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.

In my experience, most of the RAW vs RAI arguments tend to get locked not because people are being rude to each other, but because the argument gets so circular and repetitive that the thread has devolved to just that debate.

On the topic of Matched Play, I will say that I tend to agree with the others. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of these RAW arguments tend to revolve around "this is what the rules say, so anything else is wrong". Which, I guess, is fine. It's true that you have to parse the rules in English, and that 40k is a rule set that only allows the things it says it allows. But at the same time, we also have to apply these rules to the "real world". We can't isolate them in a contained system, because that doesn't exist anywhere but within our minds.

So, in the case of "is this Matched Play or Open", maybe by strict RAW it isn't. But, in reality, if you're playing a game that's 99.9% similar to the RAW Matched Play rules, then it's not unreasonable to say "I'm playing Matched Play". Coming up to that person and saying "Well, technically, you're not." seems like kind of a jerk move, specifically done just to irk them. At the same time, it seems kinda silly to bother arguing back about it. Just shrug it off, let that person have their opinion, and get back to playing the game.

 flandarz wrote:
In my experience, most of the RAW vs RAI arguments tend to get locked not because people are being rude to each other, but because the argument gets so circular and repetitive that the thread has devolved to just that debate.

On the topic of Matched Play, I will say that I tend to agree with the others. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of these RAW arguments tend to revolve around "this is what the rules say, so anything else is wrong". Which, I guess, is fine. It's true that you have to parse the rules in English, and that 40k is a rule set that only allows the things it says it allows. But at the same time, we also have to apply these rules to the "real world". We can't isolate them in a contained system, because that doesn't exist anywhere but within our minds.

So, in the case of "is this Matched Play or Open", maybe by strict RAW it isn't. But, in reality, if you're playing a game that's 99.9% similar to the RAW Matched Play rules, then it's not unreasonable to say "I'm playing Matched Play". Coming up to that person and saying "Well, technically, you're not." seems like kind of a jerk move, specifically done just to irk them. At the same time, it seems kinda silly to bother arguing back about it. Just shrug it off, let that person have their opinion, and get back to playing the game.

Okay, I know it really doesn't matter but GW makes 'it doesn't say I can't do it' rules. They might WANT to write rules that only allows things the things it allows, but their actual content is pretty much universally not concise or complete enough to actually do that.


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.

Most games aren't open play. Open play is the narrowest descriptor of any of the modes of play (hilariously enough).

Most games fall somewhere between matched and narrative. You really have to go out of your way for something to actually be 'open'.

Real law doesn't function under RAW much of the time, and GW doesn't write their rules tight enough to even entertain the thought.

1) this isnt a raw vs rai argument. We are not debating if what gw wrote is what they intended. At best we are asking the question "when i do x does it fall under y rule or z rule?"

2) open is not the narrowest definition. Its the broadest. Its has the least amount of rules and those rules are so open ended that they are nigh all encompassing. Matched and narrative are only not included because they are specifically defined as being other.

Lets reverse a question posed to me. Whats your axe to grind against open? Why is it bad to call the games you play what they are? Are you earning some kind of status for calling it matched?

 Lance845 wrote:
2) open is not the narrowest definition.

It really is the narrowest. Open play is defined specifically by not using the army construction rules. Build a list to a set PL following faction limits? You're not playing open play anymore. So while matched and narrative can cover a wide range of game types open play really only applies to "throw whatever models on the table, structure is for losers" nonsense.

Whats your axe to grind against open?

Because it's an idiotic idea, and it's even worse that GW treats it as a legitimate third way to play that is equal to the other two.

(Also idiotic is GW defining narrative vs. matched play primarily by which point system you use, not by whether your approach to the game emphasizes story concepts or symmetrical army/scenario design.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
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.

No game of 40k I have ever played, outside of maybe an early teaching game years ago, could possibly be considered open play. Every game has used a point system and/or FOC restrictions that are explicitly not part of open play.

Okay. Lets do this.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/

Open

Open play is the most flexible system – where you can use any models you like in a game to achieve any sort of objective you like. You can play archetypal scenarios like raids, ambushes or desperate last-stands with “What If” themes, set up races between vehicles, or even use the classic “who would win in a fight between…” as a catalyst for a game with undeniable appeal.

