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.

Matched Play should restrict Flyers and LOW to 2500+ or 3000+ games.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Matched Play should restrict Flyers and LOW to 2500+ or 3000+ games.

That would be a major improvement. Imperial Knights feel like a faction that are meant for completely different game.

You know, a simple switch to having Apocalypse and standard 40K like before would solve tons of problems. Peoples' lists would also be geared towards dealing with threats that not everyone prepares for in a standard game.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
They ruined the visual of the battle for me, dominating the scene too much. Same with the Knights and Wraithknights and Riptides and so on.

I think those things are really cool and exciting for a special one off game or big event, don't get me wrong. The sort of thing that is at the right scale. When the Stompa originally came out it was for Apocalypse games only, basically a collectors item. Same with the Baneblade.

It was the decision to make them a standard part of basic 40K that I dislike. If you are playing on a 6' by 4' table, only Epic scale minis can really capture that feeling properly.

Agree 100%. Just remove them from the standard game. I frankly don't give a feth if people have invested money in them (because let's face it we know who is going to chime in with this counter argument...) models are deleted from the game all the time, and not just in 40k. Suck it up homeboy. They have damaged the game for worse by making the whole game have to fit around them. Stick them in Apocalypse where they should have stayed and stop making 40k into Epic in 28mm.

An Apocalypse game type would probably have been much more useful than the 3 game types GW actually gave us.

Has anyone ever used Open Play?

The vast majority of us only use open play.

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

 Lance845 wrote:

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

That's a... creative interpretation of Open Play. Reductive to the point of pointlessness in fact.

 Lance845 wrote:
The vast majority of us only use open play.

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

Yes, apparently I am the only person in existence that plays Matched Play then!

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

That's a... creative interpretation of Open Play. Reductive to the point pointless in fact.

No, it's what it says in the book.

Open play is the place where you do what you want. Want to use points or Power levels? Open lets you do both. Wanna play matched rules with narrative missions? Thats in the Open section of the book. Narrative has specific rules. Matched has even more specific rules. If you are not following the specific rules then you immediately shift into open. Open doesn't mean NO rules. It means any rules you feel like that match.

Just calling an apple an apple and an orange and orange.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

That's a... creative interpretation of Open Play. Reductive to the point pointless in fact.

No, it's what it says in the book.

Open play is the place where you do what you want. Want to use points or Power levels? Open lets you do both. Wanna play matched rules with narrative missions? Thats in the Open section of the book. Narrative has specific rules. Matched has even more specific rules. If you are not following the specific rules then you immediately shift into open. Open doesn't mean NO rules. It means any rules you feel like that match.

I'm of the opinion that words mean what people use them to mean, not what a book tells you they mean. So matched play is actually quite a bit broader than that.

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

That's a... creative interpretation of Open Play. Reductive to the point pointless in fact.

No, it's what it says in the book.

Open play is the place where you do what you want. Want to use points or Power levels? Open lets you do both. Wanna play matched rules with narrative missions? Thats in the Open section of the book. Narrative has specific rules. Matched has even more specific rules. If you are not following the specific rules then you immediately shift into open. Open doesn't mean NO rules. It means any rules you feel like that match.

I'm of the opinion that words mean what people use them to mean, not what a book tells you they mean. So matched play is actually quite a bit broader than that.

In conversational speech sure. In a rules document no.

I get that when YOU say you play matched what you actually mean is you like points, strict list building rules, and MAYBE a certain set of missions? But you might be playing other missions made up by the house rules of ITC or your friends instead? Or maybe you use different ways to determine first player? Or deployment? Or terrain? Or anything really.

See? And thats why what you are actually playing is Open. Even if you like most of Matched.

You really don't need a special "game mode" to run special scenarios and so on. That is crazy. You can do what you want with your stuff.

The "basic" rules should be pretty tight and clear, and then people can go nuts outside of that. I always felt Apocalypse was a really weird supplement, because if we wanted to special one off battles we just did it, we did not need a big hardback book to give us permission.

