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.

 Lance845 wrote:
The words "Open" or "Matched" never get spoken.

Yes, because everyone understands that when you start talking about a pickup game with point limits and such you're describing a matched play game as the starting point regardless of any minor rule changes you make. The attitude is still the same as strict RAW matched play, the player expectations are that it will be matched play with any rule changes explicitly made and minor in scope, and anyone saying "oh, we're playing open play so do you mind if I put some orks in my space marine army" is unlikely to have their request granted. I have no idea why you are assuming that implicit understandings do not exist.

When you sit in a room and go "Anyone wanna play ITC?" You don't have to say "ITC Open" or "ITC Matched".

Because ITC is matched play and everyone understands what you are asking for when you request an ITC game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Guess what we are playing? It sure as gak isn't matched.

It absolutely is matched play because, of the two approaches, it is much closer in function and player expectations to matched play than to open play. Outside of your weird BCB-ish world where matched play effectively doesn't exist and 99.99999% of games are "open play" everyone understands that this is a matched play game and it is very different from an open play game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And let's give an even more extreme example: as BCB will gladly tell you assault weapons do not function RAW because you are unable to pick a target after advancing. Shooting after advancing with a -1 penalty on the to-hit roll is technically a house rule, not RAW. So by your standard every game where you're allowed to advance and shoot with assault weapons is automatically "open play" because you are adding your own modifications to the game. In fact, by your standard it's extremely unlikely that a single matched play game has happened in the entirety of 8th edition. At this point doesn't your standard seem kind of ridiculous?

I don't need implicit understandings to understand factual classifications.

I don't write the really gakky rules. GW does. However, lets look at a quote from me.

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

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.

GW creates the situation we play in when we play their game. If you don't like the factual classification of the game you are playing might I suggest you play something else? Or easier, just get over it? Again, what does it matter?

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't need implicit understandings to understand factual classifications.

Then you clearly don't understand how human interaction works in the real world. It doesn't matter how much you try to cite RAW if that's not the way the classifications are used by players playing real games.

Again, what does it matter?

Because if you set aside your absurd RAW nitpicking the three ways to play provide a useful classification of how to approach the game and a set of expectations that everyone understands when you specify which type of game you want. Your argument that every single game of 8th edition that has ever been played is an "open play" game may be a good strategy for winning a forum argument about how many people use "open play", but in the real world a classification system where every single game is in one category and nobody has ever played either of the other two types is an utterly useless system. But a system as everyone else uses it, where an ITC game is still matched play because it very closely aligns with the matched play principles and is very much against the principles of open and narrative play, actually functions as a classification system.

Every other edition of 40k has had a single way to play.

If the rules guiding the 3 ways to play are so broken and/or broad that it turns out everyone has just been playing 1 anyway, then again, whats the difference?

Deciding to do a meat grinder in open vs doing a meat grinder in narrative vs doing a meat grinder in "matched" (not really a thing) is exactly like doing a meat grinder in 7th. You have a little chat with your opponent to decide you wanna do a meat grinder and then you play.

In the real world it doesn't matter which of the 3 ways to play you are playing. You and your opponent agree to a game and then play it. What it's classified as only has value if you assign value to it. Which you apparently do. Instead, don't.

 Lance845 wrote:
If the rules guiding the 3 ways to play are so broken and/or broad that it turns out everyone has just been playing 1 anyway, then again, whats the difference?

The difference is that everyone else understands that the three ways to play describe different approaches to the game and provide useful insight into what sort of game a player is expecting. They are quantifying something that has already been happening before the labels existed officially. Saying "lol, you thought you were playing matched play but surprise it's really open play" is nothing but forum argument masturbation, in the real world nobody is going to care about your opinion and they will continue to believe that they are playing matched play.

And, to go back to the initial question of how many people use open play one interpretation gives you a useful answer and the other doesn't.

If every game where you're permitted to advance and fire assault weapons counts as "open play" because you're technically using a house rule then asking the question gives you zero insight into how people play the game. You "win" the argument and prove that people are using open play, but all you're doing is obsessing over what label is used.

If open play only includes the "just do whatever you want" sort of game and an ITC game still counts as matched play then the question does give you insight into how people play the game. The answers tell you that most people prefer the structure of matched/narrative play and open play is rare.

So then the question is simple: do you care about understanding how people approach the game, or is your sole objective to win a forum argument by any means necessary?

In the real world it doesn't matter which of the 3 ways to play you are playing.

And this is where you are 100% wrong. It matters because it sets expectations. If you ask for an open play game other players know what you're asking for. They expect a lack of rules about army construction, an open attitude towards allowing custom units/CA "open play only" content/etc, and a general relaxed mindset with minimal concern over competition or who wins the game. If you ask for an open play game when you want to play a standard ITC mission with the ITC rules you will be inviting the wrong kind of people, people who will likely have zero interest in your invitation once they realize that your definition of "open play" is what everyone else considers matched play. On the other hand if you ask for a matched play game with the ITC rules everyone knows exactly what you're asking for and you're reaching the right audience.

