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.

Around my area the popular thing to talk about has been the new expansions, and their effect on the game. Now since they are a part of the regular game, and not some optional supplement, if you deny to play someone because they are running a revenant with 3 void shield generators, as distasteful as you may find it you are denying regular play. Wouldn't stop me, since I would find that type of game unfun in the beginning, but some may be offended. Anyway a lot of people are speculating that what they are adding now is to pretty much "kill" the idea of competitive gameplay thru the idea that so few official lists could compete things like tournaments would be pointless, as you could narrow down the field to 2 lists, top tier and counter top tier.

My question is this. How does ostracizing the tournament/competitive fans benefit GW in the long run? Pretending this was true for a minute, that this was their corporate mandate, what does it gain them? I understand from a rules point of view, they have always struggled with balance with so many armies and units that it is impossible, there will always be power lists. And that is why you see tournament organizers finally stepping up and placing self imposed restrictions to try and curb the most blatantly imbalanced things. Does not caring if anything is balanced anymore and chalking stupid game situations up to "its a beer and pretzels game $#&@%#$ I aint gotta splain $&^%" somehow save them money? Or have they in investor pressure thrown off any façade of caring about game balance in favor of writing more and more over the top rules for NEW things, just to push their plastic out of the door.

Going by recent trends it looks more and more to be the latter. And I haven't seen the new rules on the tyranids yet, but I would bet peanuts to pesos all the new shiny things become the MUST have to compete units.

As far as your last comment, power creep always existed - and it isn't unique to 40k, GW, or tabletop games. Regarding the expansions and latest rulesets - think of the game as a constant WIP. It will have editions that shine and editions that have glaring shortcomings. But for every player unhappy with the rules, or business strategy, or models - there are 100 enjoying it all. I don't say this to marginalize your opinion, but perhaps they just aren't trying to design for competitive fanbase at this point in time. My perdonal opinion is that there are more than two competitive lists in the game, and with every new unit/expansion - the game gets more interesting. If 40k currently requires house rules or tournament rules to be tourney-worthy, that's not a gamebreakingly terrible thing is it? Its still 40k, and people can adjust.

It has always been a beer and pretzel game

 Orock wrote:
as you could narrow down the field to 2 lists, top tier and counter top tier.

Magic: the Gathering consists of exactly like that at the professional level. As there are quite a few people making a living out of playing that game (as "professional" in "professional level" implies), why do you attach such a negative connotation to its ability to sustain tournament/competitive play?

When every box comes with a bottle of beer and a bag of pretzels, then it's officially a beer and pretzels game.

Until then it's every shade from uber-competitive to ultra-casual, depending on the mood of the players.

They have said that you can ignore any of the rules you like in favor of your own, if this makes your games more enjoyable. This is fine for home games/games with friends.

Random pickup games/tourneys tend to be played a lot closer to the rules, naturally, but even then there are local houserules/tweaks. This is fine too, as long as everyone knows what page they are on.

Then there is the RAW-only level of play, where people can spend hours debating the meaning of the word 'and'. Some people get off on this, lothers not so much. This is fine too.

40K is what you want to make of it.

 Orock wrote:
Going by recent trends it looks more and more to be the latter. And I haven't seen the new rules on the tyranids yet, but I would bet peanuts to pesos all the new shiny things become the MUST have to compete units.

It seems to be going downhill in terms of regulation, organization and approrpiate compartmentalization of rules and really just the quality of the rules themselves. When you give bel'akor move through cover, it really does make some of us worry seeing as he already has that usr by being an mc, it really does give some of us a moment of pause where we have to ask "who's writing this?" kinda like when you see 5pt powerfists for chosen in their latest dataslate.

My main concern is just how much GW absolves themselves of any responsiblity on the game/rules side of things with their whole "you're not gamers, you're collectors" or "forge the narrative" crap.

No, GW is not deliberately making a "beer and pretzels" game to drive off competitive players, because that would be so suicidally stupid that even GW can figure out that it's a bad idea. Making the game worse for competitive play doesn't make it better for casual play, it just means that fewer people are buying the game. And GW is obsessed with short-term profit, I can imagine that any manager who suggested deliberately getting rid of customers would be immediately fired.

