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.

 Mezmerro wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?

They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.

The DA comments mentioned benefiting those from his "Legion". Cultists aren't part of a legion.

 oni wrote:
I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.

A strongly balanced core set of rules is far better for everyone involved. Yes, this includes casual narrative focused players. When you have a strong set of balanced rules, you need to care even less that you're not taking highly unoptimized things.

"But I don't care if things are bad!"

Well, it's better for the game if they aren't bad and they provide a reasonable function to your army.

NamelessBard wrote:

 oni wrote:
I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.

A strongly balanced core set of rules is far better for everyone involved. Yes, this includes casual narrative focused players. When you have a strong set of balanced rules, you need to care even less that you're not taking highly unoptimized things.

"But I don't care if things are bad!"

Well, it's better for the game if they aren't bad and they provide a reasonable function to your army.

You know what isn't "far better for everyone involved"?

When one of the "3 ways to play" becomes the de facto way to play because everyone assumes it's the most balanced.

Even when it clearly is not.

 davou wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:


I men, with every new rules drop the possibility of using a fun and balanced ork army gets smaller and smaller. It looks like they are aiming to make another 30k.

I disagree with everything you said, even the parts I snipped out.

We will be getting our saves against bolters and other similar weapons.

We will (probably) be able to take wounds from the backs of our units).

Our trukks are going to get a toughness value and potentially some kind of save.

We can finally ignore the I2 crap that's plagued us.

LD mechanics mean that suddenly our units wont be running off the table because they got splattered a little too much; instead we lose models (which we do all the time now as it stands).

There's a HUGELY STRONG implication that our stuff will finally be costed appropriately.

There's commitment to fix rules when they don't work with a regular schedule rather than whenever they happen to get around to the ork codex or decide to re-issue a supplement that already exists.

ALL of the models rules will be available day one (and possibly for free), and then afterwards we are probably going to be among the first to get an update in print.

I'm sorry, but you are on actively the hunt for stuff to hate if you actually cannot see the silver here. The ONLY thing thats kinda a shaft for xeno armies is that GW has suddenly decided to bring the chaos/imerium narrative to the forefront, so they will probably get a bit more focus in the fluff than we will.

I am not hunting for anything, I want this edition to be fun and playable like everyone else. But everything shown so far is pointing to a game for small units with good saves and good stats. As soon as we move towards the lower end off save and BS it start to get broken. +1 or -1 suddenly makes a world of difference if you only hit on 5+ or have a 6+ save.

I am sure that Manz missiles and nob bikers will be good but there is no way that they will be able to make shoota boyz or flash gits balanced.

Right now i have finished painting 10 flash gits, I have 8 tank bustas, 3 nobs and 2 meks half finished and i have base coated 6 killa kanz, 2 trucks, 3 mek guns and a looted wagon. Do you really think that i would have done this if i wanted to hate 40k?

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.

I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.

That still doesn't factor in leadership buffs from leader and character models, so the calculations don't really get us anywhere when it comes to represent the game after the release of the new edition. Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.

Let's imagine 30-model squad from my example is lead by Ld10 IC. It'd lower average morale damage by 10-6=4 models to 4.5(2.5).
Which is still higher then MSU take without that expensive IC's support

Maybe MSU is indisputably better for Morale.

But remember that the new Fight! Phase rules are stacked in favour of larger units (Because you activate units in alternate order, larger units activated quickly = more models swinging doing damage before your opponent).

It's entirely possible to have tradeoffs in different phases of the game, and some won't favour MSU.

This is HUGE actually and I wanted to chime in. Traditionally MSU has ALWAYS been better because you get more units, meaning you give your opponent many broken up targets while you get more choice with so many more units to activate yourself. However in this new edition say 30 orks are engaged with 4, 5 man marine units, in 8th the marine player will get to activate 5 dudes at a time while that ork player can activate all 30 crippling the remaining units that have yet to attack. It gives a massive perk to horde armies actually.

 mace_ace wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?

They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.

The DA comments mentioned benefiting those from his "Legion". Cultists aren't part of a legion.

Mind sharing the new 40k datasheets?

