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.

The various GT warzone books don't invalidate each other, they're just different mission packs with different rules. Even more varied than Open Play, if we're being honest.

 Blndmage wrote:
The various GT warzone books don't invalidate each other, they're just different mission packs with different rules. Even more varied than Open Play, if we're being honest.

RAW no, but only in the same way that by strict RAW a new codex does not replace the old codex and the various editions are just different ways of playing the army. It would be nice if GW made the de facto rule explicit RAW but this isn't nearly as compelling an argument as you think it is.

And even if you buy the argument that the old books remain valid you still have standardized formats, just a larger number of them. If I say "GT AoO 2000 points" you know exactly what rules will be used. If I say "GT Nachmund 2000 points" you know exactly what rules will be used. There is no equivalent for Open Play where you can name the format and know exactly what rules will be used.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
The various GT warzone books don't invalidate each other, they're just different mission packs with different rules. Even more varied than Open Play, if we're being honest.

RAW no, but only in the same way that by strict RAW a new codex does not replace the old codex and the various editions are just different ways of playing the army. It would be nice if GW made the de facto rule explicit RAW but this isn't nearly as compelling an argument as you think it is.

And even if you buy the argument that the old books remain valid you still have standardized formats, just a larger number of them. If I say "GT AoO 2000 points" you know exactly what rules will be used. If I say "GT Nachmund 2000 points" you know exactly what rules will be used. There is no equivalent for Open Play where you can name the format and know exactly what rules will be used.

Open War deck, xxxx points/PL

 Blndmage wrote:
Open War deck, xxxx points/PL

Are you using stratagems? Battle-forged armies? Is xxxx points/PL a hard limit or just a rough guideline? Any other rule changes? You've named the mission pack but there are still questions and there is no standard answer to them.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
By the definition you provided, 9th edition doesn't get to comment on the "original" spirit of the game - the original spirit was provided by Rogue Trader, given it is the original version of the game.

I'm sorry that you keep getting tripped up by your choice of words when you attack the preferences of others - perhaps there's a lesson for you here.

Nothing I said has anything to do with the original version of the game, even if you buy the argument that Rogue Trader is somehow more original than the actual game we're playing. You're the one who brought that up as a complete non sequitur to anything I had ever said.

Nor are the preferences of others really relevant. Play Open Play all you want, it's still pointless rules bloat and a perversion of the concept of a format and it can be removed without having any effect on your games.

I refer you back to the definition you quoted regarding perversion, which cited "original course, meaning, or state" - original state of the game is far closer to Open Play than anything in a Tournament Mission Pack.

And when talking about 40k, Rogue Trader is the original. I'm not going to claim "the best", as preferences will come into play there, but RT is the OG for 40k.

The preferences of others are very relevant when you come in here and keep telling the likes of Blndmage that the format they prefer shouldn't be catered to, while advocating that your preferred format should be.

And that's without touching on your abrasive posting style.

 Dysartes wrote:
And when talking about 40k, Rogue Trader is the original.

{citation needed}

It's your opinion that RT is the original game that subsequent editions are slight variants of, not merely one game in a series of separate games. But it's also completely unrelated to the point I was making. Open Play is a perversion of the concept of a game format, not of 40k. Whether or not modern 40k is a perversion of some platonic ideal of 40k established with Rogue Trader is irrelevant.

The preferences of others are very relevant when you come in here and keep telling the likes of Blndmage that the format they prefer shouldn't be catered to, while advocating that your preferred format should be.

Open Play existing as a separate format adds nothing to their games because it tells you nothing about how the rules will work. Literally the only thing its existence does is add a label of officialness to what people were already doing before it existed, and who cares about whether or not GW considers your games to be Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Games™?

Yo, @Blindmage: If you enjoy Open Play, keep enjoying it. The opinions of other posters have no validity on your said enjoyment, or whether or not gw will or will not, or should, continue supporting it. In short, stop wasting your time. And stop feeding it.

Sounds almost like peregrine reincarnated. Same sort of language and condescending attitude towards anything not matched play

Wayniac wrote:
condescending attitude towards anything not matched play

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Can I correctly assume you feel the same way about Crusade Play?

Not at all. Crusade has its flaws (primarily in how it only works for a narrow range of stories) but it does at least do something genuinely different from matched play. I would hope that in 10th GW uses their experience with the current version to fine-tune the concept and continue supporting an improved version of the format.

Why engage in honest discussion when you can make straw man arguments?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Open War deck, xxxx points/PL

Are you using stratagems? Battle-forged armies? Is xxxx points/PL a hard limit or just a rough guideline? Any other rule changes? You've named the mission pack but there are still questions and there is no standard answer to them.

Not sure why you are confused. Stratagems and Battle-forged armies are not Way to Play dependent, so not mentioning them means they are in play. Providing a Points/PL limit is the same. As for other non-standard rules, not mentioning them means they aren’t being used.

 alextroy wrote:
Not sure why you are confused. Stratagems and Battle-forged armies are not Way to Play dependent, so not mentioning them means they are in play. Providing a Points/PL limit is the same. As for other non-standard rules, not mentioning them means they aren’t being used.

Here are the entire rules for Open Play army construction:

The Armies
Each player musters an army from the miniatures in their collection. They can either discuss amongst themselves which models would work best, or they can use Power Ratings or points values as guidance.

Not one word on points vs. PL, limits as hard limits vs. guidelines, battle-forged armies required or optional or even banned, etc. And stratagems absolutely are way to play dependent since Open Play is the only "format" where a battle-forged army is not required, but the stratagem rules also say that even without using battle-forged armies you can agree to use them and give each player as much CP as you decide. If your "format" doesn't even standardize basic things like "what is a legal army" then it is a blatant perversion of the concept of a game format.

Contrast this with the current GT book where the army construction rules are very specific. 1000 points or 2000 points as a limit for each player, battle-forged armies required (and therefore all related rules are included), rule of three is in effect, etc. There is no ambiguity in the rules and nothing to agree on with your opponent other than which of the two game sizes you will be playing.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
By the definition you provided, 9th edition doesn't get to comment on the "original" spirit of the game - the original spirit was provided by Rogue Trader, given it is the original version of the game.

I'm sorry that you keep getting tripped up by your choice of words when you attack the preferences of others - perhaps there's a lesson for you here.

Nothing I said has anything to do with the original version of the game, even if you buy the argument that Rogue Trader is somehow more original than the actual game we're playing. You're the one who brought that up as a complete non sequitur to anything I had ever said.

Nor are the preferences of others really relevant. Play Open Play all you want, it's still pointless rules bloat and a perversion of the concept of a format and it can be removed without having any effect on your games.

It can also remain without affecting [/i]your[i] games.....

Just treat the offending/useless-to-you pages the same you would pretty pictures you've seen again and again. Leaf past them on your way to the rules you do use & don't worry about it.

I'm surprised theyre not on everyone's ignore list, sooo many threads get derailed with their pissy attitude