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.

You would be defending your position if it was: "this is what the rules say Matched Play is." But your position thus far has been "you are not playing Matched Play". Again, a subtle difference, but one that clearly makes you the aggressor party. As evidenced by saying "you are wrong". However, even in the case of the former, you have not defended your position, as you have failed to provide rules for what Matched Play is. You've provided a quote which you then claimed to not fully encompass the rules, and you've provided rules for Open Play.

Psuedo-legislative or no, I'm trying to help you out here. If your evidence fails to convince your target of your point, then you've failed to provide a cohesive argument. If your goal is to prove that they are not playing Matched Play, then you have to provide evidence of this. Thus far, it seems you haven't managed to do this. That's why I recommended that you drop the argument. If you are unable to provide enough support for your position to persuade your opponents, then continuing to argue the point becomes an exercise in futility. Unfortunately, GW isn't the best when it comes to rules writing and this board has restrictions on just how much of the rules you can quote.

If I am wrong, it would be nice to know in what way. Just saying "you're wrong" isn't a very good argument. However, I appreciate that you provided the additional information as to what would constitute a Matched Play situation. If 40k is a permissive ruleset (which, to be fair, is RAI as no rule in the book says "you can only do the things we say you can do"), then yes. ITC would technically be Open Play, because you are not given permission to use the rules of ITC in Matched Play. However, I would argue that by RAI, it would be Matched Play. But, again, RAW vs RAI arguments never turn out well, so I'll leave that there.

Again, nobody cares about your over-literal RAW nitpicking. It isn't how the game is played in the real world, and no amount of "BUT SHOW ME A RULEBOOK CITATION" is going to change the fact that in the real world everyone understands what is meant by the three different ways to play the game. This is just a pointless exercise in forum argument masturbation, even if you "win" the victory is meaningless because in the real world people will continue to ignore anything you have to say. So fine, label things in whatever way makes you happy. But please take your derailment somewhere else and leave this thread for discussion of how the game is actually played. I hear YMDC and BCB would love to have your insights.

And that's my last word on this ridiculous tangent unless you can come up with an argument that has anything to do with how the game is played in the real world. I'm done responding to pointless attempts to "win" with an exercise in absurdist nonsense that makes the flat earthers look reasonable.

Just ignore him, I have only been reading the last few posts and it's really clear the guy is making the argument of

"Your not hobbying my way there for you are wrong"

You could present a mountain of information that supports our position and it would not be enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Again, nobody cares about your over-literal RAW nitpicking. It isn't how the game is played in the real world, and no amount of "BUT SHOW ME A RULEBOOK CITATION" is going to change the fact that in the real world everyone understands what is meant by the three different ways to play the game. This is just a pointless exercise in forum argument masturbation, even if you "win" the victory is meaningless because in the real world people will continue to ignore anything you have to say. So fine, label things in whatever way makes you happy. But please take your derailment somewhere else and leave this thread for discussion of how the game is actually played. I hear YMDC and BCB would love to have your insights.

And that's my last word on this ridiculous tangent unless you can come up with an argument that has anything to do with how the game is played in the real world. I'm done responding to pointless attempts to "win" an exercise in absurdist nonsense that make the flat earthers look reasonable.

This, and also, dat casual bcb Brun, some one call the police there has been a murder and they were not even here to defend themselves!

See, if something is going to get the thread locked it's going to be this kind of pettiness while slinging insults. You could just acknowledge the rules, say how you wish they were/how you choose to ignore them, be on topic with how that makes you feel about the current edition of the game, and mention your wishes for the next edition.

Your mean spirited bs is the actual derailment of the thread.

Also because I said why the hell not
.

Might wanna check the BRB page 173 matched play: this section includes a further 12 missions that are designed to compliment the rules of battle forged armies and creat a gaming experience where both players have as equal a chance of securing victory.

Turning to page 212:
there are several ways to choose an army for matched play typically you and your opponent will build an army to an agreed point limit but you could also for example build armies that have a set number of units alternatively you could use the wound characteristics or the power rating of each unit either setting up an upper limit for each unit or a fixed total for both armies these are just a few examples of ways you can organize an army fort matched play you and your opponent can use any system you like as long as you both agree.

