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.

They're going to be in tournaments. They're going to be official rules. Start using them now.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
GW should makes rules, not suggestions. I don't pay money for suggestions.

GW should also make high quality rules that are thoroughly tested.

I truly don't understand the attitude of the player base here. For the longest time it was "GW ignores us and dosen't fix anything!" Now its "GW is going to fast, why are they fixing things!" and then we have the "They aren't playtesting enough!" and then they release rules like this that are pretty much the PERFECT way to test. They aren't testing among a select few experts, or people who play a very particular way (like the GW staff does), they are having EVERYONE look at it. No amount of internal testing will find these things, theres a reason why video games have open betas, and continue to have open beta servers for people to test on (and they still pay for the right to do so!) so by having us take it for a whirl they can see its impact, refine it, then re-release something a little more workable. A good example is the smite rule, which ended up being changed to be more fair for allowing for super smite and giving Thousand Sons and Grey Knights (aka the smite armies) to be exempt. There is no such thing as a perfectly balanced and static rule set in any game, especially one that regularly is introducing new elements and units all the time. I'd say go play chess but even that favors the player who has white pieces.

Also lets keep in mind that you are not being forced to play the new rules in any way, you are more than welcome to find like minded opponents who enjoy the rulebook as is.

Smite is not a great example. It didn't take a genius to figure out just how broken is was at launch. As a consumer, it is ok to be dissatisfied with this type of lazy rules writing.

Can we have an option for "Yes, but only because I can't get games otherwise."

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Can we have an option for "Yes, but only because I can't get games otherwise."

I get yah...

But honestly I think testing rules is amazing but having them be in official tournaments is completely insane! Look at the Smite beta test... for months the GK players had to deal with a big handicap because tournaments were using a suggestion rule that was clearly not finished. This is like going to an Esports tournament for Dota 2 (never seen or played the game but first I could think of with huge $500K plus prizes) and they all sit around the computer and play the Dota 2 beta rather than the stable full game. Suddenly 1 team destroys the other because in the Beta (but not in the full game) 1 hero is stupidly OP because they were testing out his new abilities in the beat and hadn't decided how powerful they might be. This would never be allowed! Now this sin;t to say Dota is balanced or 40k is balanced before the Beta but the Beta knocks the balance all out of the park even further because it's not meant to be balanced! it's meant to be a potential rule in the future that needs to be shaped into a balanced rule.

Yes, because otherwise the GW Enforcers will batter down your door, kill your parents/girlfriend/boyfriend/dog, and drag you away to do unspeakable things to you.

Or maybe we should all calm down.

It's best to at least try to play the beta rules even if you don't like them. Sooner or later GW will implement something similar in concrete form. And yeah suggestions will lead to so many arguments in every store every day.

The beta rules are law simply because tournaments will use them, and tournament rules tend to become law quiickly with every game.

 lolman1c wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Can we have an option for "Yes, but only because I can't get games otherwise."

I get yah...

But honestly I think testing rules is amazing but having them be in official tournaments is completely insane! Look at the Smite beta test... for months the GK players had to deal with a big handicap because tournaments were using a suggestion rule that was clearly not finished. This is like going to an Esports tournament for Dota 2 (never seen or played the game but first I could think of with huge $500K plus prizes) and they all sit around the computer and play the Dota 2 beta rather than the stable full game. Suddenly 1 team destroys the other because in the Beta (but not in the full game) 1 hero is stupidly OP because they were testing out his new abilities in the beat and hadn't decided how powerful they might be. This would never be allowed! Now this sin;t to say Dota is balanced or 40k is balanced before the Beta but the Beta knocks the balance all out of the park even further because it's not meant to be balanced! it's meant to be a potential rule in the future that needs to be shaped into a balanced rule.

I wouldn't consider the pre-beta rules to be balanced or the "stable full game". It's more like going from Beta 0.2.1 to 0.2.2. There might be some bumps along the way, but it's still better than the previous run and no longer crashes to desktop quite as often.

 lolman1c wrote:
But honestly I think testing rules is amazing but having them be in official tournaments is completely insane!

There is no such thing as "official tournaments", only various third-party events with their own sets of house rules.

Locally we're using the beta rules and providing feedback to GW via emails.

No beta rules in our games.
As said, they are mere suggestions for testing purposes.
Nothing that should be considered seriously.