What is actually happening is that GW doesn't place any value on quality rules. Their game designers aren't all that good, and then they never test anything adequately to catch all of the problems. Why? Because GW's core market (young kids with birthday money) don't actually play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg for a box of space marines. So why spend more money on longer design periods and extensive playtesting if they don't feel that it will improve tomorrow's sales? Calling 40k a "beer and pretzels" game is just an excuse for this laziness and incompetence. If GW can convince you to be proud of how little you care about the quality of the product you're buying then they don't have to waste money on improving their product.

If GW can convince you to be proud of how little you care about the quality of the product you're buying then they don't have to waste money on improving their product.

I agree. I was thinking about this about last year or so.

Mc Donalds have done this. They made a commercial on how cool a messy burger can be so cool. This is what I think GW is trying to do as well. Why fix something if you can make people think it's cool/proud.

It's amazing how after doing that they turn around an make claims about being the Ferrari of the minitures world too.

Even McDonalts isn't that far up it's own ***

Bro do you even know what "beer and pretzels" means? Because 40K isnt that, nor is it anywhere close to being that, just because a game isnt competitively focused doesnt automatically make it "beer and pretzels", theres actually an entire grey area in between those two ends for games that are simply that: games.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why? Because GW's core market (young kits with birthday money) don't actually play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg for a box of space marines. So why spend more money on longer design periods and extensive playtesting if they don't feel that it will improve tomorrow's sales?

I disagree with your description of the 'core market'. In the GW stores I have frequented over the years I see far more adult males in the 20 something to 50 year old range buying models than I ever have kids with their money buying things. If the core market was children who buy one box and then loose interest they would not be able to generate enough sales to stay in business. One needs to simply look at the product line as a whole. Paints, rule books, codex's, expansions, terrain, large expensive single model kits, ect.. The entire hobby is aimed at an adult, or young adult, market with a certain level of disposable income, not some 10 year old who got $25 from Grandma.

I always thought of it more as a Beer and Potatochips game.

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Why? Because GW's core market (young kits with birthday money) don't actually play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg for a box of space marines. So why spend more money on longer design periods and extensive playtesting if they don't feel that it will improve tomorrow's sales?

I disagree with your description of the 'core market'. In the GW stores I have frequented over the years I see far more adult males in the 20 something to 50 year old range buying models than I ever have kids with their money buying things. If the core market was children who buy one box and then loose interest they would not be able to generate enough sales to stay in business. One needs to simply look at the product line as a whole. Paints, rule books, codex's, expansions, terrain, large expensive single model kits, ect.. The entire hobby is aimed at an adult, or young adult, market with a certain level of disposable income, not some 10 year old who got $25 from Grandma.

Everything you said is right.

The problem is that GW seem to legitimately believe everything Peregrine said. In their financial reports they talk about how they are in the business of selling toys to kids.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Why? Because GW's core market (young kits with birthday money) don't actually play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg for a box of space marines. So why spend more money on longer design periods and extensive playtesting if they don't feel that it will improve tomorrow's sales?

I disagree with your description of the 'core market'. In the GW stores I have frequented over the years I see far more adult males in the 20 something to 50 year old range buying models than I ever have kids with their money buying things. If the core market was children who buy one box and then loose interest they would not be able to generate enough sales to stay in business. One needs to simply look at the product line as a whole. Paints, rule books, codex's, expansions, terrain, large expensive single model kits, ect.. The entire hobby is aimed at an adult, or young adult, market with a certain level of disposable income, not some 10 year old who got $25 from Grandma.

Everything you said is right.

The problem is that GW seem to legitimately believe everything Peregrine said. In their financial reports they talk about how they are in the business of selling toys to kids.

Yeah, Peregrine and jonolikespie have it right.

Most players I know are far from young, yet many things in the game are obviously aimed at 12 years old kids. There is adult stuff, but it is somehow hidden. You need to do some research.

And their financial reports make it clear.

On topic, the game has always been a "beer and pretzels" game. They toyed with making it a "competitive" (balanced, serious, well written rules) game for some time but never really happened. Lack of interest from the developers is my guess. They enjoy creating crazy stuff.

I think it is less the developers wanting to create more crazy stuff and more the suits that are telling the developers and sculptors what to do being totally disconnected from the fans.

Hi all.
To my mind a beer and pretzels game is a fast to learn and fun to play game .
40k does not fall into this catagory.