A force org chart for the basic game would solve a lot of this. But I doubt it will ever happen. People bought a bunch of this stuff as soon as it was "allowed" in normal games, and GW made a bunch more money than they had been off of this kind of minis when they were for special scenarios only.

And the game seems more popular than ever, so it seems that people they lost like me who dislike this direction were more than made up for by people who think it is great.

But every time I think about getting back into 40K the idea of setting up my 180 Ork boyz or whatever only to pack a third to a quarter of them away on turn one due to crazy powerful weaponry bombing the absolute crap out of my lines makes me think "What is the point?"
That and the bloat on Imperial factions has hit an even more insane level, and I dislike so obviously being a "foil" to the main protagonists just because I play Orks.

I guess it is not the game for me any more. Shame, the models are looking really nice these days, a lot better than some of the nonsense from back in 5e.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

That's a... creative interpretation of Open Play. Reductive to the point pointless in fact.

No, it's what it says in the book.

Open play is the place where you do what you want. Want to use points or Power levels? Open lets you do both. Wanna play matched rules with narrative missions? Thats in the Open section of the book. Narrative has specific rules. Matched has even more specific rules. If you are not following the specific rules then you immediately shift into open. Open doesn't mean NO rules. It means any rules you feel like that match.

I'm of the opinion that words mean what people use them to mean, not what a book tells you they mean. So matched play is actually quite a bit broader than that.

In conversational speech sure. In a rules document no.

I get that when YOU say you play matched what you actually mean is you like points, strict list building rules, and MAYBE a certain set of missions? But you might be playing other missions made up by the house rules of ITC or your friends instead? Or maybe you use different ways to determine first player? Or deployment? Or terrain? Or anything really.

See? And thats why what you are actually playing is Open. Even if you like most of Matched.

I get what you're saying. You're technically correct, congratulations. Now we'll go back to using matched play to mean something that's useful in practical sense.

Technically correct. The best kind of correct.

 Stux wrote:

I get what you're saying. You're technically correct, congratulations. Now we'll go back to using matched play to mean something that's useful in practical sense.

You see, you say that the definition is so specific that it looses all meaning.

On the other hand, the way you use the term Matched is so broad as to be meaningless as well. What game exactly are you playing? I bet it's different from mine. And we can all be sure it's different from BCBs. So great, you play "matched". And nobody here knows what that actually means.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

That's a... creative interpretation of Open Play. Reductive to the point pointless in fact.

No, it's what it says in the book.

Open play is the place where you do what you want. Want to use points or Power levels? Open lets you do both. Wanna play matched rules with narrative missions? Thats in the Open section of the book. Narrative has specific rules. Matched has even more specific rules. If you are not following the specific rules then you immediately shift into open. Open doesn't mean NO rules. It means any rules you feel like that match.

Just calling an apple an apple and an orange and orange.

The rules for Matched Play, for what its worth, say that "some tournaments or events apply extra rules..." Saying that a tournament or game will be "1,000 Points, Matched Play rules but No Lords of War and no Unique Characters" is not Open War. Its still Matched Play. You've just added restrictions. How players or TOs interpret the terrain does not make it Open. Even a set of distinct Victory Conditions does not automatically make it Open if the intent is for a balanced game with no advantage to Attacker and Defender.

Now, I agree that some formats might stretch the game so far as to be truly Open. I was in a tournament with a game featuring an NPC Warhound Titan that marched across the board shooting everything. I think that we had left Matched Play by that point. Perhaps it was a Narrative Play tournament with Matched Play lists. Saying that first floor ruins block line of sight, though, is still Matched Play if you are using battle-forged armies to set points levels and Matched Play scenarios.

The vast majority of games I play and see played at the store are Matched Play. Games played with battle-forged lists at set points values and Matched Play missions. We get the odd spurt of Narrative Play when somebody gets a campaign going (maybe two weeks a year). I only see Open play in teaching games or the odd "lets have an Apoc!"