Since you obviously have them, to know that Cultists aren't given a "Legion" trait.

 Kirasu wrote:

I agree 100% that play testing is good. I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.

Tournament players know the rules the best, generally as they use them the most. Why wouldn't you want those people doing the playtesting? We had a time when Narrative Players Only did playtesting, it's called Games Workshop and it got us where we are today.

Remember, EVERYONE can play the game with "Tournament Rules" but tournaments cannot use half-tested casual only rules.

Clear and concise rules benefit every single player.

I've played plenty of games that I've lost interest in because the rules are precise and tactical and designed for tournaments. WMH is probably the single best example: You essentially end up with a card game with really confusing/bizarre movement rules. There are SO MANY abstractions that kill any kind of mental image you might have of giant monster combat going on. They took a ton of the rules from Monsterpocalypse, which was a tactical, tight PP game that the PLAYER won, not the list, but still maintained the visceral feel of kaiju giant monster fights, and totally lost their heads 15 miles up their butts with WMH. The interesting and satisfying ideas are there (battletech style damage charts for big robots with disabling components, summoners commanding big creatures, a ramping up rage system that grants power boosts but reduces control, etc) but the relentless focus on tournament meta-play and precision sucked the life out of the system to the point where you basically can't play it casually because the abstractions are so giant. Terrain might as well be felt mats, and so, 95% of the time, it is. The 'kill the caster' mechanic puts tons of emphasis on MTG-style "one shot combos". Focus and Fury become a Eurogame token-shuffling sidegame you have to manage completely separately from thinking about models and where you want them to be. The practice of bypassing the premeasuring by using your caster range which you can measure is headache inducing and obnoxious.

I'm not saying 40k has or will become that - their roots and what the company wants to do is VASTLY different - but it can happen.

Personally, I like New Morale, because I feel it's less to keep track of, putting it all in one spot during the turn is nice, and just like fixed to-hits, it's a mechanic that a new player can instantly understand and retain after one explanation.

Eyjio wrote:

Backfire wrote:
If I want a fast, unambigious gameplay, I would not play miniature wargames at all. I would play a hex game, or some totally abstract game like Chess. Miniature wargames are for me a visual experience, to simulate visual of battle being fought. This is why we have terrain, miniatures etc. in the first place. If vehicles no longer have facings, then not only we remove one of the last flanking aspect of the game, the game also becomes visually silly when tanks are put sideways to the enemy etc. And no, I would not play that edition.

...Do fast and unambiguous rules somehow make mini wargames less of a "visual experience" in ways I'm not seeing? Surely the opposite is true - having to argue over ambiguity throws the cinematic experience off because you're arguing over some artificial layer of abstraction? I don't understand this argument at all; there are literally hundreds of board games out there which have clear rules yet also feel involving and thematic. Why can we not ask for fast, clear AND fluffy rules?

Guess we can, but I'm not seeing them now. I don't like removal of templates, because it probably leads to infantry deploying in clumps, which looks stupid in game of this setting. Similarly, if vehicles don't have facings, that's another visual aspect lost, and for little gain, since it's not like old AV system was particularly problematic or hard to understand.

Eyjio wrote:

As for placing vehicles sideways, you did play 5th, right? I mean, seriously, you literally had "parking lots" of sideways vehicles covering each others' rear facing and providing infantry cover. I can see that removing the tactical aspect to flanking a vehicle is a loss which you might prefer to remain, but in other editions we've had daft things like swiveling to the side on the edge of the deployment zone to gain inches with the free pivot - vehicles going sideways wouldn't be a new development.

They were also silly, but they haven't gone anywhere: existing silliness is not an argument to add more silliness.

I think we can all agree that MSU will be a beneficial tactic in certain circumstances, and hordes will be beneficial in different circumstances. Even if the core rules benefit MSU more if doesn't mean much, because it's unlikely you'll be playing an army that only uses the core rules. The core rules will not cover every scenario with perfect balance, because they're designed to be provided in a free pamphlet that lets army books do the work of supporting distinct army styles.

All I have to say is I really hope Combat Squads are still a thing.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

I agree 100% that play testing is good. I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.

