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.

I'm coming to the conclusion that inclusion of the electronic-only codexes in tournaments is a bad thing, for the following reasons:

#1 - Stealth updates - changes to the electronic versions can occur at any time, with little or no warning. Sometimes this can significantly change how things are played. This just seems like a recipe for disaster.
#2 - Access - sure, anyone can download the ebooks. But non-ipad users don't get the stealth updates.

I'm sure we could come up with more reasons why they're a terrible thing for tournaments...but what do people think?

Can you give some actual examples of stealth updates that could be problematic?

I think they'll be fine. "Stealth" updates don't seem to occur after the first week or so of a product being out.

After that just put up a disclaimer to non-ipad user to download their book a week out and wipe your hands of it. Keeping the standard 30-day requirement that any other codex has.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Can you give some actual examples of stealth updates that could be problematic?

Power weapons-swords for C: I for 40k. It was released as power weapons, changed to power sword for a few units.

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Can you give some actual examples of stealth updates that could be problematic?

Power weapons-swords for C: I for 40k. It was released as power weapons, changed to power sword for a few units.

But that was a needed change which was also in the updated FAQ later.

The limiting of power weapons impacts every codex and is not just a electronic issue.

It is an issue with people who began hacking apart models and giving everything goddamn power axes before waiting to see if that was going to be allowed.

Obviously it was going to come, i am not saying it was good or bad. I am just saying in cases of direct copy paste like C:I , there might be issues.

I agree on the time requirement for every rules-document tough, maybe except for faqs.

I don't understand how updating the Black Library digital edition is any different than a FAQ update on the GW website. You have to check both sites to see if there is an update or a new FAQ. Yes, Apple notifies you that there is a new version, but this seems like an added bonus rather than making the existing process of FAQ (and now codex) update checking any worse.

As people have suggested, just ensure you tell people to check for updates in the week leading up to the tournament.

I'm personally all for new digital content. Heck, we got rules for Be'Lakor today. I get that it changes the "game" and not everything will be as easy to administer as it has been...

So you want to eliminate my army from tournaments? I play SoB.

I think we should be moving to include everything and not eliminating choices! With escalation and stronghold coming out, I think we are closer to FW being allowed. Dataslate additions will also push for more choices not less.


Also, I will never by a book codex again as the ipad ones are way too handy and nice. Once you have used one, you don't go back.

Well, I think the problem lies in the fact that only the people who have paid for the dex (or pirated it, which I am not suggesting), can have access to it. This creates a restricted knowledge base, not unlike the Ad Mech's tech monopoly. With a physical book, it often sits up on the store shelves, allowing newer players to peruse it a bit, or the store will often have their own spare copy for player reference.

An electronic-only book causes a lot of problems when it comes to fact-checking and rules-lawyering, which become a big deal in tournament play. There was a CAD comic way back in the day about this, and it was hilarious, FYI. You can basically make whatever absurd claim you want about your "online-only expansion relic that must not be in your edition of the book because you don't get the auto-updates, so you don't get to second-guess me and no I just happen to have left my ipad at home so you can't directly check it until after the tournament." There are very few tournaments outside of GTs or other big events that will force a player to bring his codex or face disqualification. A good TO will have printouts of the latest FAQs and the wargear pages and such for the expansions, but at the rate GW is going, that is going to be an absurdly large stack of papers very soon.

TL;DR the electronic format isn't the devil, but it provides an opportunity for jerks to exploit the restricted nature of the information, and just plain cheat.

So long as the TO makes sure to have recently updated versions of the files, should be fine. They're supposed to be checking for shenanigans anyways.

 dracpanzer wrote:
So long as the TO makes sure to have recently updated versions of the files, should be fine. They're supposed to be checking for shenanigans anyways.

Now you're adding a lot more work for the TO to do, especially since GW has just started releasing single units as digital-only "books" and hinted at special C:I-style formations that don't take up your allies slot. So now you could have an army with a codex, a supplement that uses the codex, a fortification, an allied codex, inquisition allies, and a couple individual units/formations, all of them in digital form. That's 5+ files to version check, just for one player.

Between Electronic codex books, Escalation (if it's actually doing what GW's website says it is doing, putting superheavies in normal 40k games), Stronghold assault, and now these Dataslate units and apocalypse-esque detachment formations for normal games (the Tau ones look rather gnarly...), all with little or no announcement, Tournaments Organizers are going to have quite a mess on their hands methinks that'll make the Forgeworld debate look tame by comparison, and that's on top of allies and double-force org stuff.

Emperor help TO's over the next year, because this game is looking to get more complicated than ever before.

I don't understand how updating the Black Library digital edition is any different than a FAQ update on the GW website.

The key difference is that GW FAQ documents, when produced and updated. Had version control and the latest changes to the FAQ were highlighted in red. It was very easy to download the latest versions and see that changes had been made.

