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.

 Jidmah wrote:


You got this backwards here. The correct answer is, it's the same game. You should be able to use your armies special rule in all games or it should not exist. If anything, the whole Drukhari detachment dilemma is an argument for having just one ruleset instead of 3.5. De facto, the 6 patrol raiding force might as well be narrative play only right now.

Why. The Drukhari detachment is perfectly matched-play legal. Why would it be narrative?

Yet another argument for having just one ruleset for playing games. Either GW puts those limits into rules and that's how the game works, or they don't. There is no reason for an inbetween.

Why? The very best thing about 40K is the wide variety of ways it can be played. Monotony and stagnation into "just one way to play" is the ultimate gaming nightmare and the one thing any gaming company should avoid like the plague.

If everybody were to play 40K just one way, it'd be the death of the game.

Ultimately, diversity hurts nobody. Everyone can play the way they like. Removing modes of play only hurts people that enjoy that mode of play with no benefit to people that didn't use that mode of play.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Facts that exist, which I infer point to a 9th on the near horizon:

- Sisters were released
- There is GWcon or giant party planned in Summer 2020
- There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game
- 8th is almost 3 years old
- GW currently has models or entire stratagems being banned at majors
- GW "accidentally" dropped their new 40k Rulebook on the webstore for a hot second.
- There are several more PA releases, about one per month, and nothing has been announced after PA.
- GW is losing money on the Erules front, where it can charge for new or updated content. (Recent meeting highlighted their interest in this regard - Push players to online rules)

Where/what have they banned at majors (I assume you don't mean Legends), and what was this "accidentally" dropping the new Rulebook? Haven't heard of either of those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Why? The very best thing about 40K is the wide variety of ways it can be played. Monotony and stagnation into "just one way to play" is the ultimate gaming nightmare and the one thing any gaming company should avoid like the plague.

If everybody were to play 40K just one way, it'd be the death of the game.

Ultimately, diversity hurts nobody. Everyone can play the way they like. Removing modes of play only hurts people that enjoy that mode of play with no benefit to people that didn't use that mode of play.

For most people though, it doesn't matter if the other ways are removed since they may as well not exist in the first place. It's a death knell for something to be labeled as narrative or, god forbid, Open play as it will never see any use in the majority of games since it's "not matched play legal". Yes, there are "three ways to play" but one of those ways is the near-universal standard and the others are ignored at best or openly derided at worst.

I can't imagine playing without psyker limitations. Open play is a joke.

If Bradley Cooper doesn't know, then no one knows.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


You got this backwards here. The correct answer is, it's the same game. You should be able to use your armies special rule in all games or it should not exist. If anything, the whole Drukhari detachment dilemma is an argument for having just one ruleset instead of 3.5. De facto, the 6 patrol raiding force might as well be narrative play only right now.

Why. The Drukhari detachment is perfectly matched-play legal. Why would it be narrative?

Because (according to a poll I did here on dakka) you have a 60-70% chance that when you walk into a random club/store/event that your army is not allowed to be fielded.
That is something that would not have happened if GW hadn't split the game into Open, Narrative, Matched and Organized for no reason whatsoever.
I'd also like to point out that you are arguing the current status quo. I'm arguing how it should be.
There should be one rule set that covers all ways to play. And then huge toolbox with optional rule modules to turn that streamlined board game into a narrative game of your liking. Literally nothing else is needed.
And, most importantly, there should just be a rule that excludes the Drukhari patrols from the detachment limit, just like drop pods are excluded from the tactical reserve rule.

Why? The very best thing about 40K is the wide variety of ways it can be played. Monotony and stagnation into "just one way to play" is the ultimate gaming nightmare and the one thing any gaming company should avoid like the plague.

If everybody were to play 40K just one way, it'd be the death of the game.

