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.

Listened to an interesting video today.
Speculation is that 8th is the beginning of a new era of live updates
driven by model supply and support.

Old unprofitable and pirated models go to the Legends group.

And, new stuff is brought into endorsed 'competitive' play
in order to limit "bloat"
with "bloat" implying game breaking combinations given newer unit releases.

Plastic models become cards which are collectible,
and useable within a 'Legends' framework,
but in bad form at a tourney of any sort at a local GW store I wonder...

One issue that came up was
what gaming groups/clubs/other influential organizations might do in response to the Legendizing (and sidelining) of many units.


Is this narrative driven meta chasing tourney scene the environment that people enjoy?

Or, is 40K still like chess for a lot of people,
just more complicated,
with the added layer that one and his/her opponent
must in reasoned discourse agree to the terms that bind them both.

Social media and established networks afford a ready made corporate structure.
People can easily re-skin GW's proscribed rules and narrative support if a more stable rules environment is desired.
In this case, rather than Legendizing old models,
new models and rules might be forbidden until playtested by community reps.
After testing and negotiation, these can be included into the governing meta given certain house rules
(e.g. no "list" (deck) can have two or more of this and [similar] models (cards).)
And, these can be renegotiated, in real time, with the input of every single member of the group,
wherever they are in the world, instantaneously with social media and almost for free.

So, yeah,
which way do you think that people will go?

Simple poll. (Edited to include both and neither options, so not so simple anymore)

House rules or move with the corporate meta?

We mostly already do a lot of work to get better games going, and i think unless 40k gets a overhall again most people here where i am are just ignoring it.

That is some wicked stuff your snorting there.

The old 'GW makes new units OP for profit', debunked by every gak new unit they make.
We know Legends is for rules that GW doesn't make models for, which is why they are not in the codex. Because GW doesn't sell them.

GW only very begrudgingly accepts competitive play. They would prefer it if competitive play didn't exist at all.

Other than that the rest of your post reads like a fever dream.

 Sim-Life wrote:
GW only very begrudgingly accepts competitive play. They would prefer it if competitive play didn't exist at all.

Other than that the rest of your post reads like a fever dream.

[Citation extremely needed]

I would suggest that as this is a hobby formed around playing with miniatures, people play with whatever miniatures they like and doggedly ignore any corporation that tries to tell you you cannot use them.

Yeah, I know, GW is the only game in town. Well, that is not actually true. I have started several gaming groups and clubs over the years and it is possible to do so, but it is just more work than showing up at the game store and playing whatever is going. But it means no corporation can make your miniatures "illegal" for their own reasons, or stop you using other miniatures along with theirs because it is not in their interest for you to shop outside their ecosystem.

 Sim-Life wrote:
GW only very begrudgingly accepts competitive play. They would prefer it if competitive play didn't exist at all.

Other than that the rest of your post reads like a fever dream.

I'm sure they'd prefer not having a good amount of competitive players who splash out thousands of dollars/pounds/euros a year in order to chase the current meta.

Old GW didn't like competitive play, and the move increasing away from it got us 6/7th and the decline of 40k.

New GW is using tournaments information for balancing decisions and organising a new GT in the US.
I don't see how you can say GW currently doesn't like competitive play.

 Aenar wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
GW only very begrudgingly accepts competitive play. They would prefer it if competitive play didn't exist at all.

Other than that the rest of your post reads like a fever dream.

I'm sure they'd prefer not having a good amount of competitive players who splash out thousands of dollars/pounds/euros a year in order to chase the current meta.

Actually the block of people who army chase like that is quite a lot smaller than some areas of the internet would lead many to think. More people tend to be the kind to hold onto an army rather than chase the meta army.
Plus a good chunk of those army chasers often buy secondhand goods to cheapen the cost whilst they trade their army away; so often as not they are recycling sold products.



The main issue, and you can see this in how GW writes their rules, is that the GW rules team are clearly based with a more casual approach to the game side of things. They aren't rules lawyers style writers nor technical rules writers. So they make assumptions and its clear that some areas of the rules are foggy because they've not defined them well enough. You can also see management attitudes too in protecting content since all reports we've had where GW has used beta feedback (excluding Sisters of Battle) they mostly just sent out pre-designed lists to gamers to play with. Which removes army building and finding broken combos during the testing phase. As well as complicated interactions that might break the rules when put together.

Also just take a look at how GW generally supported the competitive scene - because heck its only been in recent years that GW has even been interacting with them. Whilst companies like Magic the Gathering and Blizzard have sought to grow the competitive market - even building toward the concept of things like gamer and e-sports levels; GW hasn't tried ANY of that. They've shied fully away from it in fact - which is suprirsing considering the lucrative incomes that can be generated through the sporting community aspects. Of course its not all bad, Warmachine has issues because of its highly competitive focus which has resulted in a bit of a gap between newbies and pros which can result in an ever dwindling "clique/niche" of pros where newbies find it very hard to get into and have fun games. So on that line it can, if not properly managed, actually reduce market growth. Whilst GW is all about the introduction to the game and the beginner.

been licking chinacasts again chap ?

too be honest 40k isn't worth investing time trying to bodge patch, just accept what it is or find another game to play

Most competitive rulesets of 40K are heavily houseruled to begin with and favour/disadvantage units and armies in ways GW has no control over to begin with.