With the digital updates, you know it has been updated but you do not have a detailed list of what changed from the previous version.

It is not possible anymore to know all the "rules" and the number of people buying all the supplements to have access to all the rules is shrinking dramatically from what it was just a few months ago.

For events and players , the rules have changed. Time to adapt.

Fun fact, when you update, it tells you what it changes. Plus you should still look at the FAQ regardless.

My big gripe with e-codices is that the run on devices with a limited battery power. So now I'm at the mercy of hoping my opponent isn't a dick/forgetful nob who has ensured they have a full charge on their device, otherwise it'll crap out and then you can have fun taking them at their word that they know their codex.

I haven't plugged in my iPad since the 21st of November and went to a 3day tournament, Im at 60% battery. If it runs out and he doesn't have a power cord then by all means biff him with the hard back rulebook.

The new digital data-sheet wave is going to create massive problems when i try to run tournaments, it is not like magic where i can check the document online for outdating (i might not even know if should have been updated or not by the date)

 Ravenous D wrote:
Fun fact, when you update, it tells you what it changes. Plus you should still look at the FAQ regardless.

You are assuming I bought the digital supplement. With FAQs, the documents are freely available for download by everyone. With the supplements, if you don't own the supplement, how would you have any idea of changes except maybe hoping that someone posts about it online.

As a TO, this is absolutely bonkers especially now that GW has started releasing individual model rules as DLC. To me the problem comes down to three major issues

1. Fragmentation of rules - Rules are not spread across many places it makes it very difficult to judge or to know all the interactions
2. Access to rules - Many players do not have compatible digital devices and therefore do not have equal access to the rules content
3. Balance of rules - The more GW spams DLC the higher the likelihood that they will break the game even further

In my opinion the pendulum has swung too far in proliferating rules. I understand why GW is doing this from a business standpoint, but I think it is a major threat to the 40k tournament scene. But rather than simply complaining, let me suggest a few potential courses of action for the TO community:

1. Allow everything - All codices, supplements, DLCs, etc. are legal (maybe even FW?)
2. Restrict to print only - Certainly the simplest option, but hurts SoB, Inq, and players who collected supplement-specific armies
3. Create our own rules - Not from scratch, but TOs could extend the FAQ concept to create a allowed set of legal units and upgrades taken as a sub-set of the whole and restricted to maintain consistency and balance.

Personally, I think option #3 would be the best for competitive 40k though it is a way fraught with argument and could likely spawn several regional metas with a Nova version of 40k, a Euro version of 40k, a West Coast 40k, etc. But on the plus side it would allow folks to have a more solid rules framework. Just my two cents.

I know predicting the end of competitive 40k is a loser's game, but is it possible this will change the tenor of events? We're at a point where even the top players can't know all of the rules.

I don't see TOs really deciding to start banning supplements, so I just imagine a very different scene then even a year ago.

 Polonius wrote:
We're at a point where even the top players can't know all of the rules.

We're returning to 3rd edition. 3rd edition had about 36 different legal army lists, not counting added units, characters, etc from White Dwarf. We're only in the low to mid 20's right now.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
We're at a point where even the top players can't know all of the rules.

We're returning to 3rd edition. 3rd edition had about 36 different legal army lists, not counting added units, characters, etc from White Dwarf. We're only in the low to mid 20's right now.

Yeah, but it had five years to build up to that. 6th has exploded in just over a year.

And many of the third edition lists were rarely, if ever, played in tournaments.

I think you have a good point, in that this shows it isn't hte end of the world, but at least in 3rd you had a hard copy you could hand to your opponent or TO.

 Polonius wrote:
Yeah, but it had five years to build up to that. 6th has exploded in just over a year.

And many of the third edition lists were rarely, if ever, played in tournaments.

I think you have a good point, in that this shows it isn't hte end of the world, but at least in 3rd you had a hard copy you could hand to your opponent or TO.

Not disagreeing at all. Just saying... People had just as much to keep track of then and the world didn't end. Heck, you couldn't even get the assault rules from the rulebook since a lot of events used the trial ones (at least where I was).

As for hard copies, I think most players are going to have hard copies. I know that I do and I am currently playing a two digital codex army (SOB with Inq).

I just wonder if GW isn't purposely trying to end the fascination with competitive play. We've known for years that the designers find it distasteful, maybe they are deciding to simply break the game so that the only real way to have a 40k event is to simply encourage wacky fun and dice rolling.

 Polonius wrote:
I just wonder if GW isn't purposely trying to end the fascination with competitive play. We've known for years that the designers find it distasteful, maybe they are deciding to simply break the game so that the only real way to have a 40k event is to simply encourage wacky fun and dice rolling.

This is my favorite conspiracy theory (not meant in a derogatory way) yet!

And, to be honest, sometimes it does feel like this is exactly what is happening. Of course, I have always contended that GW simply doesn't understand the idea. They play a completely different game than a lot of their customers.