So are you performing a study and gathering data in which you need to know how people are playing the game?

Is anyone? To what end?

Why do you, or anyone, require insight into how anyone else is playing the game?

 Lance845 wrote:
Why do you, or anyone, require insight into how anyone else is playing the game?

I don't know, perhaps you should ask the person who posted "has anyone ever used open play"? Regardless of their motives they are clearly interested in how many people are using it, and "every single game of 8th edition ever played is open play" is not a useful answer to their question.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Why do you, or anyone, require insight into how anyone else is playing the game?

I don't know, perhaps you should ask the person who posted "has anyone ever used open play"? Regardless of their motives they are clearly interested in how many people are using it, and "every single game of 8th edition ever played is open play" is not a useful answer to their question.

It's mostly the actual answer to their question.

So just to be clear, no study? You have no reason to know or care how anyone else plays? In real world application, any insight that could have been gained by classifying the 3 ways to play is utterly useless to all of us and has no value what so ever?

When you go to play a game with someone you still have a little chat to get everyone on the same page about the rules you're using regardless?

 Lance845 wrote:
It's mostly the actual answer to their question.

It isn't an answer at all. Asking "does anyone use open play" implicitly assumes that it is possible to not use open play. Answering "lol, surprise, all of you who think you aren't using open play really are" is an utterly useless answer because it violates this assumption.

So just to be clear, no study? You have no reason to know or care how anyone else plays? In real world application, any insight that could have been gained by classifying the 3 ways to play is utterly useless to all of us and has no value what so ever?

When you go to play a game with someone you still have a little chat to get everyone on the same page about the rules you're using regardless?

If it has no value then why are you so obsessed with winning this argument? Why do you care that every single game of 8th edition ever played must be labeled "open play" if none of it matters? Because it sure sounds like you consider the question to have value and are only making this argument as a way to "win" at forum masturbation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's mostly the actual answer to their question.

It isn't an answer at all. Asking "does anyone use open play" implicitly assumes that it is possible to not use open play. Answering "lol, surprise, all of you who think you aren't using open play really are" is an utterly useless answer because it violates this assumption.

So just to be clear, no study? You have no reason to know or care how anyone else plays? In real world application, any insight that could have been gained by classifying the 3 ways to play is utterly useless to all of us and has no value what so ever?

When you go to play a game with someone you still have a little chat to get everyone on the same page about the rules you're using regardless?

If it has no value then why are you so obsessed with winning this argument? Why do you care that every single game of 8th edition ever played must be labeled "open play" if none of it matters? Because it sure sounds like you consider the question to have value and are only making this argument as a way to "win" at forum masturbation.

Naw I am just enjoying the conversation. Also, I have no problems talking people through their misconceptions.

You and others looked like you were actually getting pretty steamed about this however. The whole thing could have ended with my answer to his question but you decided to fight against the fact of it for, what, 3 pages now? Pot meet kettle.

ERJAK wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Karol is 12 or something like that, so his understanding of women is skewed.

Wow, the absolute most classic passive aggressive whiny internet poster move of accusing someone who disagrees with you of being an adolescent. I'd give you points for the complete lack of originality if it wasn't also pathetically asinine.

All Karol is suggesting is that woman who buck the norm are more likely to be judged more harshly than men who do, which is absolutely true. It's not guaranteed to happen and the degree isn't always particularly meaningful but it is something women deal with when trying to 'go their own way' as it were.

Taking 5 seconds to parse that out was all you needed to do but you chose to go full 'stereotypical guy on a gaming forum' instead.

Karol is an actual child.

My opinion (and pretty much most of my group's) is that 8th is the worst edition by far of the game and we are looking forward to 9th and continuing to play 3rd until then. most of my criticisms are already being noted by others so just threw my 2 cents in.

Karol wrote:

 Wunzlez wrote:


There is also no reason why two or more people cannot get together to just discuss their own set of rules or ways of playing. I don't know where breaking rules comes into it.

I have never seen a game where a new person joining didn't enter a world where all rules were already set to be honest. And while changing is possible it is mostly done on a social status level. Of course if your the one who is the owner of the gaming consol, you can decide that X is not going to get his turn playing and Y gets to play twice etc But that is like saying that rules changing is good when you have good social standing, and probably a ton of friends to influence other people. It does absolutly nothing for someone who does not have that or can't generate enough preasure on others. Someone can say they want to play open, or without this or that type of unit, at best they are just going to end up owning an army no one is going to play against. And not playing at all with something you paid for, is worse then playing and even having a bad time.