To test your theory, show up to a tournament advertising Matched Play with whatever models you like. Tell us how open the TO and your opponents are to your list (or lack thereof).

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

That's a... creative interpretation of Open Play. Reductive to the point pointless in fact.

No, it's what it says in the book.

Open play is the place where you do what you want. Want to use points or Power levels? Open lets you do both. Wanna play matched rules with narrative missions? Thats in the Open section of the book. Narrative has specific rules. Matched has even more specific rules. If you are not following the specific rules then you immediately shift into open. Open doesn't mean NO rules. It means any rules you feel like that match.

Just calling an apple an apple and an orange and orange.

The rules for Matched Play, for what its worth, say that "some tournaments or events apply extra rules..." Saying that a tournament or game will be "1,000 Points, Matched Play rules but No Lords of War and no Unique Characters" is not Open War. Its still Matched Play. You've just added restrictions.

Adding a restriction doesn't fundamentally change the rules of the game. I agree that if a tourney disallows LoW that the game is still matched.

How players or TOs interpret the terrain does not make it Open. Even a set of distinct Victory Conditions does not automatically make it Open if the intent is for a balanced game with no advantage to Attacker and Defender.

Disagree. Entirely.

Now, I agree that some formats might stretch the game so far as to be truly Open. I was in a tournament with a game featuring an NPC Warhound Titan that marched across the board shooting everything. I think that we had left Matched Play by that point. Perhaps it was a Narrative Play tournament with Matched Play lists. Saying that first floor ruins block line of sight, though, is still Matched Play if you are using battle-forged armies to set points levels and Matched Play scenarios.

Yeah? Define that. Make the line clear as glass so we all know exactly what is matched and what is open to you.

The vast majority of games I play and see played at the store are Matched Play. Games played with battle-forged lists at set points values and Matched Play missions. We get the odd spurt of Narrative Play when somebody gets a campaign going (maybe two weeks a year). I only see Open play in teaching games or the odd "lets have an Apoc!"

To test your theory, show up to a tournament advertising Matched Play with whatever models you like. Tell us how open the TO and your opponents are to your list (or lack thereof).

Being a TO doesn't grant any inherent righteousness. A TO is just some feth that decided to volunteer that day. I don't actually care what a TO has to say on the matter. Their event can be listed as whatever they want to call it with whatever rules they want to use. You can too. Call it matched! Good on you. You're wrong. But, you are allowed to be wrong.

Please don't let this degrade into another RAW vs RAI debate where no one wins and the thread just gets locked.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Matched Play should restrict Flyers and LOW to 2500+ or 3000+ games.

Only problem with flyers is they can be used to restrict movement which is stupid. The new rule basically does nothing. Smart players can still place flyers to restrict movement as you need to have enough movement to move past the base. They can still be used to create a wall that can't be charged through. The rule should have stated models without fly ignore flyer bases for the purposes of movement they can end their movement on the base if they do not have enough movement to make it through. Or they should just take away the whole air born rule and make them in permanent hover mode like the Helldrake.

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
They ruined the visual of the battle for me, dominating the scene too much. Same with the Knights and Wraithknights and Riptides and so on.

I think those things are really cool and exciting for a special one off game or big event, don't get me wrong. The sort of thing that is at the right scale. When the Stompa originally came out it was for Apocalypse games only, basically a collectors item. Same with the Baneblade.

It was the decision to make them a standard part of basic 40K that I dislike. If you are playing on a 6' by 4' table, only Epic scale minis can really capture that feeling properly.

Agree 100%. Just remove them from the standard game. I frankly don't give a feth if people have invested money in them (because let's face it we know who is going to chime in with this counter argument...) models are deleted from the game all the time, and not just in 40k. Suck it up homeboy. They have damaged the game for worse by making the whole game have to fit around them. Stick them in Apocalypse where they should have stayed and stop making 40k into Epic in 28mm.