Page 213
...some tournaments or events apply extra rules which may affect the armies you can choose creating new challenges for players for example they might limit battleforge armies to breed attachments or introduce exclusive attachments for you to use.

Raw literally says I can use any system I want and it's considered matched play so long as I find a balancing mechanic. Get wrecked nerd books literal raw say that I can do it how ever I want as long as both sides agree, and it's still considered matched play.

Ergo ITC is matched play.

Shout out to the text to speech creator.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Also because I said why the hell not
.

Might wanna check the BRB page 173 matched play: this section includes a further 12 missions that are designed to compliment the rules of battle forged armies and creat a gaming experience where both players have as equal a chance of securing victory.

Turning to page 212:
there are several ways to choose an army for matched play typically you and your opponent will build an army to an agreed point limit but you could also for example build armies that have a set number of units alternatively you could use the wound characteristics or the power rating of each unit either setting up an upper limit for each unit or a fixed total for both armies these are just a few examples of ways you can organize an army fort matched play you and your opponent can use any system you like as long as you both agree.

Raw literally says I can use any system I want and it's considered matched play so long as I find a balancing mechanic. Get wrecked nerd books literal raw say that I can do it how ever I want as long as both sides agree, and it's still considered matched play.

Ergo ITC is matched play.

Shout out to the text to speech creator.

I actually pointed out that points was not a requirement to Peregrine who was dead set that matched required points and battle forged (battleforged is still a requirement). Nothing lets you pick ITC missions. pg 173 directs you to the 12 missions in the matched play section of the book. I.E. the only 12 missions allowed in the brb (actually it's 16: there is one mission for each of the bonus rules types like cities of death if you are playing with those rules). Some more missions have been added since in other books. Nothing lets you make up new terrain rules.

Ergo, ITC is open.

So this thread has now become Lance basically saying "My opinions are right. Your opinions may be based on fact and literal interpretation of the rules, but they are still wrong because they are not MY opinions. Last word!!!", correct?


This should get entertaining at least before the lock...

 Just Tony wrote:
So this thread has now become Lance basically saying "My opinions are right. Your opinions may be based on fact and literal interpretation of the rules, but they are still wrong because they are not MY opinions. Last word!!!", correct?


This should get entertaining at least before the lock...

Reverse that bit. Ive provided rule book references to support my arguments. I am not arguing opinion. Again, I don't actually care what you go home and do. Presenting your opinions as facts will get disputed by facts. If you have facts to support your argument I am happy to see them. Please, by all means, prove me wrong. Happy to be proven wrong.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So this thread has now become Lance basically saying "My opinions are right. Your opinions may be based on fact and literal interpretation of the rules, but they are still wrong because they are not MY opinions. Last word!!!", correct?


This should get entertaining at least before the lock...

Reverse that bit. Ive provided rule book references to support my arguments. I am not arguing opinion. Again, I don't actually care what you go home and do. Presenting your opinions as facts will get disputed by facts. If you have facts to support your argument I am happy to see them. Please, by all means, prove me wrong. Happy to be proven wrong.

Soooo.. Where about did the OP ask about RAW Vs. RAI from the rulebook about definitions of Matched play Vs. Open play? Pretty sure this was meant to be opinions of 8th ed and not Who's right or wrong on semantics....

Really dislike the game right now and Peregrine summed my thoughts up on page 1. This is my first edition too and my group has now moved onto different things. All I do is paint and collect minis now.

I think that GW should have taken a page from WotC with their rulebook and included a passage similar to this one: "the rules that follow are meant to be guidelines to ensure all players have a basic understanding of the game. However, your group may decide to deviate from the rules printed here, and that is perfectly fine. The important part is that everyone has a good time." Then maybe include some sidebars with some example "alternative rules". I believe a good tabletop game gives you the framework you need to play, while also allowing you the leeway to adapt it to fit your group's playstyle. It's why 40k RAW vs RAI always seem so intense; because the ruleset is so rigid in what you can and cannot do. It's why so many people deviate from the ruleset already. It's just not flexible enough (or well written enough) to fit every single group's idea of the ideal 40k experience.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
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!

The essence of open play is that anything goes and that it is on the players to make that an enjoyable experience - with great power comes great responsibility.

