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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
This thread has been a hilarious read. So many people need one or more of the following reality checks:
* Themed and Fluffy are not the same thing.
* Fluffy and balanced are not the same thing
* Themed and balanced are not the same thing
* MSU is not fluffy
* Spam is not fluffy
* Equally balanced armies on both sides of an engagement is not fluffy
* Matched Play and Organised Play are not the same thing
* 'Rule of 3' scales on game size
* Rule of 3 is for Organised Play, not for all Matched Play
* For a number of editions it was impossible to take more than 3 of a unit outside of troops. Rule of 3 is not a new concept even if it's been implemented in a new way.
* Matched Play is not the only way to play
* Matched Play is intended to increase balance as compared with Open or Narrative play. It is impossible to increase balance without SOME sacrifices.
* You cannot allow every possible combination of every possible unit and attain tight balance.
* Highly themed lists and fluff outlier lists do not make for good balanced play
* This game started out (Rogue Trader/1st ed) as a narrative game, with a game master. Competition and balance were never part of the intended design.
* If you're playing the game a way that does not meet the designer's intention or expectation, that doesn't make it a bad game
* It is not easy to balance a game, even checkers favours one player based on who goes first. It is extremely difficult to balance a game with this many variables
* Editing a ~180 page book for typos, grammatical errors and phrases that can be misinterpreted is a very demanding job. Doing that monthly, sometimes multiple books in a month is extraordinary. Errors, errata and FAQs are a fact of publishing products like this.
* Playtesting literal millions of combinations of unit options etc can only be done to a very limited degree without encountering exorbitant costs and development time.
* Your play group/meta is not the same as my play group/meta
* Ultra-competitive top-tier is not the only way to play. In fact I'd argue it's one of the least fun ways to play.
* Staying in the business of publishing games for decades is not the hallmark of someone incompetent.
* Jervis is not the sole designer of every game or edition GW has published
* Game designers have limited timeframes to work out. You may have come up with a 'better rule' in 5 seconds than the designers did, but they didn't have that luxury of an extra 5 seconds to rethink the rule they'd already come up with.
* Most of your 'better rules' are terrible. Seriously, if you're so good, bring it to Proposed Rules and let us tear it down.
* ForgeWorld products are primarily designed for collectors. They're not generally intended as a balanced expansion to the main game.
* Changing your mind (or business plan) after several years is not the same thing as lying several years ago.

Great post. My only disagreement in red. Thought i'm not concerned about fluffy stuff anyway. And the most popular rules do make it to most game types.

I agree with about half and disagree with the underlying conceits of the other half.

Worrying about what's fluffy in matched play creates most of the bigger problems 40k faces edition after edition.
Claiming 'it's not intended to be a competitive game' when there is a specific gameplay type intended for competitive play is obviously silly.
Matched play and Organised play are largely symbiotic. Playing matched without an eye to organised is like playing narrative with Starcraft fluff. It still kinda works but why?
Trying to keep matched play and narrative play together is where the disconnect is, not in how people are choosing to play.
Rules existing in the past is not a justification for rules existing now. You used to be able to blow up a landraider with a small hill.
Sacrifices made for balance are fine if they improve balance. There has been very little evidence that the rule of 3 improves balance.
People who say sacrifices need to made immediately rebel when the sacrifices are on the fluff side and not the gameplay side.
Rogue Trader is more different from Current 40k than current 40k is from Snakes and Ladders.
Has Forgeworld ever stated that their models are narratively supplemental? Because if not then we just can't know.

I agree that you cannot allow every combination of units and maintain tight balance, but just flat limiting essentially random units to totally a arbitrary number isn't great for it either.
I agree Balance is extremely difficult and expecting it to be perfect is insanity. But decisions to restrict player freedom should come with significant balance gains. That didn't happen.
I agree GW aren't incompetent(except for when the anger's talking), they're just conservative most of the time. Until they're not. And the 'when/where/why' of that is deeply confusing.
I honestly applaud GW for even bothering to try and edit their wordings. I still remember people arguing that Librarius conclave could cast a million spells thanks to the phrase 'based on'
I agree People do need to chill on the playtesters. There's honestly not a lot they can do there. Stuff has fallen through the cracks for the GENERAL playerbase.
Narrative play has been unfairly railroaded by the playerbase and that causes problems for both gameplay modes. Just mention you use powerlevel if you want to see exactly how bad it is.
People give fluff lip service, but only seem to care when they can twist it to condemn things they already don't like. They also don't seem to care enough to do actual narrative play.