Please try to understand what I'm saying, you clearly do not.
If you feel like you don't want to write lists and just throw together a cool looking army and then eyeball the PL for fairness - you should be able to do that.
If you feel like you want to play a narrative campaign with custom named characters, battle honors, cities of death, death in the skies, spearhead and build your own landraider - you should be able to do that.
If you feel like you want to go to a store and find a fair and balanced game against at total stranger - you should be able to do that.
If you feel like you want to go to a large tournament and end up on a stream, playing on one of the top tables - you should also be able to do that.

There is just zero reason why you need four different rulesets for that. You are using the same codex for all those games, why are you under the impression that you need more than one set of core rules?
All those ways to play have existed for a long before 8th its "three ways to play" and they were never in need of separate rules before.

Ultimately, diversity hurts nobody. Everyone can play the way they like. Removing modes of play only hurts people that enjoy that mode of play with no benefit to people that didn't use that mode of play.

The Open War Deck, Eternal War, Maelstrom, Narrative Missions, Cities of Death, Spearhead or "Let's shoot at each other until one is dead" are modes to play.
Open, Narrative and Matched are not modes to play. They do not further diversity. The only thing they do is add complexity for no benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
- GW currently has models or entire stratagems being banned at majors

Please provide a source for that? Genuinely interested.

Wayniac wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Facts that exist, which I infer point to a 9th on the near horizon:

- Sisters were released
- There is GWcon or giant party planned in Summer 2020
- There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game
- 8th is almost 3 years old
- GW currently has models or entire stratagems being banned at majors
- GW "accidentally" dropped their new 40k Rulebook on the webstore for a hot second.
- There are several more PA releases, about one per month, and nothing has been announced after PA.
- GW is losing money on the Erules front, where it can charge for new or updated content. (Recent meeting highlighted their interest in this regard - Push players to online rules)

Where/what have they banned at majors (I assume you don't mean Legends), and what was this "accidentally" dropping the new Rulebook? Haven't heard of either of those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Why? The very best thing about 40K is the wide variety of ways it can be played. Monotony and stagnation into "just one way to play" is the ultimate gaming nightmare and the one thing any gaming company should avoid like the plague.

If everybody were to play 40K just one way, it'd be the death of the game.

Ultimately, diversity hurts nobody. Everyone can play the way they like. Removing modes of play only hurts people that enjoy that mode of play with no benefit to people that didn't use that mode of play.

For most people though, it doesn't matter if the other ways are removed since they may as well not exist in the first place. It's a death knell for something to be labeled as narrative or, god forbid, Open play as it will never see any use in the majority of games since it's "not matched play legal". Yes, there are "three ways to play" but one of those ways is the near-universal standard and the others are ignored at best or openly derided at worst.

IH Leviathans are/were banned at several large events, and the IH Forgefather strats with the healing were curtailed. As for the Rulebook drop check google. GW posted a link that had a list of "purchasable" content on the webstore, which among other things, had a New Limited 1st Edition rulebook. This has been hand waived away by some as them just re-releasing 8th's BRB, but others point to the fact that it was removed from the link in under an hour. They did the same mistake multiple times in the past with big releases: Sisters got leaked this way, as did IH Codex Supplement, and Orks. It's not uncommon for their webgurus to mess up.

I can't seem to find any reports of the rulebook drop you speak of. Do you know anywhere that might have reported on such a thing, or screenshotted it anywhere?

Open/Narrative/Matched should be divorced from whether you use points, power levels or “eyeballing” things, and more about the play style itself.

Open = grab your models and play. Formations, unit sizes, keywords and detachments don’t matter. Use what you got, points and PL don’t likely matter.

Narrative = there’s a story behind the battle. Fights might have unequal sides, may consider using custom rules that fit this particular battle, especially army construction and special stratagems. May use points or PL, or a themed army.

Matched = This is for all the marbles. Forces are “equal”, by-the-book use of rules. Points or PL to keep things “fair”, but may use a handicap system for more experienced players.

This is the snapshot that someone took. It was in October. Again, this is not proof that 9th is coming, this is proof that GW goofed in their webteam. I draw the loose conclusion that 9th is coming.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game

And yet somehow everyone in my local gaming group gets by with the BRB, latest CA and their codex (with errata available online on their phones if necessary).