As for open play using points/detachments etc. We had a real run of games at one point where we used the open play cards to generate the games but were always still using either PL or points to build our armies, mostly points in the end. This was still very much open play because the highly skewed results you can get out of the open play deck really do force you to behave like grownups and make sure that what you are doing is fun (or at least a useful learning experience) for both participants.

While we had most of the paraphernalia of matched play nobody would call all of those matches evenly balanced due to the effects of the cards, they are a particular form of open play.

As for why anyone would do that - it is the best way to learn the game I have seen so far. It makes you think on your feet and build some resilience to keep playing in seemingly doomed positions - skills you need to do well in tournaments. The lack of online commentary on this stuff is IMO a reflection of the lack of wider understanding of how to actually learn to play a game well and the processes you might use to achieve that. When I coached soccer we did not just pick teams and play a match every coaching session, we conditioned the games with special rules to get the kids to think differently, play differently and actually learn skills rather than just use the ones they already had to win games. Over time that makes them much better players than just playing matches. Similarly just playing tournament missions all the time does not make you a great player - it is a very poor way to learn the game with low payback per hour expended.

 flandarz wrote:
I think that GW should have taken a page from WotC with their rulebook and included a passage similar to this one: "the rules that follow are meant to be guidelines to ensure all players have a basic understanding of the game. However, your group may decide to deviate from the rules printed here, and that is perfectly fine. The important part is that everyone has a good time." Then maybe include some sidebars with some example "alternative rules". I believe a good tabletop game gives you the framework you need to play, while also allowing you the leeway to adapt it to fit your group's playstyle. It's why 40k RAW vs RAI always seem so intense; because the ruleset is so rigid in what you can and cannot do. It's why so many people deviate from the ruleset already. It's just not flexible enough (or well written enough) to fit every single group's idea of the ideal 40k experience.

There is a passage, and its called the most important rule. Whenever an unclear situation comes up, have a quick chat with your opponent, and apply the solution that makes most sense, or seems the most fun.

Well there has been some really interesting discussion since I started this thread, from close combat rules to terrain and cover an lots of other things.

Now we seem to have been stuck in a rather pointless discussion on what open and matched play is
.
Maybe we could go back to the interesting stuff?

 flandarz wrote:
I think that GW should have taken a page from WotC with their rulebook and included a passage similar to this one: "the rules that follow are meant to be guidelines to ensure all players have a basic understanding of the game. However, your group may decide to deviate from the rules printed here, and that is perfectly fine. The important part is that everyone has a good time." Then maybe include some sidebars with some example "alternative rules". I believe a good tabletop game gives you the framework you need to play, while also allowing you the leeway to adapt it to fit your group's playstyle. It's why 40k RAW vs RAI always seem so intense; because the ruleset is so rigid in what you can and cannot do. It's why so many people deviate from the ruleset already. It's just not flexible enough (or well written enough) to fit every single group's idea of the ideal 40k experience.

If I wanted to play a wishy-washy overpriced roleplaying game, I'd play a wishy-washy overpriced roleplaying game instead of a poorly written overpriced "wargame".

You wouldn't have that clause in Chess, so why have it in 40k? The entire point of a wargame is to pit two armies against each other and utilise the rule system to achieve a win state.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I think that GW should have taken a page from WotC with their rulebook and included a passage similar to this one: "the rules that follow are meant to be guidelines to ensure all players have a basic understanding of the game. However, your group may decide to deviate from the rules printed here, and that is perfectly fine. The important part is that everyone has a good time." Then maybe include some sidebars with some example "alternative rules". I believe a good tabletop game gives you the framework you need to play, while also allowing you the leeway to adapt it to fit your group's playstyle. It's why 40k RAW vs RAI always seem so intense; because the ruleset is so rigid in what you can and cannot do. It's why so many people deviate from the ruleset already. It's just not flexible enough (or well written enough) to fit every single group's idea of the ideal 40k experience.

If I wanted to play a wishy-washy overpriced roleplaying game, I'd play a wishy-washy overpriced roleplaying game instead of a poorly written overpriced "wargame".

You wouldn't have that clause in Chess, so why have it in 40k? The entire point of a wargame is to pit two armies against each other and utilise the rule system to achieve a win state.

Nice strawman. I'm in no way defending 40k's rules, as frankly they do need a cleanup but they are far more complicated (sometimes needlessly so) than Chess and you know it. Chess' rules are simple and deeply complex whilst almost all wargames due to the nature of rules bloat are incredibly complicated and need "most important rule" clauses as every single eventuality will simply not be covered.