It is a thinly veiled sales pamphlet , selling the idea of a cool game that is hardly ever actually played , with minatures that often do not get assembled let alone painted .

It just inspires purchases of GW product, SHORT TERM.

IF GW were HONESTLY selling a narrative driven game, which would be perfectly fine!
Many good games dont have PV and FoC, but use senarios and campains to attract narrative gamer types.

Then GWs claim to making a cinematic,narrative focused games might be taken seriously and respected.

BUT the inclusion of PV and FoC JUST to appeal to the more competitive player,WITHOUT putting in the work to make the PV and FoC function for a reasonable level of competitive play .
Condemns GW plc as a money grabbing corporation , that cares nothing about its core products or their potential demoghraphic.

As soon as GW starts distibiuting 40k rules and codex as FREE down loads without PV and Foc.But with tons of cool senarios and campain packs.

Then 40k would be worth some time and effort on my part.IMO

 Orock wrote:
Around my area the popular thing to talk about has been the new expansions, and their effect on the game. Now since they are a part of the regular game, and not some optional supplement, if you deny to play someone because they are running a revenant with 3 void shield generators, as distasteful as you may find it you are denying regular play.

If you are not making sure that your opponent will be having fun during the game, double and triple-checking that you don't have anything your opponent considers "un-fun" on your side of the table (Superheavies, Forge World, unpainted stuff, Screamerstar, Orks, whatever), you are not playing the regular game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Around my area the popular thing to talk about has been the new expansions, and their effect on the game. Now since they are a part of the regular game, and not some optional supplement, if you deny to play someone because they are running a revenant with 3 void shield generators, as distasteful as you may find it you are denying regular play.

If you are not making sure that your opponent will be having fun during the game, double and triple-checking that you don't have anything your opponent considers "un-fun" on your side of the table (Superheavies, Forge World, unpainted stuff, Screamerstar, Orks, whatever), you are not playing the regular game.

QFT

The game is supposed to be fun for both players. If you want to try something odd, do it with a friend or after checking that your opponent is OK with it. That´s playing the game as is intended to be played.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If you are not making sure that your opponent will be having fun during the game, double and triple-checking that you don't have anything your opponent considers "un-fun" on your side of the table (Superheavies, Forge World, unpainted stuff, Screamerstar, Orks, whatever), you are not playing the regular game.

IOW, "if you're not playing the game the way I play it, including using my house rules about what is allowed, then you're not playing the regular game". Sorry, but no.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If you are not making sure that your opponent will be having fun during the game, double and triple-checking that you don't have anything your opponent considers "un-fun" on your side of the table (Superheavies, Forge World, unpainted stuff, Screamerstar, Orks, whatever), you are not playing the regular game.

IOW, "if you're not playing the game the way I play it, including using my house rules about what is allowed, then you're not playing the regular game". Sorry, but no.

?

That's the exact opposite of what I said. If you don't like, don't have fun playing, the way I play or what I field, you can opt out. And vice versa. That's the bottom line.

 Zweischneid wrote:
That's the exact opposite of what I said. If you don't like, don't have fun playing, the way I play or what I field, you can opt out. And vice versa. That's the bottom line.

And my point is that this opting out and negotiation isn't part of the standard game. A standard game is when I show up at the local store and tell a random stranger "hey, let's play a game of 40k" and we play a game without making any special arrangements about what things we're allowed to use. Once you start talking about things like having to double and triple check that your opponent will be having fun (and presumably change something if they won't) you're talking about playing a special variant game under your own new rules.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think it is less the developers wanting to create more crazy stuff and more the suits that are telling the developers and sculptors what to do being totally disconnected from the fans.

This. Worth noting that Alessio Cavatore and Jake Thornton have produced some excellent work outside of GW, when given their own creative freedom.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
That's the exact opposite of what I said. If you don't like, don't have fun playing, the way I play or what I field, you can opt out. And vice versa. That's the bottom line.

And my point is that this opting out and negotiation isn't part of the standard game. A standard game is when I show up at the local store and tell a random stranger "hey, let's play a game of 40k" and we play a game without making any special arrangements about what things we're allowed to use. Once you start talking about things like having to double and triple check that your opponent will be having fun (and presumably change something if they won't) you're talking about playing a special variant game under your own new rules.