Tournament players know the rules the best, generally as they use them the most. Why wouldn't you want those people doing the playtesting? We had a time when Narrative Players Only did playtesting, it's called Games Workshop and it got us where we are today.

Remember, EVERYONE can play the game with "Tournament Rules" but tournaments cannot use half-tested casual only rules.

Clear and concise rules benefit every single player.

I've played plenty of games that I've lost interest in because the rules are precise and tactical and designed for tournaments. WMH is probably the single best example: You essentially end up with a card game with really confusing/bizarre movement rules. There are SO MANY abstractions that kill any kind of mental image you might have of giant monster combat going on. They took a ton of the rules from Monsterpocalypse, which was a tactical, tight PP game that the PLAYER won, not the list, but still maintained the visceral feel of kaiju giant monster fights, and totally lost their heads 15 miles up their butts with WMH. The interesting and satisfying ideas are there (battletech style damage charts for big robots with disabling components, summoners commanding big creatures, a ramping up rage system that grants power boosts but reduces control, etc) but the relentless focus on tournament meta-play and precision sucked the life out of the system to the point where you basically can't play it casually because the abstractions are so giant. Terrain might as well be felt mats, and so, 95% of the time, it is. The 'kill the caster' mechanic puts tons of emphasis on MTG-style "one shot combos". Focus and Fury become a Eurogame token-shuffling sidegame you have to manage completely separately from thinking about models and where you want them to be. The practice of bypassing the premeasuring by using your caster range which you can measure is headache inducing and obnoxious.

I'm not saying 40k has or will become that - their roots and what the company wants to do is VASTLY different - but it can happen.

Personally, I like New Morale, because I feel it's less to keep track of, putting it all in one spot during the turn is nice, and just like fixed to-hits, it's a mechanic that a new player can instantly understand and retain after one explanation.

But you do understand that, had you a mind to, you were in an infinitely better position adding more into that precise rule set to make it less abstract than you would have been trying to fix a tangled set of Christmas lights of a ruleset in order to try and make it tighter and more precise?

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 oni wrote:

Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.

Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.

I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.

I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

For some reason those that play GW games don't want good tournaments is my only conclusion. It's really just a Warhammer thing, other games don't care about tournaments making money.

They are providing a DESIRED service.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 mace_ace wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?

They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.

The DA comments mentioned benefiting those from his "Legion". Cultists aren't part of a legion.

Mind sharing the new 40k datasheets?

Since you obviously have them, to know that Cultists aren't given a "Legion" trait.

Oh sarcasm, hyperbole, and unprovoked escalation. This ought to be constructive. This is why I have only a handful of posts. My bad for attempting to have a discussion on a discussion forum.

Your point being that I can't know if that's absolutely 100% true? Yes that's correct. I would be shocked if they did have legion rules or a "Legion" keyword though on the cultists warscroll (or whatever they'll be called in the 40K version). In all of the 8th edition preview information they were careful to use specific language so I'm hypothesizing that "Legion" was a specific word choice.

Breng77 wrote:

My comment was in jest, but it's foolish to assume that they're not gaining something from these events. If they lost money at each event, they wouldn't continue to do them. I listen to the podcast's and I'm aware of how they present the topic of 'event profits', but it's such a sensitive subject with the community at large that they're not going to brag/discuss their earnings. Do you brag to your friends, family and coworkers about how much money you make? I have a strong feeling that you don't. Trust me... There's incentive there somewhere to do these events.

I'm not angry. I'm upset at the notion that this edition may have been heavily influenced by entities that prefer a vastly different play style than my own.

Having run a GT, worked at a convention etc. I can say it is foolish to assume that they are gaining something monetary from these events. Lots of people lose money/break even or at best re-invest in things like terrain etc. I lost money (for a small GT bordering on $500 or so) every year. These things are super expensive to put on. Fronting money to rent space, tables, storage for terrain, new terrain. Go look into renting space at a convention center/hotel and then look at GT tickets and tell me where all the profit comes from.