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


This is the snapshot that someone took. It was in October. Again, this is not proof that 9th is coming, this is proof that GW goofed in their webteam. I draw the loose conclusion that 9th is coming.

So instead of associating that entry with the 40k Gaming Book that was released in a similar time period to the IH supplement, you make the leap to some nebulous 9th Edition release?

That makes sense.

 Stormonu wrote:
Open/Narrative/Matched should be divorced from whether you use points, power levels or “eyeballing” things, and more about the play style itself.

Open = grab your models and play. Formations, unit sizes, keywords and detachments don’t matter. Use what you got, points and PL don’t likely matter.

Narrative = there’s a story behind the battle. Fights might have unequal sides, may consider using custom rules that fit this particular battle, especially army construction and special stratagems. May use points or PL, or a themed army.

Matched = This is for all the marbles. Forces are “equal”, by-the-book use of rules. Points or PL to keep things “fair”, but may use a handicap system for more experienced players.

Agree that PL/Points are irrelevant to the game mode.
However, all three can be played with the current organized play rules, with open being "your army must not be battleforged" and narrative just playing a narrative mission. There is zero reason to waste as much as a paragraph on either in the BRB.

 Eldarsif wrote:
The current Dark Imperium box has now sold well over a few years and I doubt it is making them a lot of money anymore. Updating with a new box would be a very sensible move business-wise. The market is currently very saturated with Death Guard minis and the second hand market is directly competing with GW.

The DI models can be easily found secondhand, but finding discounts on the more modifiable Plague Marine box secondhand is far more difficult.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Open/Narrative/Matched should be divorced from whether you use points, power levels or “eyeballing” things, and more about the play style itself.

Open = grab your models and play. Formations, unit sizes, keywords and detachments don’t matter. Use what you got, points and PL don’t likely matter.

Narrative = there’s a story behind the battle. Fights might have unequal sides, may consider using custom rules that fit this particular battle, especially army construction and special stratagems. May use points or PL, or a themed army.

Matched = This is for all the marbles. Forces are “equal”, by-the-book use of rules. Points or PL to keep things “fair”, but may use a handicap system for more experienced players.

Agree that PL/Points are irrelevant to the game mode.
However, all three can be played with the current organized play rules, with open being "your army must not be battleforged" and narrative just playing a narrative mission. There is zero reason to waste as much as a paragraph on either in the BRB.

Change Open to being "your army does not have to be battleforged", and you've got the proper statement.

Too many people are "competitive only" and it has destroyed metas and driven them from the hobby as well as the game.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
You're right; it doesn't. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that Matched Play with all that that entails is the only legitimate way to play, and that's fair if that's what they want to do, but then I read posts where people suggest that Games-Workshop should outright get rid of anything that isn't Matched Play, and I'm like, hold-up; I like a lot of the non-Matched Play elements.

Which one of those aren't mission related?

I'm not sure I understand the question; isn't everything that's not background somehow mission related?

Why is it fair for someone to suggest that I can house rule additions to the rules, but it's not fair for me to suggest people house rule subtractions?

I have no idea where you got this idea from.

Not from you specifically Jidmah, but from these forums form time to time.

If anything, my experience with 40k across the last decade is that people would rather let you ignore a rule than create a new one.

While in general, I've had the same experience, I've also seen people suggest that Open Play, as in "Bring what you have and plop it on the table," should be removed entirely because "nobody plays that way."

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a discussion that allows critiques, criticisms and suggestions. Games evolve, and this kind of discussion is invaluable in establishing the direction most want their games to go, but when I hear people just take an entire aspect of the game I love and say "nobody uses this," as if it's an irrefutable fact, it bothers me.

My point was that all three play styles are 100% supported by just having matched play rules. Everything narrative play related works 100% fine even when using matched and organized play rules. Dropping random models on the table and rolling dice without any mission also works with matched play rules. There simply is no reason for open play and narrativ play to exist as separate rule sets.

Again, I agree with you here, after all, the core rules are the same no matter how you play.