This is also the type of game that lends itself best to team play or multiplayer battles, and is especially useful for those just getting started with Warhammer 40,000 or as a way to try out new models as you are building your way to a larger force. If there is some sort of challenge that can’t be fit into a narrative or matched play game, open play is where it’s at.

Narrative

Narrative play is just what it sounds like – fighting battles based on stories from the far future, whether from campaign books, Black Library novels or legends of your own creation. Perhaps they even form part of an ongoing campaign, or are set in the notorious war zones of the 41st Millennium, such as Armageddon, Cadia, Fenris, Baal… the list goes on. Playing games that tell part of a larger story is what narrative play is all about.

Suggestions for missions that can form the basis of open or narrative play games (including the return of the classic Warhammer 40,000 battle “Meatgrinder”), as well as suggestions on historical and campaign games are all available in the new edition.

Matched

Matched play is the final type of play-style. This system will be very familiar to those of you who play Warhammer 40,000 regularly now. Like the game today, it is based around one of two mission tables of 6 possible battles – either Eternal War, or Maelstrom of War, though the missions briefs have all been updated a little.

Your armies for matched play games will always be Battle-forged (more on that in future) and use points values to help ensure a balanced game. Rules and points for every single model in the game are being realigned for the new edition – so expect to see many units that might have been absent from competitive play make a welcome return. Army selection is still quite open though, and if you have a Battle-forged army for the current edition of Warhammer 40,000, you’ll be able to build a Battle-forged army for the new edition as well.

Matched play also has a few extra rules that impact the game itself, mostly to do with things like deploying reserves, summoning or generating reinforcements, using psychic powers and limiting how often you can use your army’s Stratagems (more on those soon).

BRB

Open

Brilliant ideas are some times the simplest, and open play games of Warhammer40,000 epitomise this.Open play is a style of gaming that allows you to take to the battle field with any army, made up of any Citadel Miniatures from your collection–no restrictions. It’s as straight forward and streamlined as war gaming gets, and it’s a great way to begin.Many players love the deep and complex rules that have traditionally defined table top war gaming, and if that’s your preferred style, then you'll find plenty of support and guidance right here in this book. However, there’s also a lot of fun to be found in a more flexible approach.

...

You can add extra dimensions to your open play games by incorporating any of the rules or guidelines that appear in this and other Warhammer40,000 books, such as rules for Detachments, battle zones and battlefield terrain. Alternatively, you can devise your own missions, creating entirely new objectives or special rules, or you could adapt any existing mission to better suit your needs. The flexible nature of open play means that you can spend as much or as little time as you like reading rules, and it’s a great introduction to the world of table top games.

...

While there are no restrictions or requirements placed on the models you can use in open play games, it’s best to have a chat with your opponent before the game begins to discuss what models you will each be taking in your armies. You can even make use of elements of matched play, like points, if you wish, but it is entirely up to you.

Page 188-189. Prove me wrong.


ITC is house rules that falls under open. If you don't play Matched as matched says you should be playing then you are adapting the rules to suit your needs and you are playing open. If you make up your own terrain rules it's open. If you make up your own missions or play missions made up by someone else it's open.

The BROADEST definition that allows you to do the most things.


Peregrine, in every conceivable way you are wrong. You don't have a single leg to stand on. You don't have to "like" Open play, but unless you are playing pure RAW matched or narrative then that is exactly what you are doing.

 Lance845 wrote:
If there is some sort of challenge that can’t be fit into a narrative or matched play game, open play is where it’s at.

And this is exactly why it's the narrowest. The vast majority of games fit perfectly into matched play or narrative, leaving only the tiny handful of "LOL MY SPACE MARINES HAVE A TYRANID HQ" nonsense for open play.

ITC is house rules that falls under open. If you don't play Matched as matched says you should be playing then you are adapting the rules to suit your needs and you are playing open. If you make up your own terrain rules it's open. If you make up your own missions or play missions made up by someone else it's open.