The big one: Narrative deserves a lot more respect than it gets. I'm a competitive player, I play for tournaments so it doesn't interest me but I respect it for the creativity, freedom, and spectacle it allows. Currently it's not allowed to be distinct enough from matched play, by both GW and the playerbase, to be allowed to really come into its own. If people who leaned towards the fluff side were more willing and able to fully exploit the benefits of Narrative play it would open up opportunities for balance AND creative applications of the fluff to improve BOTH game modes. Like I mentioned earlier, you can't even use powerlevel without getting shouted down at the moment.

gendoikari87 wrote:
And then standard marines get squatted

I laugh too when I see people who don't understand this is coming.

Yes for whatever reason anything other than Matched Play has the stigma of being "not fair" which immediately gets translated to "not fun" despite it not being directly related; you can have fun games where one person is defending in a desperate last stand against a force twice their size.

I think the biggest reason narrative doesn't get as much respect as it deserves it because narrative isn't something you can jump into; it takes forethought and planning. With "pickup game" mentality being so prevalent there exists the desire to have something that is as close to "pick up and play" as possible, which precludes Narrative Play since it requires more setup/discussion prior to a game. Instead, people want to just turn up at the store, ask "Anyone want a game?" and then be able to play any old random person without needing to bother with the details other than points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
And then standard marines get squatted

I laugh too when I see people who don't understand this is coming.

I mean, I don' tthink it will be as cut and dried as "squatted" but I doubt there will ever be another non-Primaris marine release for 40k again.

Reemule wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
And then standard marines get squatted

I laugh too when I see people who don't understand this is coming.

ive been telling people for a year there will be no 10th ed, there will be age of sigmar in space and primaris are the 40k stormcast eternals

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Msu and spam are both fluffy if your talking about troops

Agreed, which is why TROOPS do not get limited by the Ro3. But everything else should be

-

Then what goes on with units that used to be Troop Choices in some respect (Space Marine Bikers, Windriders, Deathwing), and then some armies get a treatment that lets them avoid that pitfall (the four Cult Legions get their Cult Marines as Troops, but Night Lords NEVER get more than three Raptor squads).

You either need to be consistent or admit the system is flawed.

Oh, I do admit there is a flaw, just not with the Ro3. The flaw is with removing certain units as Troops *cough* Windriders *cough*

I am not saying that a fluffy army WOULDN'T have 80 Dreadnoughts.
I'm saying that it is unrealistic for all 80 to be:
A) the same kind of Dread. There are several different kinds for a reason and
B) unlikely to be on one small corner of a battle at the same time. A 6x4 table only represents a very small section of a battle

Aside from some very, VERY one-off stories, GW never portrays armies as "dozens or more of X non-troop single unit"
There is always a mix of unit types (all the better to advertised their product) in their stories.
The only times I can remember "spam" being part of the fluff is times when you see 8 Bloodthirsters storming Terra. But those stories are very, VERY large battles.
If you wanted to recreate those on the table top, that is what Narrative play is for.

-

GW does that to show off everything in the kits and don't really care how the unit does at the end of the day. I've heard the horror stories of how the Deathwatch preview battle did because the squads were loaded up with no real goal intended.

I would be curious to see how a major tournament would go if the restrictions were:

1. No allies, period. You get one faction.
2. Rule of 3, all beta rules, all matched play rules.
3. No Forgeworld.
4. Chapter Approved missions.
5. 2000 points.
6. Chess clocks. starting round 1.
7. Varied terrain similar to ITC. ITC really gets terrain right. (tables are varied, beautifully painted, and thematic).

If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play. Let's play the same game the designer play.

No fw is a deal breaker for me

I dont see a realm, at all, in which GW stops supporting allies.