An Apocalypse game type would probably have been much more useful than the 3 game types GW actually gave us.

Has anyone ever used Open Play?

The vast majority of us only use open play.

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

Lol, no. That's not how matched vs open vs narrative works at all. GW left wiggle room even in matched play for customizing the rules to suit your individual needs. That's why most of the rules like rule of 3 are 'suggestions' or 'recommendations'.

Open play is when you don't use points and don't bother with army construction rules, the 1 spell per turn rule, or the 1 strategem per phase rule and that's all it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

That's a... creative interpretation of Open Play. Reductive to the point pointless in fact.

No, it's what it says in the book.

Open play is the place where you do what you want. Want to use points or Power levels? Open lets you do both. Wanna play matched rules with narrative missions? Thats in the Open section of the book. Narrative has specific rules. Matched has even more specific rules. If you are not following the specific rules then you immediately shift into open. Open doesn't mean NO rules. It means any rules you feel like that match.

Just calling an apple an apple and an orange and orange.

The rules for Matched Play, for what its worth, say that "some tournaments or events apply extra rules..." Saying that a tournament or game will be "1,000 Points, Matched Play rules but No Lords of War and no Unique Characters" is not Open War. Its still Matched Play. You've just added restrictions.

Adding a restriction doesn't fundamentally change the rules of the game. I agree that if a tourney disallows LoW that the game is still matched.

How players or TOs interpret the terrain does not make it Open. Even a set of distinct Victory Conditions does not automatically make it Open if the intent is for a balanced game with no advantage to Attacker and Defender.

Disagree. Entirely.

Now, I agree that some formats might stretch the game so far as to be truly Open. I was in a tournament with a game featuring an NPC Warhound Titan that marched across the board shooting everything. I think that we had left Matched Play by that point. Perhaps it was a Narrative Play tournament with Matched Play lists. Saying that first floor ruins block line of sight, though, is still Matched Play if you are using battle-forged armies to set points levels and Matched Play scenarios.

Yeah? Define that. Make the line clear as glass so we all know exactly what is matched and what is open to you.

The vast majority of games I play and see played at the store are Matched Play. Games played with battle-forged lists at set points values and Matched Play missions. We get the odd spurt of Narrative Play when somebody gets a campaign going (maybe two weeks a year). I only see Open play in teaching games or the odd "lets have an Apoc!"

To test your theory, show up to a tournament advertising Matched Play with whatever models you like. Tell us how open the TO and your opponents are to your list (or lack thereof).

Being a TO doesn't grant any inherent righteousness. A TO is just some feth that decided to volunteer that day. I don't actually care what a TO has to say on the matter. Their event can be listed as whatever they want to call it with whatever rules they want to use. You can too. Call it matched! Good on you. You're wrong. But, you are allowed to be wrong.

You should really try to have even the most basic understanding of what the rules actually are before you get so aggressive about them.

All 3 of the 3 ways to play are guidelines, even matched. Read the book, GW very rarely say you MUST do anything.

Here's some food for thought, where in the Matched play section does it say I CAN'T have the first floor of ruins count as being opaque? Where does it say I CAN'T run a different mission than the book ones? Nowhere? Ya don't say.

@Lance,

I was going to quote you, but your original vulgarity appeared in the quote box.

Once again, I invite you to show up to a Matched Play event that uses modified victory conditions with whatever you want in your list since its, by your definition Open Play. I am struggling to figure out what your point is. What is the "so what" of your assertion that 99% of games are "Open"? If its that players and TOs have control over how they play then sure. The point of Matched Play, though, is that it further establishes a common gaming language (a lingua franca if you will) that allows players to have a good game without prior coordination. Its one of the great strengths of 40K, and why it has been on top for so long.