I think there is something else going on here, also considering the rest of your post that I didn't quote, I sense an ideology at play. This has very little to do with what I was saying, I wasn't making a judgement on whether someone should use open play or not.

Also it's not really up to me how much social pressure someone is able to wield, so I can't help you there, to some extent that would be on the individual I think. And your description of a social environment of what can only be described as bullying, is extremely specific. The console analogy doesn't work either, I can't put away other people's models or switch off their tabletop game at the wall as a threat to their playing habits. I can certainly be a prick and throw my weight around, but it wouldn't get me far in any situation with the people I know.

I think you're complaining about something far beyond a game of 40k and it's something which no one else can help you with, particularly GW. The only thing they can do is ask and put "don't be a dick" statements in their rules. When I couldn't get a game of fantasy back in the day, I used to travel nearly 2 hours to get one, I made that effort. When my current group had an issue with the current 40k terrain, we spent a lot time discussing it, and are still discussing it and working on getting some LOS blocking terrain or sorting out some better ruins terrain.
I had to spend years going from group to group, from club to club, getting in arguments and meeting disagreeable, dislikeable people who put me in uncomfortable situations over a game of toy soldiers, before I found the current group I get along with.

It takes exposure to difficult social situations in order to learn how to deal with them and develop the skills to discuss instead of shout at (or past) one another.

Sorry for the derailment of the thread there.

I'm going to clock in and say I pretty much agree with Peregrine wholesale as far as the 3 ways to play interpretation.


Also, I am shocked to find out Peregrine is a woman. Not because I have issues with female gamers, but because some of her posts made much more sense when I assumed a non-gendered falcon was posting them.

 thekingofkings wrote:
My opinion (and pretty much most of my group's) is that 8th is the worst edition by far of the game and we are looking forward to 9th and continuing to play 3rd until then. most of my criticisms are already being noted by others so just threw my 2 cents in.

I think that I would do the same,
if this new edition of the game hadn't put me off
of pursuing that aspect of the hobby completely.

old vanilla 3rd out of the box,
or 2nd with some tweaks.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

ERJAK wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Karol is 12 or something like that, so his understanding of women is skewed.

Wow, the absolute most classic passive aggressive whiny internet poster move of accusing someone who disagrees with you of being an adolescent. I'd give you points for the complete lack of originality if it wasn't also pathetically asinine.

All Karol is suggesting is that woman who buck the norm are more likely to be judged more harshly than men who do, which is absolutely true. It's not guaranteed to happen and the degree isn't always particularly meaningful but it is something women deal with when trying to 'go their own way' as it were.

Taking 5 seconds to parse that out was all you needed to do but you chose to go full 'stereotypical guy on a gaming forum' instead.

Karol is an actual child.

Jeesus whats wrong with people...

As intelligent as many children are you cannot have an intelligent adult conversation with someone whose biggest fear is is the bully from school will pick on them today and they wont get their pocket money if they don't eat all their veg...
I'm impressed by how many people took the lads comments in a context of being an adult and called him misogynistic etc. He probably doesn't understand the word or even grasp the cultural context.

Not having a go at you Karol. Sorry if I'm condescending sounding.
Hope you understand adults don't operate in the same sphere of society. So they might over react if you say something they cannot understand as they are no longer a child.

It doesn't invalidate your experience, and doesn't mean your perceptions cannot be not real. We all say and think something mistaken every now and then. There is nothing wrong with saying something you believe to be true even other might scorn you for, as long as its your real perception and viewpoint you can express yourself. Sometimes that will mean saying something which might be perceived as outrages by a whole bunch of people.. We all do it, even grown ass men who go on the internet to argue as they have nothing better to do .

The fact that everyone says some dumb gak some times doesn't mean it's okay to say some dumb ass gak. You SHOULD get crap for the dumb things you do/say so that you can learn from your dumb mistakes.

My nephews would have never said any gak like that when they were teenagers because they were raised better to treat people as people and not to participate in or bow down to bullying. Maybe Karol has not had the fortune to be raised that way? Sucks. No better time to start learning.

 Lance845 wrote:
The fact that everyone says some dumb gak some times doesn't mean it's okay to say some dumb ass gak. You SHOULD get crap for the dumb things you do/say so that you can learn from your dumb mistakes.

My nephews would have never said any gak like that when they were teenagers because they were raised better to treat people as people and not to participate in or bow down to bullying. Maybe Karol has not had the fortune to be raised that way? Sucks. No better time to start learning.

I sent you a PM.
This thread is getting derailed compeltely off track and our discussion is no longer apropriate for the thread.

Then stop talking about his age in the thread. It was done last page until you bought it up again.

Seriously, misogyny and ignorance have no place in any forum, let alone these forums.

He's under 13...
He's not from around here...
He doesn't understand....