That is utter nonsense. Not playing by strict RAW does not mean that it isn't a matched play game. An ITC game is played entirely in the style of matched play: TAC armies built to a fixed and equal point limit, symmetrical mission design that emphasizes creating an even playing field, and a focus on competition and skill over cooperative roleplaying. Please don't turn into BCB and derail the thread into arguing over absurd RAW nitpicks that have nothing to do with the way the game is played between real people.

I don't have an axe to grind against Open Play. It is humorous that you describe ITC as Open Play. A format with defined points and missions geared for balance (whether they achieve it or not) is the very essence of Matched Play. The players at an ITC tournament (or any format tournament) don't just decide on the mission, victory conditions and what models they can use when they rock up to the table. It's true that ITC scoring deviates from GW. So what? The players approach the game from a Matched Play frame with all of those restrictions.

Its true that Open Play can incorporate rules from other methods, but lets see where that goes. So you decide to have an Open Play night with 2,000 points, three Detachment limits, Rule of Three, Psychic Focus etc. Are you still playing Open? I can say that we are having Matched Play 2,000 points on Saturdays and everybody knows what to do.

The essence of Open Play from the BRB is "While there are no restrictions or requirements placed on the models you can use in open play games, it's best to have a chat with your opponent before the game begins to discuss what models you will each be taking." There is nothing wrong with that, I just have not seen it happen in the real world. In the real world I have seen players use the Matched Play section of the BRB with the subsequent FAQs and Chapter Approved to frame their games. I figure I could go to any FLGS on 40K night with a 2,000 point list and find a Matched Play game quite quickly. Open play? Not so much.

Have a look at the boards/threads here. How many are about open play? They are pretty much focused on Matched Play. Battle reports on Youtube? Matched play.

Open play allows GW to publish the core rules in a pamphlet and have a complete game for beginners. The rules for Matched Play are about three times as long as the core rules. It's fine if you enjoy open play. Play away!

Again, I agree that you like Matched and you think of what you do as Matched. But if you were to ever decide to crack open your rule book and actually read it you would find out that what you are doing is Open.

Nothing about Open says you CAN'T get competitive and gear it towards balance. That is a pre-concieved notion that the community has developed probably because of the early days of AoS.

Geared for balanced competitive play is not mutually exclusive from Open. But deviating from the published rules to create your own terrain and missions is mutually exclusive from Matched. It is however fully encouraged in Open.


If any of you have ANY sources to cite that say you are free to just make up your own rules for matched play I am happy to read them. Until then I cited my sources. At this point you are arguing with the rule book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If there is some sort of challenge that can’t be fit into a narrative or matched play game, open play is where it’s at.

And this is exactly why it's the narrowest. The vast majority of games fit perfectly into matched play or narrative, leaving only the tiny handful of "LOL MY SPACE MARINES HAVE A TYRANID HQ" nonsense for open play.

I like that you picked the single line from the community article before the game came out and not all the quoted text from the actual rule book. THAT part you ignored.

Matched has the most rules that you HAVE to follow in addition to the 8 page rules. Any optional rules for Matched are the most codified and structured. There is no permission in matched to make up rules that have not been provided for you.

Open allows you to do all of that... or not. And make up anything else.

Narrow... broad.... narrow... broad. Some might even call it open?

ITC is house rules that falls under open. If you don't play Matched as matched says you should be playing then you are adapting the rules to suit your needs and you are playing open. If you make up your own terrain rules it's open. If you make up your own missions or play missions made up by someone else it's open.

That is utter nonsense. Not playing by strict RAW does not mean that it isn't a matched play game. An ITC game is played entirely in the style of matched play: TAC armies built to a fixed and equal point limit, symmetrical mission design that emphasizes creating an even playing field, and a focus on competition and skill over cooperative roleplaying. Please don't turn into BCB and derail the thread into arguing over absurd RAW nitpicks that have nothing to do with the way the game is played between real people.

It actually does mean just that. Unless you can quote the BRB saying you are allowed to make up your own missions and rules for matched then the only thing anyone has to go on here is you. Whats your official status again?

Wow this thread derailed twice, but anyway I'll try to be on topic to try and put it back on track.