I also note that Open Play, as described by the 40K rulebook and indeed the AoS rulebook is quite rare because it takes prior coordination to have a satisfying experience. That the irony of Open Play and why it hasn't really caught on. I have had the equivalent of Open Play games on occasion, but only by prior arrangement and with close friends and family (and I am including using the Open War deck in this). At the FLGS on Saturday afternoon? I bring 2000 points prepared for a Matched Play game.

I am not telling you how to play, and neither is GW or a TO unless you are at their tournament. You can choose to play in tournaments or not. I believe, however, that the majority of games in the wild between two people without prior arrangement are Matched Play using the Matched Play rules and subsequent tweaks found in the various FAQ. Interpretations of the terrain don't change that at all.

Cheers

ERJAK wrote:

Lol, no. That's not how matched vs open vs narrative works at all. GW left wiggle room even in matched play for customizing the rules to suit your individual needs. That's why most of the rules like rule of 3 are 'suggestions' or 'recommendations'.

Open play is when you don't use points and don't bother with army construction rules, the 1 spell per turn rule, or the 1 strategem per phase rule and that's all it is.

Incorrect. You should go read the thing about open play. It is not about power levels, or army construction rules It's about playing your way. Whatever that means. Matched has specific rules you can plug and play. But they are only THOSE specific rules. Like cities of death or advanced terrain rules. That doesn't mean you are ever given permission to do what ever you want. It means you have permission to use THOSE rules or not. Not ANY rules.

You should really try to have even the most basic understanding of what the rules actually are before you get so aggressive about them.

All 3 of the 3 ways to play are guidelines, even matched. Read the book, GW very rarely say you MUST do anything.

I am sorry you find definitive statements to be aggressive. You also should read the book. The 3 ways to play are defined. The one that allows anything is Open. The other 2 have missions and rules. Narrative left quite a bit more open than matched. But matched gets pretty strict about what is and is not allowed even though some of what is allowed is optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am struggling to figure out what your point is. What is the "so what" of your assertion that 99% of games are "Open"? If its that players and TOs have control over how they play then sure. The point of Matched Play, though, is that it further establishes a common gaming language (a lingua franca if you will) that allows players to have a good game without prior coordination. Its one of the great strengths of 40K, and why it has been on top for so long.

If you scroll up to my first post on this page that mentions it you will see that I was responding to someone who asked ...

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

Has anyone ever used Open Play?

...and I answered the question.

I also note that Open Play, as described by the 40K rulebook and indeed the AoS rulebook is quite rare because it takes prior coordination to have a satisfying experience. That the irony of Open Play and why it hasn't really caught on. I have had the equivalent of Open Play games on occasion, but only by prior arrangement and with close friends and family (and I am including using the Open War deck in this). At the FLGS on Saturday afternoon? I bring 2000 points prepared for a Matched Play game.

I am not telling you how to play, and neither is GW or a TO unless you are at their tournament. You can choose to play in tournaments or not. I believe, however, that the majority of games in the wild between two people without prior arrangement are Matched Play using the Matched Play rules and subsequent tweaks found in the various FAQ. Interpretations of the terrain don't change that at all.

Cheers

To your last point, again, disagree. Prove it.

Isn't that mudding the terms though. This way every game would be open, because one store may have 1 hour time limits for games and another may not. Even language used durning the games could make the games not just matched play. Sounds very unclear to me, and based on how people feel and now how the rules are.

Karol wrote:
Isn't that mudding the terms though. This way every game would be open, because one store may have 1 hour time limits for games and another may not. Even language used durning the games could make the games not just matched play. Sounds very unclear to me, and based on how people feel and now how the rules are.

Yup. GW sucks ass at writing rules. The end result is most people end up playing Open. If the rules were concise and clear then I am sure most people would just be very happy to play Matched and that would be great. As it stands 2 people get together and go "Matched but ITC terrain and missions?" and that sets up the expectations for playing the Open Play game they are about to do.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Every time you are unsure of a rule and make up your own it's open. When you decide to play ITC rules it's open. When you decide to make up new terrain rules it's open.