For me, those pages in the rule book on Open and Narrative play are more of just an explicit statement from Games-Workshop that you don't have to follow all of the rules precisely as prescribed, and I think there's value in that statement. I mean, you seem like a reasonable enough person to understand that we can tailor as we please to suit whatever game we both want to play, but you'd be amazed at how confusing some other people find this concept. I've legitimately seen people complain about some rule and say that no one in their group likes it, and yet when presented with the possibility of just agreeing as a group to ignore or change it, they'll rail against the idea and say that the rules should work exactly as suits their particular taste without them having to discuss anything with their opponent.

Then again, to be fair to you, these kinds of people still have this problem even with those pages of the rule book, so maybe it doesn't solve many problems after all, but I still like them, and don't see how they detract from the game in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
There is currently 138 books needed to be read, or purchased, to play the game

And yet somehow everyone in my local gaming group gets by with the BRB, latest CA and their codex (with errata available online on their phones if necessary).

Then I guess you're not really playing Warhammer 40k according to the standard set by Brother Castor Fezzik and BaconCatBug. By not purchasing each and every book published for this edition, technically you are only playing WarHam 4 ©.

I think you meant FezzikDaBullgryn not me. I'm the one who apparently only plays Warhammer 4K.

 Charistoph wrote:
Change Open to being "your army does not have to be battleforged", and you've got the proper statement.

You are right, of course, just a language error on my side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Which one of those aren't mission related?

I'm not sure I understand the question; isn't everything that's not background somehow mission related?

My point was that a matched play game turns into a narrative game by choosing a narrative mission instead of eternal war or maelstrom. Turns, army building, stats all keep working the same. I have played many narrative missions over the course of 8th and every single one was played using the matched play rules - using stratagems or casting the same powers multiple times, null deployments, unit or detachment spam really don't add to narrative games in any meaningful way, quite the opposite.

If anything, my experience with 40k across the last decade is that people would rather let you ignore a rule than create a new one.

While in general, I've had the same experience, I've also seen people suggest that Open Play, as in "Bring what you have and plop it on the table," should be removed entirely because "nobody plays that way."

I think that open play should be removed, but not for that reason
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.

I think we are on the same page in general, I just think that the current fragmentation of the rules into four ways to play hurts the game more than it helps and therefore wished that it would go away. All these arguments whether the detachment limit or rule of three are applicable during a game or not, and armies like GK or Drukhari should no longer get rules that were designed to work with one way to play but not the others.

 Jidmah wrote:

- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.

I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.

You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.

The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.

 Brother Castor wrote:
I think you meant FezzikDaBullgryn not me. I'm the one who apparently only plays Warhammer 4K.

My humblest prostrations of guilt for libeling you so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
...using stratagems or casting the same powers multiple times, null deployments, unit or detachment spam really don't add to narrative games in any meaningful way, quite the opposite.

Now you see here's where we disagree: It's often these restrictions that are too restrictive for the purposes of my particular narrative games. While these restrictions certainly have their place in many (if not the vast majority of games), it's this kind of sweeping assumption that everybody uses them all the time without exception that bothers me.

I think that open play should be removed, but not for that reason
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules.

And it doesn't really have any. Like have you checked how many pages of the book Open Play actually takes up recently? It's four. Sure you might think these four pages are redundant, and everyone else may even agree with you, but there are at least two people in this world who think those four pages have value: me and presumably the guy who wrote them. If the easiest solution to rules you don't want to use is to just ignore them, couldn't you just apply the same logic to these four pages?

Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.

Again, you're right here, but many are not all, and I think that's an important distinction.

Open plat is actually used around here, especially at GW, especially the kids,

They come to the shop with whatever they have, put in on the table, roll for some random open war rules, and play it.

This is what open play is for.

Narrative is a niche way of playing the game, but it too does have its follow.

Matched play could be the game system played by 90% of players, but 90% is not 100%.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.

I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.

You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.

The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.

Perhaps you are the only one in the platoon marching in the step...