What are my thoughts on 8th?

Well firstly I'll put a disclaimer: As part of my hobby specifically I make a copious amount of time on custom rules, making my own games, etc. I have made groups on social media for specific games for custom rules which have proven to be popular. I have spent many years doing this so I tend to think of things from a games dev's perspective as well as a players. I will also be recounting player experiences of my own and maybe observations of others. Know I hold no grudges nor malicious intent towards any player, person, army or list choice, these are just my thoughts and perspectives, not a critique on personality be it personal or people I don't know.

Ok so with that in mind, my thoughts have to go from my experience in a chronological order of the longevity of the 8th.

I really enjoyed 8th ed. at the start. All the index's were released and everything appeared on point. There were powerful units and a few combo's here and there but nothing that took me too out of the game, I felt as though I had a sense of agency and reaction to other peoples lists and armies when playing my CSM. I didn't feel as though my night lord choices were 'wrong' choices.

When the codex's were initially released I didn't feel they were too bad, there wasn't anything that screamed in my face that was broken so I rolled with it. My average games still felt as though I could react to my opponents moves and tactics.

It was halfway through the codex releases that I felt GW had went back to their old clutches of power creep. Eldar changed from invisible waithknights to just play on the negative modifiers, Tau went from markerlight spam to shield drones: The Codex (Don't get me wrong Markerlights are still a pain but I find shield drones a much more pressing issue). Imperium is Imperium now. Gradually I felt my agency, or my own choices, slowly erode. Not only just from external balance but also from FAQ's and such.

This then puts me in modern day of the game. Do I still have fun? For me it's a yes and no. I still enjoy the game to a degree but once again I have to pick and choose my opponent and I have to know what sort of game I'm going into. I thought this was something 8th ed. was trying to fix?

So what went 'wrong?' Well I can only bullet point my exact thoughts.

1) Player Agency: The most important part of a game is to make sure all players feel as though they add something that contributes to the battle. From this people can value a match more positively than negatively. At the start all you had were three strats, the power of a unit and maybe the odd aura buff. This was expanded, which is not inherently a bad choice but they way it was executed was poor. The expanded strats, subfaction traits, and aura buffs have stopped really trying to make a flavorful army but rather now build momentum of an probability race to turn as much probability factor to 0% as possible. This isn't healthy externally because it takes away your options on how you fight a specific match and creates mismatches that aren't fun. In some cases you just can't fight certain lists because some armies can play to this and some can't. it then creates an atmosphere of 'faux' options which can make players feel 'cheated' out of just buying models they preferred.

Take one experience I had recently. I played my Night Lords (In that game I changed them to Alpha Legion, because my stores tournament rules allows us to use whatever subfaction rules for our forces as long as it's all uniform) along with Red Corsairs against Shadowsuns T'au sept. The board was very open so everything could really see everything. They took the first turn and then proceeded to markerlight everything up and decimate half of my army. In my turn I couldn't really retaliate because anything that could damage major parts of my opponents army could just be shrugged off on shield drones. Turn 2 I was tabled. We then proceeded to play another game on a board with more LoS blocking terrain and I was still tabled but the game lasted until turn 6. What i felt was that I had a major disadvantage because I don't have tools in my CSM force as efficient as Markerlights and shield drones. Back in older editions Markerlights were another economy for Tau. Now it's more like gardening where you just 'Grow your own' and then just get point blank buffs that other armies at most have to spend CP on. While I enjoyed the second game more than my first both games still left a slight bad aftertaste in my mouth per say, and only cemented my view that in early game you need to rename one shooting phase to "destroy ALL the drones, then lick your wounds phase". A game shouldn't create this feeling of absolution.

2) Amount of Hard counters: With this race to make probability to 0% presents a lot of hard counters which can make players feel frustrated during gameplay. In my turn to provide my own case of dickery (because I am no saint) on how I reacted to my area, I now play (with AL trait) three Oblits with a Jump Lord and Jump Sorc. The Sorc had prescience and Death Hex and the Oblits have Mark of Slannesh. The case is simple. I drop them down 12" away from my target(s), I take away their Inv Sv (if they have one) and make my Oblits hit on 2+ with prescience. My Lord re-roll's 1's for the unit. I then point and click a unit out of existence, then shoot again with strat and right-click another unit out of existence. While I certainly have reacted to the competitive shift in my area well, from a design point of view I shouldn't be able to do this. My opponent know what's coming and they know that unless they have something short of a 2+ inv. They can't react against this unit. once again providing a negative player experience, this time for my opponent.