It makes them money, and gives people a reason to branch out to new armies.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
And then standard marines get squatted

I laugh too when I see people who don't understand this is coming.

ive been telling people for a year there will be no 10th ed, there will be age of sigmar in space and primaris are the 40k stormcast eternals

I don't know the AOS enough to judge, but I've advocated for a long time all Primarchs return, the Emperor dies, galaxy balkanises as all sides fight. Ohh and Old marines are squatted.

 Marmatag wrote:
I would be curious to see how a major tournament would go if the restrictions were:

1. No allies, period. You get one faction.
2. Rule of 3, all beta rules, all matched play rules.
3. No Forgeworld.
4. Chapter Approved missions.
5. 2000 points.
6. Chess clocks. starting round 1.
7. Varied terrain similar to ITC. ITC really gets terrain right. (tables are varied, beautifully painted, and thematic).

If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play. Let's play the same game the designer play.

Then why are you making suggestions that take the game much further from how GW intended it to be played?

 Marmatag wrote:
I would be curious to see how a major tournament would go if the restrictions were:

1. No allies, period. You get one faction.
2. Rule of 3, all beta rules, all matched play rules.
3. No Forgeworld.
4. Chapter Approved missions.
5. 2000 points.
6. Chess clocks. starting round 1.
7. Varied terrain similar to ITC. ITC really gets terrain right. (tables are varied, beautifully painted, and thematic).

If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play. Let's play the same game the designer play.

I think this is a winner idea. I'm not up to date enough with the CA missions though. Mostly just play ITC.

 Marmatag wrote:
I would be curious to see how a major tournament would go if the restrictions were:

1. No allies, period. You get one faction.
2. Rule of 3, all beta rules, all matched play rules.
3. No Forgeworld.
4. Chapter Approved missions.
5. 2000 points.
6. Chess clocks. starting round 1.
7. Varied terrain similar to ITC. ITC really gets terrain right. (tables are varied, beautifully painted, and thematic).

If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play. Let's play the same game the designer play.

Me too. It would be a fun one to play in I know that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
GW does that to show off everything in the kits and don't really care how the unit does at the end of the day. I've heard the horror stories of how the Deathwatch preview battle did because the squads were loaded up with no real goal intended.

I wasn't even referring to Bat Reps. I was referring to the stories, usually portrayed in the Codex side bars, i.e the FLUFF.
Speaking for Eldar alone (because I've had every codex since 4E) there isn't a single "army" referenced in those pages that would indicate hordes of jetbikes making up 1 Wildrider band. It's always a good number of Windriders (which were Troops) supported by Vypers, Shining Spears and Grav-tanks.
The ratios always seem to be portrayed as only about 2-3 units of X accompanied by 1-2 of Y and 1 of Z.
So a Saim-hann army with nothing but Windriders would not represent this fluff. You need a "healthy" amount of Vypers and Grav tanks at minimum.

An army could certainly have 80 Dreadnoughts, but at the scale we see on the table-top we should only see a "handful" mixed with other unit types. For Matched Play, GW has determined a "handful" to be 3.
And since the editions that used the FOC, there have been several different Dreadnought units added. In 5th ed, you could only have 3 Dreads MAX no matter the type (I think maybe 6 cuz you could have 3 Elites and 3 Heavy, but still)
This edition has so many more options that even with the Ro3, a player can easily have a dozen Dreads in the same list, so long as they have only 3 of a single kind of Dread.

The point isn't that 10 units of X is unfluffy, but that an army of ONLY X without several Y & Z is unfluffy.
Ro3 ensures that players have to spend points taking Y & Z and don't spend them all on X.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I would be curious to see how a major tournament would go if the restrictions were:

1. No allies, period. You get one faction.
2. Rule of 3, all beta rules, all matched play rules.
3. No Forgeworld.
4. Chapter Approved missions.
5. 2000 points.
6. Chess clocks. starting round 1.
7. Varied terrain similar to ITC. ITC really gets terrain right. (tables are varied, beautifully painted, and thematic).

If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play. Let's play the same game the designer play.

Me too. It would be a fun one to play in I know that.

I would like to see something like this too. GW has now given up 3 different ways to play, but Matched play seems to be the default.
More restrictions on Matched play would not only make organized events more "fair" for lack of a better word, but it might also make Narrative play actually get played.
I like allies, but if they can't be balanced, take them out of competitive play and leave Narrative play as the viable alternative

-

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I dont see a realm, at all, in which GW stops supporting allies.