It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched. Open Play tells you "While there are not restrictions on or requirements placed on the models you can use in Open Play, it's best to have a chat with your opponent before the game..." There is no pre-game chat at an ITC game about what models you are intending to use in this game, well, besides explaining your army if necessary. There is no negotiation on the list-building restrictions. The players have no decision-making powers regarding the constraints/restraints of the game. Yes there are house rules, but they are set by the House and not the players. It's the exact opposite of Open Play.

An Open Play match is not overly concerned with balance. Throw models down and have fun. An ITC match is very concerned about balance. It's Matched Play. Please note that I am not defending ITC. I respect the format, but I play local tournaments that do not use ITC.

I think they have Open Play to allow them to publish the short rules pamphlets in the small starter sets/free download and have a complete game for beginners.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
An ITC match is very concerned about balance.

Bahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh. Wait. You were serious.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


This is the snapshot that someone took. It was in October. Again, this is not proof that 9th is coming, this is proof that GW goofed in their webteam. I draw the loose conclusion that 9th is coming.

You know they DID re-release the 40k rule book as a pocket size one right? and you do realized this was that right?

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-40000-The-Rules-2019


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS, also open/narrative play is very popular. Many locals will run a mix of narrative/match play campaigns. The last one i was in was a Cities of Death campaign actually (and it was great).

Narrative leagues are a thing to, planetary domination with extra rules like "if you are being attack you get a free fortification", etc..

I see more of these in actual play than basic pick up games in real life (Tho ITC events are also popular, they seem to be monthly 1 off events tho).

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched.

No, they're just playing a version of the game they have made up, they're not playing any version of real 40K. Actual 40K matched play rules are found in GW's publications.

 Crimson wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched.

No, they're just playing a version of the game they have made up, they're not playing any version of real 40K. Actual 40K matched play rules are found in GW's publications.

There is no "actual" 40K. GW doesn't care enough. The utter lack of terrain standards alone shows this. ITC still does a better job of hampering hordes from a scoring perspective, imo.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.

I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.

You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.

The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.

Perhaps you are the only one in the platoon marching in the step...

It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched. Open Play tells you "While there are not restrictions on or requirements placed on the models you can use in Open Play, it's best to have a chat with your opponent before the game..." There is no pre-game chat at an ITC game about what models you are intending to use in this game, well, besides explaining your army if necessary. There is no negotiation on the list-building restrictions. The players have no decision-making powers regarding the constraints/restraints of the game. Yes there are house rules, but they are set by the House and not the players. It's the exact opposite of Open Play.

An Open Play match is not overly concerned with balance. Throw models down and have fun. An ITC match is very concerned about balance. It's Matched Play. Please note that I am not defending ITC. I respect the format, but I play local tournaments that do not use ITC.

I think they have Open Play to allow them to publish the short rules pamphlets in the small starter sets/free download and have a complete game for beginners.

The pregame conversation is between you and the hosts. They told you what rules they were using and you agreed when you signed up. Its open play.

Martel732 wrote:

There is no "actual" 40K. GW doesn't care enough.

The quality of the official rules does not affect their officialness. Besides, GW rules may be flawed, but most ITC houserules make things worse.

The utter lack of terrain standards alone shows this.

A case in point: as lacking as the official terrain rules are, they're still better than invincible magic boxes that the ITC folks came up with.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
...using stratagems or casting the same powers multiple times, null deployments, unit or detachment spam really don't add to narrative games in any meaningful way, quite the opposite.

Now you see here's where we disagree: It's often these restrictions that are too restrictive for the purposes of my particular narrative games. While these restrictions certainly have their place in many (if not the vast majority of games), it's this kind of sweeping assumption that everybody uses them all the time without exception that bothers me.

You always have the option to lift restrictions for narrative games. You'll have a hard time implementing restrictions that aren't there, because inevitably someone will cry foul because it ruined his narrative/army.
Let's take the null deployment as an example - there are narrative missions which assume that one player doesn't deploy a single unit and puts everything in reserves. These can even arrive during turn 1. Obviously this is intended, so the narrative missions changed the rules. In other missions, you can ruin the entire mission by playing an army that simply reserves their entire army during the first turn, because the attacker can shell your army with artillery during T1 and you want to dodge that.