This makes no sense, so because you failed to make a profit, somehow every other organizer must? I mean, other conventions outside the ones in this community exist and make profits your aware right? It's the same model. I would agree with you that there is a certain event size that is incredibly tough to make money, to big for a store, not big enough to get reduced rates from a hall/hotel. But the idea is to get large enough that you make a profit like any business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kirasu wrote:

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

For some reason those that play GW games don't want good tournaments is my only conclusion. It's really just a Warhammer thing, other games don't care about tournaments making money.

They are providing a DESIRED service.

Yea I hate that mentality, I WANT them to make money doing something great they love. It's always annoyed me that it is taboo to discuss that element.

 mace_ace wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 mace_ace wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?

They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.

The DA comments mentioned benefiting those from his "Legion". Cultists aren't part of a legion.

Mind sharing the new 40k datasheets?

Since you obviously have them, to know that Cultists aren't given a "Legion" trait.

Oh sarcasm, this ought to be constructive. This is why I have only a handful of posts. My bad for attempting to have a discussion on a discussion forum.

Your point being that I can't know if that's absolutely 100% true? Yes that's correct. I would be shocked if they did have legion rules or a "Legion" keyword though on the cultists warscroll (or whatever they'll be called in the 40K version). In all of the 8th edition preview information they were careful to use specific language so I'm hypothesizing that "Legion" was a specific word choice.

Honestly, I think this is your biggest mistake, but not you alone. I think a certain percentage of the angst being generated (but by no means all) is down to overanalysis of language.

Just today, they've apparantly edited the blog post because the first attempt didn't correctly describe how the LD mechanic worked (didn't mention it was the difference between scores, implying that if you rolled an 8 vs LD7 you lost 8 models, not one) so to ascribe too much care to choice of language on their part probably isn't the way to go.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 oni wrote:

Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.

Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.

I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.

I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 davou wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:


I men, with every new rules drop the possibility of using a fun and balanced ork army gets smaller and smaller. It looks like they are aiming to make another 30k.

I disagree with everything you said, even the parts I snipped out.

We will be getting our saves against bolters and other similar weapons.

We will (probably) be able to take wounds from the backs of our units).

Our trukks are going to get a toughness value and potentially some kind of save.

We can finally ignore the I2 crap that's plagued us.

LD mechanics mean that suddenly our units wont be running off the table because they got splattered a little too much; instead we lose models (which we do all the time now as it stands).

There's a HUGELY STRONG implication that our stuff will finally be costed appropriately.

There's commitment to fix rules when they don't work with a regular schedule rather than whenever they happen to get around to the ork codex or decide to re-issue a supplement that already exists.

ALL of the models rules will be available day one (and possibly for free), and then afterwards we are probably going to be among the first to get an update in print.

I'm sorry, but you are on actively the hunt for stuff to hate if you actually cannot see the silver here. The ONLY thing thats kinda a shaft for xeno armies is that GW has suddenly decided to bring the chaos/imerium narrative to the forefront, so they will probably get a bit more focus in the fluff than we will.

I am not hunting for anything, I want this edition to be fun and playable like everyone else. But everything shown so far is pointing to a game for small units with good saves and good stats. As soon as we move towards the lower end off save and BS it start to get broken. +1 or -1 suddenly makes a world of difference if you only hit on 5+ or have a 6+ save.

I am sure that Manz missiles and nob bikers will be good but there is no way that they will be able to make shoota boyz or flash gits balanced.

Right now i have finished painting 10 flash gits, I have 8 tank bustas, 3 nobs and 2 meks half finished and i have base coated 6 killa kanz, 2 trucks, 3 mek guns and a looted wagon. Do you really think that i would have done this if i wanted to hate 40k?

Two words: Mortal Wounds. Mortal wounds are the great equalizer in sigmar and will likely act the same way in 40k.

Oh, you have your elite expensive marines with good saves and good morale? 4 mortal wounds and the whole squad is gone after morale. You lose 4 orcs and don't even think about it.

Mortal wounds are TOO prolific in Age of Sigmar and as such the game is pushed towards either extremely large, cheap, effective units to cushion the blow mortal wounds cause, long range shooting that can avoid them, or stormcasts who can do other shifty crap to get around them(but are OBSCENELY vulnerable when they run out of tricks.)