I do remember GW had this Golden Rule as it was written. Not anymore ? In the very beginning of the rulesbook.
The most important thing is to have fun blablabla

 godardc wrote:
I do remember GW had this Golden Rule as it was written. Not anymore ? In the very beginning of the rulesbook.
The most important thing is to have fun blablabla

Nope. It's still there in the 8 pages of rules.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf page 6 of the PDF.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Because a mortar vehicle might be on the frontline or an artillery gun could get ambushed and be forced to act as an AT gun. But planes are too fast and shoudln't even be on the bloody board. Every single aircraft in TT could cross the board in less than a second because of how small it is. Even CAS is extremely fast for 'subsonic' (and 40k CAS isn't subsonic, but hypersonic) and thus shouldn't even be visible.

Meanwhile A-10's and Apache helicopters would never fly any sort of Combat Air Patrol around a general who is also the head of state for an entire planet? If you're willing to narrative up a reason for back line artillery to be on the front line, you should be willing to narrative up a reason for aircraft to be there too, and the stories of flyers providing close air support to main characters with heavy plot armor far outnumber the 10 miles back artillery getting stuck on the front line.

If a space marine is 8 feet tall. And the model is 2" tall - that means 1 inch is 4 feet. so the 48" by 72" table represents 192 feet by 288 feet. And that tube artillery with a range of 120" actually has a range of.. 480 feet. Anyone want to guess what the range on an M109A6 Paladin Self Propelled Howitzer is? I'll give you a hint, the MINIMUM range is reported to be about 4000 meters - which translates to 13,000 feet - about 2.5 miles. Want to guess the range of your basic battle rifle? The comparison for the ubiquitous bolter with a 24" range, 12" rapid fire? The M4 with 5.56 NATO maximum effective range is ~500-600 meters - 1600+ feet. 3+ Long Table Edges. The M1911 pistol which would be comparable to the bolt pistol has an effective range of about 80 feet. 20 inches on the table top.

An American football field is 54 feet by 360 feet. 19,440 square feet. A Soccer Pitch for the Brits is 150-300 feet by 300-390 feet. Manchester United's pitch - where only 22 people run around playing soccer - is 76,870 square feet. Our 4x6 board represents 55,296 square feet.

That Forgeworld Space Marine Whatever of Battle table tile where the entire 6th of the board is one tile terrain piece representing a Space Marine base at 24 by 24 inches is 9216 square feet. The average square footage of a house built in 2013-2014 was 2600 square feet. Just the house, not the yard. Take four good sized houses and place them wall to wall, and you have that Space Marine base. Except it's not all house, it has a giant open square. And houses something like 50 7+ foot tall men with guns. Who have to practice.

I guess what I'm saying is - the first problem with scale goes far beyond flyers and artillery.

Ground scale =/= model scale. This is the case with almost every wargame ever written; pointing it out as a flaw specifically of 40k is unfair or betrays one's lack of knowledge. That's why buildings are always oddly tall and skinny, because their footprint is scaled to the ground scale while their height is scaled to the model scale.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Ground scale =/= model scale. This is the case with almost every wargame ever written; pointing it out as a flaw specifically of 40k is unfair or betrays one's lack of knowledge. That's why buildings are always oddly tall and skinny, because their footprint is scaled to the ground scale while their height is scaled to the model scale.

Comparing the ground scale to the model scale is exactly what was being done. Nor was I pointing it out specifically for 40K. If X model types don't belong because of the issues with ground scale/model scale on movement and ranges, the issue isn't X model types, its the mismatch between ground and model scale. If we're supposed to look at it more cinematically and those models represent 10 space marines and ROUGHLY where they are, but not really how big they are because of scale distortion - and less literally, then scale matters little as long as everything is of relatively similar scale i.e. 28mm or whatever scale 40K is.