It makes them money, and gives people a reason to branch out to new armies.

Tournaments can make whatever rules they want.

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I would be curious to see how a major tournament would go if the restrictions were:

1. No allies, period. You get one faction.
2. Rule of 3, all beta rules, all matched play rules.
3. No Forgeworld.
4. Chapter Approved missions.
5. 2000 points.
6. Chess clocks. starting round 1.
7. Varied terrain similar to ITC. ITC really gets terrain right. (tables are varied, beautifully painted, and thematic).

If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play. Let's play the same game the designer play.

I think this is a winner idea. I'm not up to date enough with the CA missions though. Mostly just play ITC.

Same, I am almost exclusively playing ITC missions. I am not opposed to ITC missions, however, since GW has published updated missions, maybe we give them a try. The mission pack to some degree does dictate the meta.

Of course none of what I'm saying will ever be tried, anyway.

Nah I think if GW added more restrictions to Matched Play, you'd see less Narrative play because of the "waaah it's not fair" stigma it has. You'd see even more Matched Play because it's "fair".

I do think the Chapter Approved missions are fine though. ITC missions are too close to the Warmahordes Steamroller scenarios (which is the point) and while I liked those when I played Warmahordes, I don't think it's the best for 40k. It's too symmetrical. I don't see anything wrong with the CA missions other than the fact ITC wanted to push their own missions to let you tailor things.

Wayniac wrote:
Nah I think if GW added more restrictions to Matched Play, you'd see less Narrative play because of the "waaah it's not fair" stigma it has. You'd see even more Matched Play because it's "fair".

As much as I'd like this not to be true, you're probably right.
It would be nice if there were just 2 methods of play (1 restrictive for competition, the other balance for fun) and both were equally viable. But I guess that's just too crazy to work

-

 Galef wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Nah I think if GW added more restrictions to Matched Play, you'd see less Narrative play because of the "waaah it's not fair" stigma it has. You'd see even more Matched Play because it's "fair".

As much as I'd like this not to be true, you're probably right.
It would be nice if there were just 2 methods of play (1 restrictive for competition, the other balance for fun) and both were equally viable. But I guess that's just too crazy to work

-

Thing is, I blame the players. Full stop. I don't know why there's such a stigma against Narrative Play (Open Play I can see why, although I still think it's embellished to the point of ridiculousness), but there is. While you find just as much, if not more, imbalances in Matched PLay under the assumed guise of being "balanced". The sad reality is a lot of people just refuse to touch anything that's not Matched Play with all the beta/experimental rules; essentially a tournament style game, with or without tournament style armies. And that is always the baseline and the assumed default, rather than an option. GW could remove the Open/Narrative sections of Chapter Approved and it probably would not change a thing; those sections may as well not exist since so few people care about them.

Wayniac wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Nah I think if GW added more restrictions to Matched Play, you'd see less Narrative play because of the "waaah it's not fair" stigma it has. You'd see even more Matched Play because it's "fair".

As much as I'd like this not to be true, you're probably right.
It would be nice if there were just 2 methods of play (1 restrictive for competition, the other balance for fun) and both were equally viable. But I guess that's just too crazy to work

-

Thing is, I blame the players. Full stop. I don't know why there's such a stigma against Narrative Play (Open Play I can see why, although I still think it's embellished to the point of ridiculousness), but there is. While you find just as much, if not more, imbalances in Matched PLay under the assumed guise of being "balanced". The sad reality is a lot of people just refuse to touch anything that's not Matched Play with all the beta/experimental rules; essentially a tournament style game, with or without tournament style armies. And that is always the baseline and the assumed default, rather than an option. GW could remove the Open/Narrative sections of Chapter Approved and it probably would not change a thing; those sections may as well not exist since so few people care about them.

I'm not sure that's really the case - we've definitely got some confirmation bias online, the people who care enough to go onto a website and discuss tactics are generally going to be people with a more competitive mindset. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence but there's definitely a group of people in my local scene that use the narrative rules.

The last person who tried to get a narrative game going just happened to be forging a narrative with 16 psykers.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I dont see a realm, at all, in which GW stops supporting allies.