Sylvaneth is an army where basically the whole board can get to 2+ rerollable armor and they've been having trouble competing at the tournament level because they just don't have enough bodies to deal with mortal wounds.

Side Note: The meta of sigmar has been utterly fascinating(with the exception of shooting being a bit op in certain areas) It started out as bit monsters and powerful elite units, then massed mortal wounds came in and it became 'how many mortal wounds can I cram into one list? Then in response to that people started upping their unit sizes and taking cheaper models to blunt the mortal wound output. Minus a few standout OPs like Tzeentch skyfires the metagame of sigmar has been fascinating to watch and I would love it if 40k had a chance to go through the same evolution.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You know what isn't "far better for everyone involved"?

When one of the "3 ways to play" becomes the de facto way to play because everyone assumes it's the most balanced.

Even when it clearly is not.

You're not making any sense whatsoever. Balanced rules are better. Full stop. You can't try to make up some reason that they're not.

I'll be playing both Narrative and Points based depending on how I feel in the day/week.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

My comment was in jest, but it's foolish to assume that they're not gaining something from these events. If they lost money at each event, they wouldn't continue to do them. I listen to the podcast's and I'm aware of how they present the topic of 'event profits', but it's such a sensitive subject with the community at large that they're not going to brag/discuss their earnings. Do you brag to your friends, family and coworkers about how much money you make? I have a strong feeling that you don't. Trust me... There's incentive there somewhere to do these events.

I'm not angry. I'm upset at the notion that this edition may have been heavily influenced by entities that prefer a vastly different play style than my own.

Having run a GT, worked at a convention etc. I can say it is foolish to assume that they are gaining something monetary from these events. Lots of people lose money/break even or at best re-invest in things like terrain etc. I lost money (for a small GT bordering on $500 or so) every year. These things are super expensive to put on. Fronting money to rent space, tables, storage for terrain, new terrain. Go look into renting space at a convention center/hotel and then look at GT tickets and tell me where all the profit comes from.

This makes no sense, so because you failed to make a profit, somehow every other organizer must? I mean, other conventions outside the ones in this community exist and make profits your aware right? It's the same model. I would agree with you that there is a certain event size that is incredibly tough to make money, to big for a store, not big enough to get reduced rates from a hall/hotel. But the idea is to get large enough that you make a profit like any business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kirasu wrote:

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

For some reason those that play GW games don't want good tournaments is my only conclusion. It's really just a Warhammer thing, other games don't care about tournaments making money.

They are providing a DESIRED service.

Yea I hate that mentality, I WANT them to make money doing something great they love. It's always annoyed me that it is taboo to discuss that element.

I've been part of a convention outside this space that is larger than adepticon in size (or any wargaming convention) 20k+ attendees, they don't make money. Space rental can be extremely expensive. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is incredible difficult especially in the wargaming space. It is not just my solo experience (I did it as cheaply as possible, I did it at said larger convention so I did not need to even rent space, but I also did not receive ticket proceeds.

 JoeyFox wrote:
This saves time and makes the game enjoyable for blob-armies... Move once. Break moral? Lose models. HUGE time savers..

I expect this is one of the ways they are lowering game time down to 90 minutes.

It is also apparently a very swingy profit business. Wizard world made a profit ($900k in 2014) one year, before losing $4.3 million in 2015. So overall little profit. Now that is across tons of conventions so some single events were likely profitable. But it just goes to show that conventions are hard to consistently turn a profit on and these are much larger conventions than anything in wargaming, with presumably paying vendors, exhibitors etc.

 Mezmerro wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.

I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.

And special weapons? A unit of 5 models isn't going to do much when it is rendered ineffective. A unit of 10 with special weapons will maintain it's role for longer. Sure you'd have two units with special weapons (for more points), but one of them can get knocked out far more quickly than that unit of 10.

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 oni wrote:

Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.

Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.

I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.

I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.