Open is the thing you are playing when you are not strictly playing Matched and/or Narrative RAW.

Just because it's 99% matched doesn't mean it isn't 100% open.

That's a... creative interpretation of Open Play. Reductive to the point pointless in fact.

No, it's what it says in the book.

Open play is the place where you do what you want. Want to use points or Power levels? Open lets you do both. Wanna play matched rules with narrative missions? Thats in the Open section of the book. Narrative has specific rules. Matched has even more specific rules. If you are not following the specific rules then you immediately shift into open. Open doesn't mean NO rules. It means any rules you feel like that match.

I'm of the opinion that words mean what people use them to mean, not what a book tells you they mean. So matched play is actually quite a bit broader than that.

In conversational speech sure. In a rules document no.

I get that when YOU say you play matched what you actually mean is you likepoints, strict list building rules, and MAYBE a certain set of missions? But you might be playing other missions made up by the house rules of ITC or your friends instead? Or maybe you use different ways to determine first player? Or deployment? Or terrain? Or anything really.

See? And thats why what you are actually playing is Open. Even if you like most of Matched.

You summed it up in your reply! So you agree there is a fairly well defined common interpretation of Matched Play in the community.

points, strict list building rules, and MAYBE a certain set of missions

Add into that Matched Play specific special rules like you can't use the same psychic power more than once and paying reinforcement points for summoned units and such.

Yeah, there'll be variations on it. That doesn't stop a broad understanding of what is meant in the community by Matched Play from arrising and also being useful as a baseline for discussion.

Frankly you have chosen bizarre hill to die on defending this position.

This "what people call Matched Play isn't actually Matched Play" discussion is going to get the thread locked, and is unrelated to the original topic. I recommend we get back to the original topic.

Its all being pretty polite. Nobody seems to actually be upset with anyone AND it relates directly to the topic of what 8th is and how we feel about it.

There is no reason for a mod to come in here and lock it.

 Lance845 wrote:
Its all being pretty polite. Nobody seems to actually be upset with anyone AND it relates directly to the topic of what 8th is and how we feel about it.

There is no reason for a mod to come in here and lock it.

I'm happy to agree to disagree with you here and let others talk to be honest. I think if we were going to sway each other it would have happened by now!

8th edition is really really good.

There are some issues around walking away from combat without penalty and power armour being generally awful, but compared to 7th it's amazing.

 Lance845 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am struggling to figure out what your point is. What is the "so what" of your assertion that 99% of games are "Open"? If its that players and TOs have control over how they play then sure. The point of Matched Play, though, is that it further establishes a common gaming language (a lingua franca if you will) that allows players to have a good game without prior coordination. Its one of the great strengths of 40K, and why it has been on top for so long.

If you scroll up to my first post on this page that mentions it you will see that I was responding to someone who asked ...

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

Has anyone ever used Open Play?

...and I answered the question.

I also note that Open Play, as described by the 40K rulebook and indeed the AoS rulebook is quite rare because it takes prior coordination to have a satisfying experience. That the irony of Open Play and why it hasn't really caught on. I have had the equivalent of Open Play games on occasion, but only by prior arrangement and with close friends and family (and I am including using the Open War deck in this). At the FLGS on Saturday afternoon? I bring 2000 points prepared for a Matched Play game.

I am not telling you how to play, and neither is GW or a TO unless you are at their tournament. You can choose to play in tournaments or not. I believe, however, that the majority of games in the wild between two people without prior arrangement are Matched Play using the Matched Play rules and subsequent tweaks found in the various FAQ. Interpretations of the terrain don't change that at all.

Cheers

To your last point, again, disagree. Prove it.

For what it is worth, you are being quite aggressive in your tone. I'm not sure what your axe to grind is. I've been following the thread, and I am still not sure what the point of your interesting definition of Open Play is.