It makes them money, and gives people a reason to branch out to new armies.

Tournaments can make whatever rules they want.

"If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play"

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I dont see a realm, at all, in which GW stops supporting allies.

It makes them money, and gives people a reason to branch out to new armies.

Tournaments can make whatever rules they want.

"If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play"

Well the issue with that is I don't think GW is playing the same game as everyone else. Granted, that's been an issue for close to 30 years now, but it still remains. Unlike AOS where most of their designers seem to be tournament players (or at least the type of player who might enjoy a tournament now and then even if they aren't trying to win the whole thing), the 40k designers still seem to be in the old mindset from the olden days, and rely on people like Frontline Gaming to tell them what is/isn't balanced for tournaments (which has its own slew of problems seeing as Frontline Gaming is heavily invested/controls the ITC)

 Galef wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
* Spam is not fluffy

Unless the spam is fluffy. Lol IG tank company or Ravenwing bikers.

You can have like a dozen IG tanks for a tank company WITHOUT having to repeat the same datasheet more than 3x (or at all for that matter).
You can have RW bikes, attack bikes, Black Knight bikes and various Landspeeders in a fluffy RW list. You don't have to, nor should you be encouraged to fill you list with JUST RW bikes
And RW and DW can take full units and Combat Squad them for more units if desired.

Why you seem to not grasp this is beyond me. Spam (of the same single unit) is not, nor has it EVER been, fluffy

Even in prior editions in which far fewer units existed, fluffy lists like RW, DW and Eldar Wraithhost or Saim-hann bike lists SPECIFICALLY had their "main" unit as Troops so you could have more. But even then, you were never meant to just fill you list with JUST those units. Usually 3-4 units did the trick.
Now the fluff has expanded and new units exist to flesh out those armies, removing the need to spam 1 type of unit as Troops to field a fluffy list.

-

No it isn't. Deathwing are frequently deployed exclusively as Deathwing. A rule of 3 completely kills any remaining prayer of trying to field a Deathwing list which consists of 100-200 deathwing terminators and nothing else. Now tell me exactly how this rule of 3 is saving us from horrible imbalance, when it doesn't even hurt the BS lists in the first place?

Wayniac wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I dont see a realm, at all, in which GW stops supporting allies.

It makes them money, and gives people a reason to branch out to new armies.

Tournaments can make whatever rules they want.

"If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play"

Well the issue with that is I don't think GW is playing the same game as everyone else. Granted, that's been an issue for close to 30 years now, but it still remains. Unlike AOS where most of their designers seem to be tournament players (or at least the type of player who might enjoy a tournament now and then even if they aren't trying to win the whole thing), the 40k designers still seem to be in the old mindset from the olden days, and rely on people like Frontline Gaming to tell them what is/isn't balanced for tournaments (which has its own slew of problems seeing as Frontline Gaming is heavily invested/controls the ITC)

Oh, I completely agree with you. We're not playing real 40k. My literal only point was to state I doubt, personally, GW will ever remove allies as they have a financial incentive to do so, and are making record profits, and then to provide context to the quote Xenomancers had done that didn't take why I wrote what I did into account.

I agree that rule of 3 is weak and does as much damage as it does good. It's not really the rule of 3 though. For the points of 100 DW terms you'd be in the 4000 point range for rule of 3 which up to 5 at those points. PLUS. 40 terms is roughly 4000 points....and you have 2 entrys for DW terms. DW knights and terminators. You'd have no issue.

3x10man Termies: ~1200 pts
3x10man Black Knights: Not sure, but definitely more than 800 pts

Are you sure you can't do 2k points of Termies?

You never *could* do 100 Termies in a standard game. That'd be over 4k points.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I dont see a realm, at all, in which GW stops supporting allies.

It makes them money, and gives people a reason to branch out to new armies.

Tournaments can make whatever rules they want.