Right, now rather then looking at prices out of context negotiate with them and guarantee them 2-3 full room blocks of reservations and they will heavily discount it, if not you go to another hotel and let them sit on the offer. It's not like I haven't factored in the things you just listed, it in my post you quoted FFS. Even by using your bad business of not negotiating your single event paid for the space, luckily they sell twice as many tickets through other events.

 oni wrote:
Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.

I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.

[/sarcasm]

Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.

You know the guys that run those events are not walking away with buckets of cash, right? The guys that put on those events are volunteers who donate their time and energy to making the game awesome.

Even companies like FLG that did the playtesting have a financial incentive to make the game as balanced as possible. How is that a bad thing?

 Red Corsair wrote:
I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

I agree. The only thing that bugs me is anyone who openly pretends they aren't making money when we know that they are. I get that they may be trying to avoid blowback from certain corners of the community, but there's nothing wrong with making a buck and they shouldn't have to lie about it. Unless they're cheating on their taxes or something (please note that I'm not actually claiming that anyone is doing that).

Anyway, more on topic...the idea that what's good for a tournament player is good for everyone is quite the canard. For instance, a narrative player may want a certain level of granularity that runs counter to a tournament player's desire to finish games in a timely manner. A narrative player may want a certain visceral or visual aspect to the game where a tournament player is better served by abstraction. It's easy to say everyone benefits from tight rulesets and balance, but those usually come at a cost of some kind. Personally I'm fine with what I'm reading about 8th, but I can see how there might be players who'd prefer balance and rules clarity through a LESS streamlined ruleset.

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 oni wrote:

Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.

Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.

I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.

I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.

Providing water in the banquet apparently cost them several thousand by itself.

 oni wrote:
I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.

There is a whole level of play designed for narrative play. "Bring the models you have and throw them on the table". There is another one where you buy units but not upgrades for ease of play. Both of those seem 'narrative' to me. Just because the rules are actually playtested does not mean they cannot be used for narrative play.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 oni wrote:

Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.

Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.

I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.

I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.

Right, now rather then looking at prices out of context negotiate with them and guarantee them 2-3 full room blocks of reservations and they will heavily discount it, if not you go to another hotel and let them sit on the offer. It's not like I haven't factored in the things you just listed, it in my post you quoted FFS. Even by using your bad business of not negotiating your single event paid for the space, luckily they sell twice as many tickets through other events.

This assumes that there are other options in the area. In mine there aren't for conventions this size. So not much negotiating and walking away that can happen. A ton has and it still loses money. I know they discount stuff, that is why things can happen at all. But it still costs quite a bit. It might vary area to area, but some places are very expensive. I'm speaking about conventions I know, including some of the noted conventions, as well as looking up profit from large conventions. It just isn't that common. For huge cons (comicon, gencon etc) it happens, but for most conventions (including the largest wargaming conventions it is minimal at best.

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

 oni wrote:

Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.

Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.

I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.

I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.

Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.

The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.

Right, now rather then looking at prices out of context negotiate with them and guarantee them 2-3 full room blocks of reservations and they will heavily discount it, if not you go to another hotel and let them sit on the offer. It's not like I haven't factored in the things you just listed, it in my post you quoted FFS. Even by using your bad business of not negotiating your single event paid for the space, luckily they sell twice as many tickets through other events.

This assumes that there are other options in the area. In mine there aren't for conventions this size. So not much negotiating and walking away that can happen. A ton has and it still loses money. I know they discount stuff, that is why things can happen at all. But it still costs quite a bit. It might vary area to area, but some places are very expensive. I'm speaking about conventions I know, including some of the noted conventions, as well as looking up profit from large conventions. It just isn't that common. For huge cons (comicon, gencon etc) it happens, but for most conventions (including the largest wargaming conventions it is minimal at best.

Please don't confuse my point. I am not saying every convention ever makes a profit. that's like assuming every business makes a profit. You can't compare any one directly to another, it doesn't work that way. If you are limited in an areas, you need to move to a more competitive area....like Vegas.... Notice they started in the Bay areas an moved to another state, it's because they adapted, and good for them! BTW, if done correctly, you can pay yourself for the time. So the organization could break even or make little profit on paper, but you as the organizer still got paid. But this is getting into the weeds, so PM me if you want to continue, thank you for sharing with me though