GW has been dabbling in making "made for competitive" games with things like Shadespire or Kill Team Arena.

I doubt they have much interest in going in this direction with 40K when a) outsiders like the ITC already do their work for them (if in heavily houseruled versions of the game) and b) the game of 40K doesn't sync that well with the demands of playing games a competition and c) the 40K market is by a sizeable majority the non-competitive crowd.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Most competitive rulesets of 40K are heavily houseruled to begin with and favour/disadvantage units and armies in ways GW has no control over to begin with.

GW has been dabbling in making "made for competitive" games with things like Shadespire or Kill Team Arena.

I doubt they have much interest in going in this direction with 40K when a) outsiders like the ITC already do their work for them (if in heavily houseruled versions of the game) and b) the game of 40K doesn't sync that well with the demands of playing games a competition and c) the 40K market is by a sizeable majority the non-competitive crowd.

This

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Most competitive rulesets of 40K are heavily houseruled to begin with and favour/disadvantage units and armies in ways GW has no control over to begin with.

GW has been dabbling in making "made for competitive" games with things like Shadespire or Kill Team Arena.

I doubt they have much interest in going in this direction with 40K when a) outsiders like the ITC already do their work for them (if in heavily houseruled versions of the game) and b) the game of 40K doesn't sync that well with the demands of playing games a competition and c) the 40K market is by a sizeable majority the non-competitive crowd.

How the hell do you consider ITC "heavily houseruled"?

Seriously, I hear this one all the time and it's starting to get frustrating. There is ONE house rule in ITC... that units can't draw line of sight through the first level of ruins. It has custom missions, sure, but that's not a house rule, that's a mission type. Everyone from narrative players to tournaments have always used custom missions to play frequently, so that doesn't count as a "house rule" IMO.

They're adding more house rules, but I think this can only be a good thing.

One example:



Should write their own ruleset IMO, but I don't see that happening ever with their current relationship with GW.

 Ordana wrote:
Old GW didn't like competitive play, and the move increasing away from it got us 6/7th and the decline of 40k.

New GW is using tournaments information for balancing decisions and organising a new GT in the US.
I don't see how you can say GW currently doesn't like competitive play.

Naah not balanaing. Just checking what is selling so they can make other stuff broken to make people buy other stuff instead. Why let people play with existing models when with bit of tinkering you get to sell book and make people pay hundreds to buy new cheese.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
They're adding more house rules, but I think this can only be a good thing.

One example:

Spoiler:

Should write their own ruleset IMO, but I don't see that happening ever with their current relationship with GW.

We've used "if it fits, it sits" over "wobbly model syndrome" in my home group for like forever. If you can make your infantryman stand there, he's permitted to stay. Bumping the table notwithstanding, if he keeps falling over, then he cannot stay there.

We do sometimes allow WMS for things like going inside of mostly-enclosed small ruins where it would be hard to get them out from.

It's up to gamers to decide whether Index, or Legends, or Tourny rules, or Narrative, Matched Play etc is what they want to play.

Play Apocalypse. House rules are bad.

Viva la 7th!

I have zero faith in GW's ability to write rules and would welcome a fan made rule set over the gak rules that GW charges a premium prices for. Also phasing out old units because they want to sell new models is very anti consumer and we don't need a shelf life on models like you see with things like MTG cards.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Play Apocalypse. House rules are bad.

House rules are superior to GW efforts because they fix what the particular group thinks needs fixing, in a way that satisfies all involved, & in a timely fashion.

 Ordana wrote:
Old GW didn't like competitive play, and the move increasing away from it got us 6/7th and the decline of 40k.

New GW is using tournaments information for balancing decisions and organising a new GT in the US.
I don't see how you can say GW currently doesn't like competitive play.

GW isn't using anything but their own Ivory Tower for rule design - the new space marine codex shows they're ignoring balance and playtesting again to shovel out "whatever feels good", which is unabated power creep.

ccs wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Play Apocalypse. House rules are bad.

House rules are superior to GW efforts because they fix what the particular group thinks needs fixing, in a way that satisfies all involved, & in a timely fashion.

Indeed. House rules exist because a group of people decide a tweak will make their games more fun. That’s not ‘bad’. We do it with ‘touching cover counts as in’ to save playing Metal Model Buckaroo for twenty minutes balancing models part on ruins. Speeds up games and we all know what’s going on. But BCB only plays on Tabletop Simulator by his own admission so isn’t aware of this type of simple social, game-enhancing stuff.

 Vankraken wrote:
Viva la 7th!

I have zero faith in GW's ability to write rules and would welcome a fan made rule set over the gak rules that GW charges a premium prices for. Also phasing out old units because they want to sell new models is very anti consumer and we don't need a shelf life on models like you see with things like MTG cards.

This is the feeling that I anticipated to be most common.
It is mine, as well.

Hey there going to a mtg model as I have said they were going to since just before 8th dropped.

It's the most profitable option they believe and ensures that there is less of a gap between newbies and vets as stuff gets legended and the vets stuff gets ban listed.