In addition to hard counters there is also the case that with my Night Lords I can never really play them anymore as what they should be because Morale is a bloated phase for most armies. What incentive for me as a Night lords player should I play against Tyranids or Dark Angels? They get their sub-faction trait a special rule to get rid of mine and also all their toys to boot! Soft counters like And they shall know no fear is ok because the morale is still affected but hard counters only serve to provide frustrating play which only makes one to refuse games. A game should not make any player feel or make choices as fundamental as that. The whole 'Tiers' with codex's makes once gain a frustrating experience for many a player because it only serves as some gambling wheel of fortune and you're the one praying for a good codex release. Some of my opponent's just say that to win this edition, depending on what your facing is to just 'win the die roll' (within context of the die roll to deploy) which I can't really say that's wrong anymore.

Similarly another example from My Night Lords is that all my jump units now just sit on a shelf, because functionally they are unplayable. They FAQ had restricted them far too much with measuring in charge distance and so what looked like common sense (like the unit of raptors jumping from rooftops to close in on their prey) is practically undo-able, because from understanding, one player got smug with the game dev at a GT with their smash captain on a 0" charge. These hard counters just provide even more of an frustrating experience which shouldn't happen in a game.

3) 8th wanted to be new but ultimately has succumbed to old editions:

Probably my most controversial view. When 8th was released GW presented it to be revolutionary. this was the all-new edition, with an all-new simpler and more 'fun' experience. But as the edition has aged, I can see the old editions problems seep in. The new stat line isn't really all that new. From a designers perspective, they could have had much more fun with this. I refuse to believe an Guardsman moves as fast as a Marine and an Eldar. Why does a standard Marine have as many wounds as a Guardsman? Imo Guardsmen and equivalents should have had 4" of movement. Marines should have had 5" and Primaris and Eldar should have had 6". How much would this edition change with that in mind? Imagine Marines having 2-3 wounds and Primaris just an extra +1 to whatever a marines had. Terminators having 5-6 wounds a piece? This might sound ludicrous and to a degree I would agree but it would have certainly solved the elite Vs. Horde issue the game has and make marines feel like marines imo in GW's more streamlined approach. Why does armies special rules for arrival from reserves need to be standardised? why can't a unit of Warp Talons arrive by 6" a drop pod by 7"?

This to me would have meant that they could have had wider variables to play with which meant less hard counters by strats and such. They wanted a new edition but clutched to elder stat lines from editions before, but I don't blame entirely the dev's for going this route as I feel the playtesters have an equal part to play. From what I understand is that the playtesters (forming a microcosm of the wider playerbase) wanted more incentives than restrictions. This I can understand as the older editions were restricting, bit now the pendulum has swung the other way and it's either incentive the players or don't bother. We need more restrictions so we can have player agency return to the game. Nothing really, well, changed in regards to the power creep. They experiment with early codex's then get carried away in an edition halfway through. This is just bad practice that they only get away with because their the largest company out there.

To conclude, do I hate this edition? No, there are some things they added that I wanted two editions ago, like a Damage characteristic and a streamlined WS/BS chart. But the power creep that early editions had still persist in this edition. They wanted to make something new but still clutched on to the old which to me has bled through in this edition, so could I say I enjoy this edition? I can't really say that I do anymore, just that I take what I can get. I don't view any edition with rose-tinted glasses and I've been playing since 2007. The edition I feel is neither better or worse, but exactly the same as elder editions.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The essence of Open Play from the BRB is "While there are no restrictions or requirements placed on the models you can use in open play games, it's best to have a chat with your opponent before the game begins to discuss what models you will each be taking."

See, I would argue that instead of that single sentence taken from the 6th paragraph on the second page speaking directly about building lists in open play as it's "essence", that instead this line from closer to it's conclusion better encapsulates what open play is all about.