 Polonius wrote:
I just wonder if GW isn't purposely trying to end the fascination with competitive play. We've known for years that the designers find it distasteful, maybe they are deciding to simply break the game so that the only real way to have a 40k event is to simply encourage wacky fun and dice rolling.

Maybe? That attitude has always mystified me, though. It is very possible to have an incredibly tight rules system that supports competitive play while still enabling fun, "casual" play (case in point Magic: the Gathering). It is much much harder to have a poorly balanced game with ambiguous and "cinematic" rules that is still fun to play casually.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I just wonder if GW isn't purposely trying to end the fascination with competitive play. We've known for years that the designers find it distasteful, maybe they are deciding to simply break the game so that the only real way to have a 40k event is to simply encourage wacky fun and dice rolling.

This is my favorite conspiracy theory (not meant in a derogatory way) yet!

And, to be honest, sometimes it does feel like this is exactly what is happening. Of course, I have always contended that GW simply doesn't understand the idea. They play a completely different game than a lot of their customers.

I think those are two sides of the same coin. While I doubt they're twisting their Snidely Whiplash mustaches and cackling about the downfall of competitive 40k, it's hard to ignore the steady stream of "you're doing it wrong" the tournament scene has gotten from GW over the decades. I'm guessing they simply don't see it as a market worth chasing, and they figure the combination of cash and fun all these new rules add is better than a tightly run tournament. scene.

 Polonius wrote:
I think those are two sides of the same coin. While I doubt they're twisting their Snidely Whiplash mustaches and cackling about the downfall of competitive 40k, it's hard to ignore the steady stream of "you're doing it wrong" the tournament scene has gotten from GW over the decades. I'm guessing they simply don't see it as a market worth chasing, and they figure the combination of cash and fun all these new rules add is better than a tightly run tournament. scene.

Totally. I imagine each tournament is just going to draw their own line in the sand and we'll have a million different types of events. Kinda like the FW divide but worse. At least with this upcoming divide though, we won't have the 'Is X really legal?' argument. We'll know it is 'legal' but just not at that event.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think those are two sides of the same coin. While I doubt they're twisting their Snidely Whiplash mustaches and cackling about the downfall of competitive 40k, it's hard to ignore the steady stream of "you're doing it wrong" the tournament scene has gotten from GW over the decades. I'm guessing they simply don't see it as a market worth chasing, and they figure the combination of cash and fun all these new rules add is better than a tightly run tournament. scene.

Totally. I imagine each tournament is just going to draw their own line in the sand and we'll have a million different types of events. Kinda like the FW divide but worse. At least with this upcoming divide though, we won't have the 'Is X really legal?' argument. We'll know it is 'legal' but just not at that event.

I'm ok with it, but I've lost all taste for real competitive 40k. The idea of playing three interesting armies, rolling some dice, having some laughs, and going home is appealing to me now. That's just where I am in life, but I no longer need or even want a super tight rules set. I think having 40k play to its strengths (modelling, painting, backstory) can be good for it going forward. But that's just my very humble opinion.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm ok with it, but I've lost all taste for real competitive 40k. The idea of playing three interesting armies, rolling some dice, having some laughs, and going home is appealing to me now. That's just where I am in life, but I no longer need or even want a super tight rules set. I think having 40k play to its strengths (modelling, painting, backstory) can be good for it going forward. But that's just my very humble opinion.

Well, competitive 40k only really exists at the top table at a couple events and I don't ever play there, so it doesn't bother me what happens there. I play at local 3-4 game events where I'm looking for the same kind of experience you are. I play competitively, meaning I want to win and try to, but mostly I want to get 3 or 4 games and have a good time.

So yeah. This stuff doesn't bother me.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm ok with it, but I've lost all taste for real competitive 40k. The idea of playing three interesting armies, rolling some dice, having some laughs, and going home is appealing to me now. That's just where I am in life, but I no longer need or even want a super tight rules set. I think having 40k play to its strengths (modelling, painting, backstory) can be good for it going forward. But that's just my very humble opinion.

Well, competitive 40k only really exists at the top table at a couple events and I don't ever play there, so it doesn't bother me what happens there. I play at local 3-4 game events where I'm looking for the same kind of experience you are. I play competitively, meaning I want to win and try to, but mostly I want to get 3 or 4 games and have a good time.

So yeah. This stuff doesn't bother me.

And not to drag this into a PP vs/ GW scrum, but few GW units/rules can so completely change an army that they are a huge deal. A relatively honest appraisal of Belakor would be "EW winged price with all the telepathy powers." That's enough info for most people to play with until they need to make harder calls (like what to shoot with what.)

Which I think brings about the inverse of my point: which is that with list building becoming the Wild West, the "player vs. list" debate is becoming increasingly moot. More then ever, solidly built lists that can take on all comers, played by skilled players that know the army, will win. Net lists will struggle even harder.