All excuses for what is reprehensible behavior. Saying women are somehow inferior, or lesser, shouldn't be allowed. Just because Grandpa came from a different time, and was born in the old country doesn't make it ok when he beats grandma, or uses racist terminology about the Japanese.

Wrong is wrong irregardless of the circumstances. Now, intent can alter the after affect, but you correct the mistakes as you see them, you don't excuse them because of "oh that's just grandpa...."

 Argive wrote:
[

This thread is getting derailed compeltely off track and our discussion is no longer inapropriate for the thread.

This statement made me laugh.

 Lance845 wrote:
Then stop talking about his age in the thread. It was done last page until you bought it up again.

Says the person who already derailed the thread by 3 pages about.. Stones thrown at glass houses and such...

Well, while we're at another response to this thread I'd like to add to my previous post that could be seen as on topic to my opinion of 8th.

The more I look at the game in its current state, the more I question if this edition has simply outgrown the D6? I look at the simplest and most effective stuff out there that people use and it tends to just be modifiers to make units un-hittable or unmissable. Because these modifiers hit so hard on a dice with little variance, it can make frustrating play. However you put this on a D10, I feel these hard counters would soon turn to soft counters. Now don't get me wrong, for a lot of stats there would need to be a lot more re-addressing with the statline but I do feel that I might enjoy a 40k system with D10's, I think a lot of the lack-of blast template problems people had would have been resolved if the D6 simply turned to a D10 or 2D10, Imagine a Vindicator or a Basilisk getting 2D10? I think that would solve the horde problem in the current meta and also keep things fresh. It could improve my current opinion of 40k.

8th edition is the game I rarely play, but check in on every few months.

Too many other games with tighter rulesets and better balance for me to make 8th my main game.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, misogyny and ignorance have no place in any forum, let alone these forums.

What did Karol even say that was so awful?

The Warp Forge wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Then stop talking about his age in the thread. It was done last page until you bought it up again.

Says the person who already derailed the thread by 3 pages about.. Stones thrown at glass houses and such...

Well, while we're at another response to this thread I'd like to add to my previous post that could be seen as on topic to my opinion of 8th.

The more I look at the game in its current state, the more I question if this edition has simply outgrown the D6? I look at the simplest and most effective stuff out there that people use and it tends to just be modifiers to make units un-hittable or unmissable. Because these modifiers hit so hard on a dice with little variance, it can make frustrating play. However you put this on a D10, I feel these hard counters would soon turn to soft counters. Now don't get me wrong, for a lot of stats there would need to be a lot more re-addressing with the statline but I do feel that I might enjoy a 40k system with D10's, I think a lot of the lack-of blast template problems people had would have been resolved if the D6 simply turned to a D10 or 2D10, Imagine a Vindicator or a Basilisk getting 2D10? I think that would solve the horde problem in the current meta and also keep things fresh. It could improve my current opinion of 40k.

I like the notion of adding other/different die. Apocalypse seems to move that way. I think it might solve some of the issues. All the stat lines are out of X/10 which translates into d6 rolls... Is a knight, a huge mechanical contraption from the golden age of technology only twice as tough as a squishy flesh orc boy? Dont make sense

Crimson Devil wrote:

 Argive wrote:
[

This thread is getting derailed compeltely off track and our discussion is no longer inapropriate for the thread.

This statement made me laugh.

Haha i derped hard, think i wrote a slightly different sentance initialy XD thanks for pointing it out.

Just remember that a larger die means more swingy rolls too. Sure, 2d10 sounds great until you roll snake eyes. The average *will* improve, obviously, but the difference between double 10s and double 1s will be a lot larger.

Someone doesnt get bell curves.

Me? Of course I do. I specifically said "the average will be better". 2d6 shots has an average of 7, while 2d10 has an average of 11. All you did was stretch out the bell curve, and what I'm saying is that it'll make the disparity between the lowest values and the highest values much greater. Which makes games more swingy. Obviously this doesn't apply to everything. Save rolls, for example, (assuming GW shifts them to meet the new numbers) will likely be largely unchanged (4+ becomes a 6+). This is specifically in regards to number of shots, damage, and other things which aren't just "pass or fail".

Its by definition less swingy.

Ok. Let's say you have a weapon that deals 1d6 damage. You can deal any amount of damage between 1 and 6. That's a swing of 5. Now you have a weapon that deals 1d10 damage. You can deal any amount of damage between 1 and 10. That's a swing of 9. Understand now?

I should also mention that it'll either make most a units MORE accurate, or LESS accurate. For example, Orkz shoot at a 5+. That's 33% on a D6, but 33% of a D10 would 7.66+ BS. If they rounded up to a 8, Orkz would actually lose accuracy (30% vs 33%), if they round down to a 7, Orkz will gain accuracy (40% vs 33%).