You should feel free to tinker with any aspect of playing a game of Warhammer 40,000 that appeals to you.

And this is why I said it's another RAW vs RAI argument. The two sides are: "You're only playing Matched if you go strictly by the book" and "You're playing Matched if the spirit of the game is in line with Matched Play rules, even if you add caveats and additional/less rules".

Just going off the rules you posted, I'm not even sure if you're correct that they aren't playing Matched. Here are the restrictions required to make a Matched Play game, directly from the rules you quoted.

1) based around one of two mission tables of 6 possible battles – either Eternal War, or Maelstrom of War

2) armies for matched play games will always be Battle-forged

3) has a few extra rules that impact the game itself, mostly to do with things like deploying reserves, summoning or generating reinforcements, using psychic powers and limiting how often you can use your army’s Stratagems

From what I can see, as long as your game follows those three things, you're playing a Matched Play game, regardless of anything extra you include or do not include.

 flandarz wrote:
And this is why I said it's another RAW vs RAI argument. The two sides are: "You're only playing Matched if you go strictly by the book" and "You're playing Matched if the spirit of the game is in line with Matched Play rules, even if you add caveats and additional/less rules".

Just going off the rules you posted, I'm not even sure if you're correct that they aren't playing Matched. Here are the restrictions required to make a Matched Play game, directly from the rules you quoted.

1) based around one of two mission tables of 6 possible battles – either Eternal War, or Maelstrom of War

2) armies for matched play games will always be Battle-forged

3) has a few extra rules that impact the game itself, mostly to do with things like deploying reserves, summoning or generating reinforcements, using psychic powers and limiting how often you can use your army’s Stratagems

From what I can see, as long as your game follows those three things, you're playing a Matched Play game, regardless of anything extra you include or do not include.

That Matched play quote is from the community article show casing the 3 ways to play before the game came out. If you want to see rules for what Matched play is dig into the BRB and find a quote that gives you permission to just make gak up.

Pages 212-213 is a good place to start. Just read them now myself. Know whats interesting? Points are not required for Matched. Neither is Power Levels. 2 opponents can agree to x number of units and it would still be considered matched as long as those units fit into detachments.

Considering those were the points you quoted to support your case, I felt it was fine to use them in a counterargument. Unless you're saying that other people need to support their argument with BRB quotes, but you do not.

 flandarz wrote:
Considering those were the points you quoted to support your case, I felt it was fine to use them in a counterargument. Unless you're saying that other people need to support their argument with BRB quotes, but you do not.

I supported mine with both. A overview of the 3 ways to play from the community article and the direct quotes from the BRB about open play.

Also, be aware that you're trying to convince them that they are not playing Matched Play, while they maintain the position that they are. As such, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, not on theirs.

 flandarz wrote:
Also, be aware that you're trying to convince them that they are not playing Matched Play, while they maintain the position that they are. As such, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, not on theirs.

Incorrect. They are arguing that the game gives them permissions to do a thing under a specific rule set. If that was true they could quote and reference a page. I am not seeing any yet.

Yes, you quoted the Open Play rules. But without the context of the Matched Play rules, they're without meaning. Like telling someone what a banana peel is without first describing what is a banana. Your goal is to describe what the difference between the two types of play are. If you only provide information on one of them, then you can't adequately present your case.

 flandarz wrote:
Yes, you quoted the Open Play rules. But without the context of the Matched Play rules, they're without meaning. Like telling someone what a banana peel is without first describing what is a banana. Your goal is to describe what the difference between the two types of play are. If you only provide information on one of them, then you can't adequately present your case.

I will not quote the entirety of the matched play section of the rule book onto the forums. Not only is it against the rules of the forum, you all could just claim I left something out.

No thank you. I am not doing your homework for you.

If you think Matched play gives you permissions to do something, find the relevant text and post a quote and page reference.