One could argue/imagine/interpret that one flyer model represents an entire air wing, spread out so one model is always over the current target area, and the one before it is the next target area, the one behind it in the previous target area.

 flandarz wrote:
I think that GW should have taken a page from WotC with their rulebook and included a passage similar to this one: "the rules that follow are meant to be guidelines to ensure all players have a basic understanding of the game. However, your group may decide to deviate from the rules printed here, and that is perfectly fine. The important part is that everyone has a good time." Then maybe include some sidebars with some example "alternative rules". I believe a good tabletop game gives you the framework you need to play, while also allowing you the leeway to adapt it to fit your group's playstyle. It's why 40k RAW vs RAI always seem so intense; because the ruleset is so rigid in what you can and cannot do. It's why so many people deviate from the ruleset already. It's just not flexible enough (or well written enough) to fit every single group's idea of the ideal 40k experience.

I think the problem with that is, in many wargames and especially in 40k, passages like that tend to get ignored. There's been similar text in almost all GW rulebooks that I can remember and the fact is that in most practical situations the ability to come up with your own rules or scenarios, modify army selection and so on just isn't popular or commonplace at all. The biggest thing people want from 40k is a common enough set of rules that they can play the game with more or less anyone, at least theoretically. Just look at all the dissatisfaction in this thread, yet a lot of those people still play the game. Why? Because it is by far the most popular game on a worldwide basis.

You can see an example of this with Narrative play. GW calls out Narrative play as one of their "3 ways to play" and their big rulebook provides some examples for narrative games. It's so poorly defined that I've never actually seen anyone using it.

You don't have that rule in chess because chess is a LOT simpler in design. Both players have the same units, which have the same abilities. They're both placed on the "field of battle" in the same way, aside from a swap of the Queen and King for one side. In essence, chess doesn't have the customizability of 40k, so it doesn't need a "change the rules as needed to make this fun for everyone" clause.

That's where a lot of the imbalance in 40k derives from. We got a dozen or so Factions, atleast half of which have a half-dozen or so sub-Factions. They each have 50 or so Units, a couple dozen Stratagems, and tons of wargear options. And, of course Psyker Powers and other similar things. Because every one of these things tend to be "unique", it's incredibly hard to balance. There are practically infinite possibilities, especially once you get into Missions, Objectives, and Maps.

And I'm not saying that this level of customization is a bad thing. I doubt anyone wants Ork Boyz with the same datasheet as Guardsmen, or vice versa, nor would they care to have to field only one kind of Army every game. The appeal of 40k is in how unique each Faction is from each other. It WOULD reduce rule bloat and make balancing a whole lot simpler. In the absence of a viable means to balance all of these possibilities, something like "the golden rule" is necessary.

If it was used appropriately, GW could cut a lot of the rules bloat out, while still allowing people who want a "complex strategy game" the leeway to make rules to do so. I totally missed that it was already in the book. Honestly, I feel like it needs to be right there at the top of Page 1. It's probably the most important thing you should have in mind when playing the game.

I miss 7th, for all it's bs the game was a lot more in depth and more flexible then now

The base rules are never as important the BS they publish in the codices.

Imbalance between armies isn't a problem, as long as it isn't too big and all armies get to do what they are good at. It is one thing for faction X to be the very best, it is another to have lets say a melee army that can't reach melee or sneaky army can't be snreaky etc.

Specialy in non tournament settings people would probably be able to deal with above avarge lists or units, but they can't really deal with game mechanics not working without rewriting entire codex and the whole rulebook. No impossible, but hard to implement world wide.

Martel732 wrote:
The base rules are never as important the BS they publish in the codices.

Yes, ballistic skill is quite an important stat.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I think that GW should have taken a page from WotC with their rulebook and included a passage similar to this one: "the rules that follow are meant to be guidelines to ensure all players have a basic understanding of the game. However, your group may decide to deviate from the rules printed here, and that is perfectly fine. The important part is that everyone has a good time." Then maybe include some sidebars with some example "alternative rules". I believe a good tabletop game gives you the framework you need to play, while also allowing you the leeway to adapt it to fit your group's playstyle. It's why 40k RAW vs RAI always seem so intense; because the ruleset is so rigid in what you can and cannot do. It's why so many people deviate from the ruleset already. It's just not flexible enough (or well written enough) to fit every single group's idea of the ideal 40k experience.

If I wanted to play a wishy-washy overpriced roleplaying game, I'd play a wishy-washy overpriced roleplaying game instead of a poorly written overpriced "wargame".

You wouldn't have that clause in Chess, so why have it in 40k? The entire point of a wargame is to pit two armies against each other and utilise the rule system to achieve a win state.

