably have more say than anyone in how their products are used simply by how their game is structured.

Palindrome wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:Something that in general addresses, for me, the issue of whether or not 40k is a "tournament" or "competitive" game is the misunderstanding of whether ANY game is.

Game developers have no say in, and no real formal input in, whether their games are used "competitively" or "in tournaments."

Of course not but 40K is clearly not designed for competitive play. In fact you could say that games designers probably have more say than anyone in how their products are used simply by how their game is structured.

No they don't, it is just that a large percentage of gamers insist on playing everything always "by the book" and refuse to do anything about the shortcomings in the rules/codexes.

keithb wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:Something that in general addresses, for me, the issue of whether or not 40k is a "tournament" or "competitive" game is the misunderstanding of whether ANY game is.

Game developers have no say in, and no real formal input in, whether their games are used "competitively" or "in tournaments."

Of course not but 40K is clearly not designed for competitive play. In fact you could say that games designers probably have more say than anyone in how their products are used simply by how their game is structured.

No they don't, it is just that a large percentage of gamers insist on playing everything always "by the book" and refuse to do anything about the shortcomings in the rules/codexes.

Most other games don't quite have the same issues, either because they have better written rules to start with, or because they didn't have years of official rules interpretations/FAQ's and the like sticking to strict RAW interpretations even when RAI was clearly opposed or the RAW was nonsensical or core rules had changed.

Never mind