Yes, they are. And unless you can provide proof that it does not, then they will not be convinced otherwise. Their argument isn't that YOU are playing wrong. YOUR argument is that they are playing wrong. In this debate, you are the aggressor and they are the defenders. As such, again, the burden of proof lies with you. If you feel they are wrong, you must present an irrefutable case for it.

 flandarz wrote:
Yes, they are. And unless you can provide proof that it does not, then they will not be convinced otherwise. Their argument isn't that YOU are playing wrong. YOUR argument is that they are playing wrong. In this debate, you are the aggressor and they are the defenders. As such, again, the burden of proof lies with you. If you feel they are wrong, you must present an irrefutable case for it.

You cannot prove a negative. Things that don't exist don't leave evidence. I cannot provide a page reference for a line of text that doesn't exist.

If that is the case, then I would highly suggest you just drop the argument. It obviously isn't worth your time to convince them, and they're unlikely to back down without convincing proof. At this point, it's an exercise in futility and a waste of everyone's time. Just brush it off and allow them to use what terms they like and play in the way that they want.

 flandarz wrote:
If that is the case, then I would highly suggest you just drop the argument. It obviously isn't worth your time to convince them, and they're unlikely to back down without convincing proof. At this point, it's an exercise in futility and a waste of everyone's time. Just brush it off and allow them to use what terms they like and play in the way that they want.

I already told them they could. They are 100% in their rights to be wrong. Nobody could stop them if they wanted to. If they want to keep arguing that they are right then they should provide some proof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe the realization that Matched play is not what they thought it was, both because it does not require points AND because it is nowhere near as flexible as they thought will impact their opinions on the current edition of 40k.

For me, I understand what Open play is and that we have been playing it. My opinions on this edition are taken on the edition as a whole. I continue to think it's a bloated mess that need to be put down and started over. Things were relatively great at launch. It's been down hill from there.

I dunno. Kinda seems to me like you're actively provoking them into an argument when you say they're "allowed to be wrong". And, again, their role isn't to prove to you that they're right. It's to defend their position that they are right. It's a subtle difference, but the main thing is that because of their role, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are wrong. I know you said you can't find proof that doesn't exist and that you can't quote all the rules for matched play. That's fine. So you need to go about it in a different manner then.

I utilized the evidence you provided to give a counterargument, for example. That being that as long as they do the three things I outlined (Battle-forged, Missions, Matched Play rules such as 1 Stratagem per Phase), they are following Matched Play rules. Now, if there are additional caveats that are required to be followed for a game to be considered Matched Play, then it would be on you to provide them, rather than say "do your research". It isn't the burden of the defender to provide evidence to support your case, no more than it is your burden to provide evidence to support your opponents. But, if you can't find additional rules that they are not following when they claim they're playing Matched Play, then you cannot say that they're wrong.

After giving it a really good and solid go. The best way I can sum up 8th Ed is:

"8th edition is like the RC cola of coke. Some people like it, but ultimately is a less flavorful knock off version of Coca-Cola."

8th did not really deliver as the savior of 40k it simply resolved the problems of 7th and made a bunch of new ones, or simply put a new mask or existing problems. For example.

No more USR, yet we now have how many different ways to say atsknf, and DS
No more arguing about blast templates, instead we get to argue about super ambiguous keywords and rules.
No more death star units, instead we just have 30 man plus meat shields to characters that are buffing the whole army.

Ontop or all of this, 8th managed to loose more flexibility in the game. Now I'd you want to have any sense of chance with an army you have to run that armies gimmick or your super handy capped.

For all it's flaws I enjoyed the depth 7th brought over the blandness of 8th where no army really feels unique anymore.

 Lance845 wrote:
Nothing about Open says you CAN'T get competitive and gear it towards balance.

Nothing, except the way GW presents it. The primary thing they mention with open play is the freedom to do whatever you want without the restrictions (points, detachments, etc) of matched or narrative play. Throw a random tyranid unit in with your space marines, etc. The use of the more restrictive rules of the other systems is a minor and vague footnote about "by the way, you can use more rules if you want". You can argue absurd BCB-style RAW all you want if you're obsessed with "winning" a forum argument, but in the real world when someone says "open play" they are expecting a game that removes the restrictions of matched play and is not in any way concerned with competition.

But deviating from the published rules to create your own terrain and missions is mutually exclusive from Matched.