"If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play"

Well the issue with that is I don't think GW is playing the same game as everyone else. Granted, that's been an issue for close to 30 years now, but it still remains. Unlike AOS where most of their designers seem to be tournament players (or at least the type of player who might enjoy a tournament now and then even if they aren't trying to win the whole thing), the 40k designers still seem to be in the old mindset from the olden days, and rely on people like Frontline Gaming to tell them what is/isn't balanced for tournaments (which has its own slew of problems seeing as Frontline Gaming is heavily invested/controls the ITC)

Oh, I completely agree with you. We're not playing real 40k. My literal only point was to state I doubt, personally, GW will ever remove allies as they have a financial incentive to do so, and are making record profits, and then to provide context to the quote Xenomancers had done that didn't take why I wrote what I did into account.

I don't disagree that GW will probably never make a rule against allies - because it make them money like you said. Just saying. Tournament TO's are not bound by GW to run tournaments a certain way - GW in fact says they SHOULD make changes to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
3x10man Termies: ~1200 pts
3x10man Black Knights: Not sure, but definitely more than 800 pts

Are you sure you can't do 2k points of Termies?

You never *could* do 100 Termies in a standard game. That'd be over 4k points.

Yeah thats what I am saying - due to the point cost required you aren't at rule of 3 anymore ether. It's rule of 5 at 4000 points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I dont see a realm, at all, in which GW stops supporting allies.

It makes them money, and gives people a reason to branch out to new armies.

Tournaments can make whatever rules they want.

"If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play"

Well the issue with that is I don't think GW is playing the same game as everyone else. Granted, that's been an issue for close to 30 years now, but it still remains. Unlike AOS where most of their designers seem to be tournament players (or at least the type of player who might enjoy a tournament now and then even if they aren't trying to win the whole thing), the 40k designers still seem to be in the old mindset from the olden days, and rely on people like Frontline Gaming to tell them what is/isn't balanced for tournaments (which has its own slew of problems seeing as Frontline Gaming is heavily invested/controls the ITC)

Oh, I completely agree with you. We're not playing real 40k. My literal only point was to state I doubt, personally, GW will ever remove allies as they have a financial incentive to do so, and are making record profits, and then to provide context to the quote Xenomancers had done that didn't take why I wrote what I did into account.

I don't disagree that GW will probably never make a rule against allies - because it make them money like you said. Just saying. Tournament TO's are not bound by GW to run tournaments a certain way - GW in fact says they SHOULD make changes to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You're still, for some reason, ignoring the context of my post.

It was never whether TOs were bound by GW, it was quite specifically in regards to us "Not playing the game GW's way" and "Letting GW set guidelines"

Nothing more.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I dont see a realm, at all, in which GW stops supporting allies.

It makes them money, and gives people a reason to branch out to new armies.

Tournaments can make whatever rules they want.

"If the argument is that we aren't playing the game that GW intended, then let GW publish guidelines on how they recommend we play"

Well the issue with that is I don't think GW is playing the same game as everyone else. Granted, that's been an issue for close to 30 years now, but it still remains. Unlike AOS where most of their designers seem to be tournament players (or at least the type of player who might enjoy a tournament now and then even if they aren't trying to win the whole thing), the 40k designers still seem to be in the old mindset from the olden days, and rely on people like Frontline Gaming to tell them what is/isn't balanced for tournaments (which has its own slew of problems seeing as Frontline Gaming is heavily invested/controls the ITC)

Oh, I completely agree with you. We're not playing real 40k. My literal only point was to state I doubt, personally, GW will ever remove allies as they have a financial incentive to do so, and are making record profits, and then to provide context to the quote Xenomancers had done that didn't take why I wrote what I did into account.

I never said remove allies. I said it would be interesting to see the results of a tournament where those rules were in place.

You misread me a bit. No harm no foul.

And if they WERE going to adjust the tournament format, they should come up with rulesets:

Tournament Play - specific missions, specific terrain layout requirements, beta rules required, no forgeworld, time limits, clocks required, etc.
Matched Play - play whatever mission you want, man! terrain, do whatever. Agree or not to use beta rules.
Narrative Play - i cast magic missile at the darkness
Open Play - my kleenex box is a land raider, and it is full of allied tyranids.

Everyone continuously argues that there is a wide gulf between your casual matched play gamer and tournament players, so why not have 2 completely different rulesets? It'd still be up to your individual RTT to use tournament or matched.

I didn't misread you, I made a separate point. It's why I didn't quote you.