Hasn't most of the community complained for years about GWs view on rules being, "just play it however you want." I prefer a solid rule structure that everyone uses.

Don't the beta rules actually have to get used for people to be able to give feedback on how well they worked on the tabletop?

All the "rules" are suggestions, just widely accepted ones. When playing in a tournament the TO have the job of deciding exactly which ones to choose. When playing at home or at a club, you and your opponent can choose. It's usually easier to follow the official suggestions because they're what everyone knows and has easy access to, but I've never heard of anyone being taken to jail because they agreed with their opponent beforehand that a certain piece of terrain blocked line of sight or that it was cool to carry on deep striking anywhere within 9 inches of an enemy even in turn 1.

 Blacksails wrote:
GW should makes rules, not suggestions. I don't pay money for suggestions.

GW should also make high quality rules that are thoroughly tested.

The FAQ that includes the beta rules is not behind a pay wall, dude.

You should demand a full and immediate refund from whoever sold you the FAQ.

Ignore the suggestions while everyone else (rather than just the house team) thoroughly tests them for you.

Beta rules should be in a seperate document than the FAQ.

There’s nothing wrong with GW asking the public to try out new ideas for rules, but putting them into the FAQ creates a false sense they are “final” versions that “must” be used.

 Stormonu wrote:
Beta rules should be in a seperate document than the FAQ.

There’s nothing wrong with GW asking the public to try out new ideas for rules, but putting them into the FAQ creates a false sense they are “final” versions that “must” be used.

This is what I mean. I just can't wrap my head around how people are okay playing and gambling with actual money at tournaments with rules that are clearly not finale in an already unbalanced game just for the sake of play testing. Especially if this rule effects the entire balance and point system for some armies. I don't DS so can people stop calling me salty when I personally have nothing to be salty about! I'm not selfish I like to look out for people who aren't me!

It is one thing playing at the local GW with your mates but it's another paying £10 a week to enter tournaments with prizes upwards in the hundreds of pounds.

I really can't wrap my head around the idea that this Beta Rules thing is bad for the game. It's a change. The idea is that this is a change for the better.

If you go to a tournament, you know what rules you're playing. If the tournament advises that they're using the Beta rules, you make lists and strategies that benefit from those changes, hypothetically. If the tournament doesn't use those rules, you ignore them.

If a person cares about actively improving the game, they should use the rules to provide feedback for the final iteration of those rules. If a person doesn't care about that, they can play however they want, use them or dont.

It's a game. If you're "gambling" in a tournament on a big win to pay for your chosen lifestyle, I think you'll be sorely disappointed with 40k. It's not like Poker or something. I rarely play anymore. If I remembered to use these beta rules I would use them. It seems like it would be an improvement for the game. I don't spam units... I like to play with a variety of things because that's what I like to collect. I have friends that collect the FotM armies and they'll just collect something slightly different now because the power builds will have 3 of "this", 3 of that, and 2 of another instead of 5 of "this". Just a change. I like it because I get to see a wider variety of stuff on the field which hopefully creates some greater degree of TAC-ness to the army builds. Hopefully.

Just my 2 centz, but I'm all for the beta rules and am glad GW is being so active in attempting to fix issues before they are "official rules". We have had som many edditions where once you got your codex aside from the odd major rule fix we got nothing until the next ed. Now we not only are getting codex's in a timely manner we get a FAQ for said codex within a month or so and major rules tweeks 2x a year. This is so much more sustainable than a new ED every 2 years or less.... Now I hope GW stops making everything direct order and allows me to buy from my local store..... so frustrating.

nareik wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
GW should makes rules, not suggestions. I don't pay money for suggestions.

GW should also make high quality rules that are thoroughly tested.

The FAQ that includes the beta rules is not behind a pay wall, dude.

You should demand a full and immediate refund from whoever sold you the FAQ.

Ignore the suggestions while everyone else (rather than just the house team) thoroughly tests them for you.

No, I paid money for the rulebook, which supports the company making improvements and fixes to the game. I didn't pay for the rulebook for the company to turn around and make suggestions (and I dislike the 'suggestions' in the book as is, they need to write rules, not ideals).

I'm not ignoring any suggestions, because these aren't suggestions, they're beta rules, which I'm glad to test out.