No, it is simply a variant of of strict RAW matched play. The style of play is entirely in line with the matched play concept and opposed to the concept of open play. This is a fact that everyone understands, other than you and BCB apparently.

Open allows you to do all of that... or not.

Except, again, open play permits the most things but most of those things are nonsense or better covered by matched or narrative play. If GW deleted every single reference to open play from the rulebook hardly anyone would notice its absence, something you can't say about matched or narrative play. That's because matched and narrative play cover the vast majority of 40k games played by real people, while open play is only useful for a tiny minority of weird scenarios.

 flandarz wrote:
I dunno. Kinda seems to me like you're actively provoking them into an argument when you say they're "allowed to be wrong". And, again, their role isn't to prove to you that they're right. It's to defend their position that they are right. It's a subtle difference, but the main thing is that because of their role, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are wrong. I know you said you can't find proof that doesn't exist and that you can't quote all the rules for matched play. That's fine. So you need to go about it in a different manner then.

No, you are just wrong about this. I only need to defened my position, which I have done. They need to defend theirs. Which they have not. This pseudo-legislative nonsense you are saying has no basis in anything. Why don't YOU do them a favor and find us a quote?

I utilized the evidence you provided to give a counterargument, for example. That being that as long as they do the three things I outlined (Battle-forged, Missions, Matched Play rules such as 1 Stratagem per Phase), they are following Matched Play rules. Now, if there are additional caveats that are required to be followed for a game to be considered Matched Play, then it would be on you to provide them, rather than say "do your research". It isn't the burden of the defender to provide evidence to support your case, no more than it is your burden to provide evidence to support your opponents. But, if you can't find additional rules that they are not following when they claim they're playing Matched Play, then you cannot say that they're wrong.

Again, wrong.

But just for the sake of argument. Matched play rules does not include ITC missions. There fore ITC cannot be Matched... by your own logic at least.

The simple fact here is that strict RAW is irrelevant if that's not how people are playing the game in the real world. You can quote RAW all you want and everyone will collectively ignore you because you have nothing useful to say. No amount of "BUT RAW" is going to change the fact that there is a virtually unanimous understanding of the three systems and a set of expectations for them.

If you say "open play" the expectation is minimal, if any, limits on what models you bring and a casual attitude towards the game. If you show up with your latest ITC list and annihilate some newbie with a space marine starter box you will be labeled TFG and nobody will play with you. If you propose using the ITC tournament rules and playing a competitive "open play" game the few people who do have any interest in open play will look very confused and suggest that you go find some of the tournament players for a matched play game.

If you say "narrative play" the expectation is cooperative scenario and army design where the focus is on a particular story concept. If you say "show me the rules that allow you to make up your own terrain or characters" the fact that nobody can provide a RAW citation for doing so is going to have exactly zero relevance, and the narrative players will go back to playing their narrative game while you sit in the corner and cuddle your rulebook.

If you say "matched play" the expectation is the full structure for army construction, balanced and symmetrical mission design, and a focus on a competitive test of skill. If you say "THAT'S NOT MATCHED PLAY, TELL ME WHAT RULES SAY YOU CAN DO THAT" because a group is using the ITC rules they're just going to tell you to GTFO and stop wasting their time, they have a tournament to practice for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Matched play rules does not include ITC missions.

Matched play, just like narrative and open play, is an approach to playing the game. It is not a comprehensive set of every single rule that must be followed with absolute obedience to avoid being labeled "open play". Arguing that strict RAW does not contain the ITC missions is missing the point entirely.

Again Peregrine. I understand that you feel that way. Your feelings are noted. Your feelings are also wrong and founded on nothing.

There is a rule book that we all bought that apparently you never bothered to actually read. You can decide to use the terms however you feel like. Thats fine. Enjoy it. Fact: you are still playing open and have been probably every game of 8th you have ever played. Maybe that makes you mad for some reason? It's irrational but apparently it does.

You should start by reading the book you bought.

Matched, open, and narrative is like picking witch sport you want to play.

ITC is like picking If you want to play touch or tackle football, your playing football either way, it's just do you want to tackle?