Narrative should be given the tools to create narrative games. The basic limit should still be applied, with the option to remove them when it helps the game.

I think that open play should be removed, but not for that reason
- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules.

And it doesn't really have any. Like have you checked how many pages of the book Open Play actually takes up recently? It's four. Sure you might think these four pages are redundant, and everyone else may even agree with you, but there are at least two people in this world who think those four pages have value: me and presumably the guy who wrote them. If the easiest solution to rules you don't want to use is to just ignore them, couldn't you just apply the same logic to these four pages?

It's not just quality. I don't think GW sees them as official, so why should we? I think ITC is still better overall, but I despise randomness. ITC blocking ruins are one of the main selling points to me. There's nothing wrong with them, as they are closer to 3rd ed standards that I like. True LoS needs to die in a hole. I like picking secondaries. If I want to draw cards, I'll go play a card game.

 Lance845 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

- "Bring what you have and plop it on the table" doesn't really need rules. If you want to do that, just do it? Even if you need rules, the "battleforged" rule pretty much handles all our needs, not getting CP already makes sure that some random pile of models will not be breaking any games.
- Sadly, open play is not just the removal of army building restrictions, but also removes a bunch of other restrictions that will ruin your game if someone chooses to exploit them, like limits on stratagems, psychic powers or understrength units. Just because of that reason, Open Play is not a game mode many people are willing to play.

I have said this before, what people actually play is almost exclusively Open Play.

You know ITC? Well nowhere in any officially published materials are those terrain rules and missions. So you are just playing some gak that somebody made up and that is very specifically Open Play. Open Play is not defined by a lack of army building rules or whatever. It's defined by it's openness to any and all rules. You can be playing 99.9% matched play with a slight tweak for your preference and in doing so you are actually playing Open. Open does not remove restrictions. Open leaves it open for YOU to remove restrictions, or add them, if you and your opponent agree to it.

The crazy misconception that just because you CAN play with no rules that suddenly Open is exclusively playing with no rules is so pervasive and 100% wrong. Because I bet the vast majority of every person who ever played in 8th has barely ever played Matched at all.

Perhaps you are the only one in the platoon marching in the step...

It is true that ITC has "house rules." That does not make it Open Play. The conditions under which two players are fighting the battle and the objective of the match tell you which mode of play is in use. The two players on opposite sides of the table at LVO are absolutely playing Matched. Open Play tells you "While there are not restrictions on or requirements placed on the models you can use in Open Play, it's best to have a chat with your opponent before the game..." There is no pre-game chat at an ITC game about what models you are intending to use in this game, well, besides explaining your army if necessary. There is no negotiation on the list-building restrictions. The players have no decision-making powers regarding the constraints/restraints of the game. Yes there are house rules, but they are set by the House and not the players. It's the exact opposite of Open Play.

An Open Play match is not overly concerned with balance. Throw models down and have fun. An ITC match is very concerned about balance. It's Matched Play. Please note that I am not defending ITC. I respect the format, but I play local tournaments that do not use ITC.

I think they have Open Play to allow them to publish the short rules pamphlets in the small starter sets/free download and have a complete game for beginners. [/spoiler]

The pregame conversation is between you and the hosts. They told you what rules they were using and you agreed when you signed up. Its open play.

Lance, I think that you have completely missed the point of Open Play and Matched Play in an attempt to cast some shade on ITC. A tournament (any format) is the opposite of Open Play unless it's really a "bring and battle" without scoring, and then it's not a tournament. Please note that I am not an ITC defender or proponent.

For the others who responded about balance, I do think that ITC makes an honest attempt to "balance" the game for the players. Whether they are successful is certainly up for debate, but the intent is clear. This is also true for GW and their Matched Play rules. That intent of balance is absent by design from Open Play and Narrative Play.

Anyhoo.