At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fullfilling for both players as possible.

- Warhammer 40K Rulebook, Introduction

I am sorry. But that is, and always has been the "prime directive" of Warhammer 40K. It's a shared experience, not a competitive game, and the ultimate goal is maximizing the enjoyment for both players.

I know that is not how it is often played, especially in the states, where all that "tournament mentality" has been seeping even into the regular, non-tournament understanding of what 40K is about. But that doesn't change the fact that pre-game "negotiation" (which in itself is the wrong word, it's more like pre-game cooperative planning a shared, cooperative and narrative experience about futuristic warfare) is how the game was envisioned.

You are free to skip that part and play it against the grain, but than you are not playing "regular" 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scarletsquig wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think it is less the developers wanting to create more crazy stuff and more the suits that are telling the developers and sculptors what to do being totally disconnected from the fans.

This. Worth noting that Alessio Cavatore and Jake Thornton have produced some excellent work outside of GW, when given their own creative freedom.

Really?

I admit, I only know the work they did for Mantic, but that is even worse. (though arguably, with ex-GW Ronnie Renton at the helm, it's not technically "outside GW")

 Zweischneid wrote:
I am sorry. But that is, and always has been the "prime directive" of Warhammer 40K. It's a shared experience, not a competitive game, and the ultimate goal is maximizing the enjoyment for both players.

Yes, of course a game should be enjoyable for both players. Nobody is disputing that. The point here is that the rules of 40k fail to live up to that ideal, and new releases like Escalation damage the shared experience and require elaborate negotiation about what is allowed in a game and upset people who aren't able to use the army they want because their opponent vetoed it.

I know that is not how it is often played, especially in the states, where all that "tournament mentality" has been seeping even into the regular, non-tournament understanding of what 40K is about.

Sorry, but it's not a tournament mentality at all. Opposing the ridiculous "casual at all costs" crowd (who are very serious and yell very loudly about how casual they are) does not mean you want every game to be a tournament, it just means that you want to play a game and not just hang out with your friends making gun noises with your toy soldiers.

But that doesn't change the fact that pre-game "negotiation" (which in itself is the wrong word, it's more like pre-game cooperative planning a shared, cooperative and narrative experience about futuristic warfare) is how the game was envisioned.

And this is why 40k's rules are garbage. If 40k was a good game you could show up with your army and have an enjoyable game without having to make any special arrangements beyond "hey, let's play a 1500 point game". But GW keeps publishing half-finished garbage (with the excuse of "stop having high standards, BEER AND PRETZELS" to justify their laziness and incompetence) like Escalation that require arrangements that aren't included in the game's actual rules.

You are free to skip that part and play it against the grain, but than you are not playing "regular" 40K.

No, you're just confusing a vague marketing statement with the actual rules of the game.

I actually think both Zwei and Peregrine are correct in a way. GW has this idea that players are going to go indepth into the type of game they are going to play every time they play it...which can work ok for games with your close buds...but fails beyond that (Because showing up at my LGS and asking a guy if he wants to re-create the battle of Istavan IV is not really going to happen.).

Where This fails (and Peregrine is right on this) is that it sucks when people feel the need to refuse games based on balance reasons (or perceived balance reasons)...It is bad for the game when I can bring a 1500 point list...and you can bring a 1500 point list....and the game is so imbalanced as for it not even to be a real game...just an exercise in unpacking models...rolling dice...and repacking models.

 Peregrine wrote:
(...)
No, you're just confusing a vague marketing statement with the actual rules of the game.

The "actual rules of the game" includes House Rules. Customized missions, campaigns, fan-made rules, units and everything. It is not a "vague statement", it is all over the place.

Page 108, Rulebook 6th edition, "The Army List" entry.
"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish."

And there are 60 pages about creating scenarios in the Rulebook. 60 pages no less.

And the "Forging the Narrative" entries.

And the lines Zweischneid quoted.

And the fact that you will hardly see an official event or an official battle report without House Rules. Special characters created for the battle, new missions on the go, an army playing with more points than the other... there is always something new.

The game is supposed to boost the creativity of the players. And to be played with friends, after talking and changing what is needed to be changed to make the game enjoyable for all players.