To be fair, there is a strong tradition of adjudication and games masters going back to the Prussian Kriegspiel, one of the first close to modern non chess Wargames, that GW games owe plenty to in terms of design paradigm.

Lots of old school wargamers play with a games master who makes those sorts of calls, to keep the simulation realistic and prevent unreal outcomes. Dungeons and Dragons evolved from this sort of play.

I tend to agree that GW is not selling that sort of product really, but I think a lot of the designers really WISH they were. I wish they would go all the way one way or another, it would make for a better game. But they are trying for mass appeal, which means slightly disappointing a lot of us out on the fringes.

 Da Boss wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I think that GW should have taken a page from WotC with their rulebook and included a passage similar to this one: "the rules that follow are meant to be guidelines to ensure all players have a basic understanding of the game. However, your group may decide to deviate from the rules printed here, and that is perfectly fine. The important part is that everyone has a good time." Then maybe include some sidebars with some example "alternative rules". I believe a good tabletop game gives you the framework you need to play, while also allowing you the leeway to adapt it to fit your group's playstyle. It's why 40k RAW vs RAI always seem so intense; because the ruleset is so rigid in what you can and cannot do. It's why so many people deviate from the ruleset already. It's just not flexible enough (or well written enough) to fit every single group's idea of the ideal 40k experience.

If I wanted to play a wishy-washy overpriced roleplaying game, I'd play a wishy-washy overpriced roleplaying game instead of a poorly written overpriced "wargame".

You wouldn't have that clause in Chess, so why have it in 40k? The entire point of a wargame is to pit two armies against each other and utilise the rule system to achieve a win state.

To be fair, there is a strong tradition of adjudication and games masters going back to the Prussian Kriegspiel, one of the first close to modern non chess Wargames, that GW games owe plenty to in terms of design paradigm.

Lots of old school wargamers play with a games master who makes those sorts of calls, to keep the simulation realistic and prevent unreal outcomes. Dungeons and Dragons evolved from this sort of play.

I tend to agree that GW is not selling that sort of product really, but I think a lot of the designers really WISH they were. I wish they would go all the way one way or another, it would make for a better game. But they are trying for mass appeal, which means slightly disappointing a lot of us out on the fringes.

There is still a strong, if not exactly mainstream, culture of that type of play in the roleplaying world. OSR (Old School Reneissance) enthusiasts are very active in keeping that style alive and creating excellent products that grab industry awards from broader mass appeal games many years running. Same applies somewhat to the miniature world beyond the obvious player overlap, as the Oldhammer movement seems to be doing pretty well too. The "gamesmaster as a referee" culture might be less systematic there than it is among the OSR folks, but same principles are very much in effect when games are actually played.

It is somewhat tragic that the current GW style isn't grungy enough to promote that style properly, but damn if I wouldn't be amused if they released a 3rd edition (WHFB) style guide for more Kriegspiel-y gaming (that isn't the utterly unplayable horror that was Inquisitor. Cool concept and 150% full of awesome inspiration, failed miserably as an actually playable system )

40K 8th edition is in a really good place. They took a chance boiling down the rules and I think it paid off. The game is streamlined without being overly simplified. I thought I would miss fire arcs, templates and blast markers but that has not been the case. The game is also more accessible - I see the results in new people joining our local gaming community. The designers are also remaining engaged with the game "in the wild" and have been making adjustments. I started in 2nd Edition, started losing interest in 6th Edition and walked away for 7th.

Having said all that, I think they need to look at LOS and cover. They should also reconsider some baseline armour save values (Astra Militarum infantry are too high for example or Bolters need an AP modifier). While I don't miss templates, I do think that flamers and the like could use a rework. Marines could use an overhaul. The stunning new models could use some more competitive rules.

Regarding your original post, I did like the 2nd Edition fight phase with individual duals. I didn't really like initiative based activations in later editions. At least 8th Ed rewards getting the charge in - perhaps an AOS style fight activation system could be considered to mitigate the feeling of getting swamped. I do not miss WS charts - I quite like the new method.

I don't reckon we will see a 9th ed for some time given the complete Codex reboot- maybe an 8.1 to enshrine some tweaks? Perhaps we are already at 8.2 given the big FAQs?