So you think that most people in FLGS/GW stores who meet up for a random game use Open Play? Really? Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I've never seen it in the last two years (I play pretty much every weekend at the FLGS). Its always points with a Matched Play mission. My statement was about games without prior arrangement. So the original question that you bit on still stands. I don't need to take a poll of every gamer in the world, but has anybody here used Open Play in a pick-up game? How often do people here use Open Play as opposed to Matched Play in any format? How many people play without points or power level? Now, there is absolutely Narrative Play out here in the wild.

I play with folks from a number of gaming communities - some from the same town, some from other cities. The only real distinction is that some towns/groups use ITC. That is still Matched Play. You can take your Matched Play list for a BRB Eternal War mission and play in an ITC Matched Play tournament. The list might not be optimized, but its functional nonetheless.

 Lance845 wrote:
Its all being pretty polite. Nobody seems to actually be upset with anyone AND it relates directly to the topic of what 8th is and how we feel about it.

There is no reason for a mod to come in here and lock it.

Your biggest obstacle is many on Dakka have spent a lot time gaking on Open play as a concept and thus will refuse to admit any game they have played would be considered open play.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I am struggling to figure out what your point is. What is the "so what" of your assertion that 99% of games are "Open"? If its that players and TOs have control over how they play then sure. The point of Matched Play, though, is that it further establishes a common gaming language (a lingua franca if you will) that allows players to have a good game without prior coordination. Its one of the great strengths of 40K, and why it has been on top for so long.

If you scroll up to my first post on this page that mentions it you will see that I was responding to someone who asked ...

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

Has anyone ever used Open Play?

...and I answered the question.

I also note that Open Play, as described by the 40K rulebook and indeed the AoS rulebook is quite rare because it takes prior coordination to have a satisfying experience. That the irony of Open Play and why it hasn't really caught on. I have had the equivalent of Open Play games on occasion, but only by prior arrangement and with close friends and family (and I am including using the Open War deck in this). At the FLGS on Saturday afternoon? I bring 2000 points prepared for a Matched Play game.

I am not telling you how to play, and neither is GW or a TO unless you are at their tournament. You can choose to play in tournaments or not. I believe, however, that the majority of games in the wild between two people without prior arrangement are Matched Play using the Matched Play rules and subsequent tweaks found in the various FAQ. Interpretations of the terrain don't change that at all.

Cheers

To your last point, again, disagree. Prove it.

For what it is worth, you are being quite aggressive in your tone. I'm not sure what your axe to grind is. I've been following the thread, and I am still not sure what the point of your interesting definition of Open Play is.

So you think that most people in FLGS/GW stores who meet up for a random game use Open Play? Really? Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I've never seen it in the last two years (I play pretty much every weekend at the FLGS). Its always points with a Matched Play mission. My statement was about games without prior arrangement. So the original question that you bit on still stands. I don't need to take a poll of every gamer in the world, but has anybody here used Open Play in a pick-up game? How often do people here use Open Play as opposed to Matched Play in any format? How many people play without points or power level? Now, there is absolutely Narrative Play out here in the wild.

I play with folks from a number of gaming communities - some from the same town, some from other cities. The only real distinction is that some towns/groups use ITC. That is still Matched Play. You can take your Matched Play list for a BRB Eternal War mission and play in an ITC Matched Play tournament. The list might not be optimized, but its functional nonetheless.

Again, itc is not matched play. Itc is a whole packet of house rules. House rules are open play. They might be widley accepted house rules but the house is itc and they are not matched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Its all being pretty polite. Nobody seems to actually be upset with anyone AND it relates directly to the topic of what 8th is and how we feel about it.

There is no reason for a mod to come in here and lock it.

Your biggest obstacle is many on Dakka have spent a lot time gaking on Open play as a concept and thus will refuse to admit any game they have played would be considered open play.

Yup. Matched is no more or less valid a way to play than open but people have decided to assign a value to it and they will fight to defend that imaginary value.