 Peregrine wrote:

And this is why 40k's rules are garbage. If 40k was a good game you could show up with your army and have an enjoyable game without having to make any special arrangements beyond "hey, let's play a 1500 point game". But GW keeps publishing half-finished garbage (with the excuse of "stop having high standards, BEER AND PRETZELS" to justify their laziness and incompetence) like Escalation that require arrangements that aren't included in the game's actual rules.
No, you're just confusing a vague marketing statement with the actual rules of the game.

You have a point though. House Rules (agreements, fixes, whatever) shouldn´t be necessary.

They should be an option, with a properly texted and written set of "core rules" to allow tournaments and games against strangers.

Most TO try to fix the game one way or another.

 da001 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
(...)
No, you're just confusing a vague marketing statement with the actual rules of the game.

The "actual rules of the game" includes House Rules. Customized missions, campaigns, fan-made rules, units and everything. It is not a "vague statement", it is all over the place.

Page 108, Rulebook 6th edition, "The Army List" entry.
"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish."

And there are 60 pages about creating scenarios in the Rulebook. 60 pages no less.

And the "Forging the Narrative" entries.

And the lines Zweischneid quoted.

And the fact that you will hardly see an official event or an official battle report without House Rules. Special characters created for the battle, new missions on the go, an army playing with more points than the other... there is always something new.

The game is supposed to boost the creativity of the players. And to be played with friends, after talking and changing what is needed to be changed to make the game enjoyable for all players.

None of that changes the fact that if I show up to club night at my FLGS and say 'Hey, lets play a game, oh and by the way I want to use 4 Heavy slots instead of 3' my opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, use three, because while creativity and whatnot are encouraged by the rulebook there is an assumption that you will be playing a game within the confines of the rules. Seeing as how, you know, it's a game. With rules.

There is nothing wrong with making houserules and the like but nothing changes the fact that they are still houserules.

 jonolikespie wrote:


None of that changes the fact that if I show up to club night at my FLGS and say 'Hey, lets play a game, oh and by the way I want to use 4 Heavy slots instead of 3' my opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, use three, because while creativity and whatnot are encouraged by the rulebook there is an assumption that you will be playing a game within the confines of the rules. Seeing as how, you know, it's a game. With rules.

There is nothing wrong with making houserules and the like but nothing changes the fact that they are still houserules.

None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.

People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.

 jonolikespie wrote:
(...)
None of that changes the fact that if I show up to club night at my FLGS and say 'Hey, lets play a game, oh and by the way I want to use 4 Heavy slots instead of 3' my opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, use three, because while creativity and whatnot are encouraged by the rulebook there is an assumption that you will be playing a game within the confines of the rules. Seeing as how, you know, it's a game. With rules.

A really loose set of rules. That, according to its creators, you are expected to change.

And thinking that there is an "official" set of rules somewhere does not change the fact that if you show up with 3 Riptides (to use an example) your opponent will be perfectly within their rights to say no, claiming that they are way overpowered, and that playing against an overpowered list is utterly boring and unfun.

There is nothing wrong with making houserules and the like but nothing changes the fact that they are still houserules.

In a game that, according to you, does not work without House Rules: "If 40k was a good game you could show up with your army and have an enjoyable game without having to make any special arrangements beyond "hey, let's play a 1500 point game"."

We all need special arrangements. At least, if we want an enjoyable game.

I would like to see a proper set of rules but, given that it does not seem to be possible, I like the current "crazy" state of the game. At least it forces the players to talk to each other and try to reach an agreement.

 Zweischneid wrote:
None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.

People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.

Yes, and the point is that you're modifying the rules of the game when you do that. You're no longer playing the standard game of 40k according to the rules published by GW (which include a limit of three heavy support choices and allow you to take three Wraithknights), you're playing your own special version that includes unwritten rules about what is "fun" and social pressure to follow your rules.

Which, if you go back to the original statement that started this discussion, is exactly the problem. Instead of making a game where you can have an enjoyable pickup game with any legal list and no negotiation beyond "let's play a 1500 point game" GW keeps publishing rules like Escalation where there are blatant fun-destroying options and you have to negotiate about what things you're willing to include in the game. That leads to unhappy players (after all, who wants to be told that their chosen army isn't fun enough and they aren't allowed to play unless they change it) for no reason beyond GW's laziness and incompetence.