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.

The counter point to the video as that if the rules were actually good they wouldn't need to make a video "declaring intent."

ThatMG wrote:
The counter point to the video as that if the rules were actually good they wouldn't need to make a video "declaring intent."

This.

Sloppy rules help absolutely nobody.

Seconded.

 Da Boss wrote:
I suppose that is the reason for it, though I wonder why other industries can allow for after market parts but not Games Workshop in particular.

IP law is a PITA. If you're not defending it, then you're allowing for your brand control to be weakened which can result in it becoming public domain, which can shoot the company in the foot.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
Math.

You're off by an order of magnitude. Assuming the ITC rankings are 10% of competitive players is £2,700 per year, assuming it's 1% is £270 per year. And £400 seems pretty low for an entire 2000 point army at full MSRP unless you're playing an extreme elite faction.

You are actually right, I did make a one zero too much mistake here. Nevertheless it only lowers the amount by which casuals/collectors outnumber competitives. You still have to have 800k competitive players burning an army a year with no second hand market to generate GW’s revenue.

But that's an absurd comparison. You're ignoring all of GW's non-40k revenue, along with things like milking the cash cow of whiny kids demanding a box of space marines to ignore 15 minutes later.

The claim was that all players are competitive. I assume that similar claim is made for AOS which by all dakka discussions is a much smaller game than 40k. So on the one hand you have 800k of competitive players of both systems supporting GW or you have 6milion whiny kids with Intercessor box. You can mix those freely but remember, that this is yearly amount of purchases and many, many players at even LVO level do not churn and burn and play with old collections (half of ITC ranking is made up of single event attendees with less than 1/10th points of a top player). And GW had to release special product line to target toy shops and those little Timmys. So let apply rule of halfs: half revenue are little Timmys of whatever game, half of the rest goes to non-40k products, that leave us with 200k of competitive players churning and burning an army a year and selling their previous army on ebay to god knows who, since there are only little Timmys and non-40k players out there. See a glaring hole in that landscape, perfectly fillable by collectors and beer and pretzels casuals and narrative players?

What I find funny is that during 5th to 7th you yourself, by your own statements in prior discussions, were a member of this suposedly non existing group of players, rarely playing an occasional narrative game and making an occasional purchase if ever.

By your own words, you did not exist/were irrelevant...

ThatMG wrote:The counter point to the video as that if the rules were actually good they wouldn't need to make a video "declaring intent."

A Town Called Malus wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
The counter point to the video as that if the rules were actually good they wouldn't need to make a video "declaring intent."

This.

Sloppy rules help absolutely nobody.

Not Online!!! wrote:Seconded.

Good job not watching the video to see what is actually discussed and jumping into a conversation only armed with your assumptions. Please collect your No Prize™ at the door. Seriously, the amount of reaching involved in this nonsense is insane. The "point" of the video is for Wade Pryce to talk to a member of the studio about their job and James is a 40k rules writer so he talked about the rules and ways you can use those rules to tell cool stories and spelled out their intent as trying to let people create cool moments in the game. All these claims about them not caring about balance or the rules themselves are nonsense.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
GW charges anywhere from about $40 to several hundred dollars for rules per person. While it's fine to modify the games you play to your hearts' contents, with a good group, I expect that for the money I pay to get a tight, competitive game. I shouldn't NEED a strong social contract to play a fun game of 40k. Obviously I'd like my opponents to be cool people, but the baseline should be pretty damn strong for the money I pay.

And while those expectations are fine, they make it pretty clear that isn't the intent they have for the game. Just listen to his comment about "balance".

I'm not listening to a whole hour just to hear a justification for bad balance, so just go ahead and paraphrase.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
The counter point to the video as that if the rules were actually good they wouldn't need to make a video "declaring intent."

This.

Sloppy rules help absolutely nobody.

Yep but really - it's almost like they are telling us to make our own rules at this point. Lets do it. Lets take ITC/ETC to the next level and write an actual competitive rule set and give it away for free.

GW's rule-books are already an outdated, error-riddled rip-off at £20+ for the matched players. How insane would you have to be to buy GW rulebooks if you were gonna change significant parts of it anyway?
Why would you write rules for people who aren't using your rules as written?
Affirming Rule 0 and "muh narrative" is fine, but relying on it is fatal for rules design. Players who are happy to use Rule 0 don't need to be the primary audience because they'll fix anything in the rules that doesn't suit their needs. The primary target for the writing of a rule-set has to be the people who will (or more commonly, have to) use the rule-set as written.
If we take this design... "ethos" at it's face, and accept that the purpose of the rules is to provide narrative players a good baseline for their homebrew, then narrative players deserve better than the haphazard dart-flinging GW indulges in.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
GW charges anywhere from about $40 to several hundred dollars for rules per person. While it's fine to modify the games you play to your hearts' contents, with a good group, I expect that for the money I pay to get a tight, competitive game. I shouldn't NEED a strong social contract to play a fun game of 40k. Obviously I'd like my opponents to be cool people, but the baseline should be pretty damn strong for the money I pay.

And while those expectations are fine, they make it pretty clear that isn't the intent they have for the game. Just listen to his comment about "balance".

I'm not listening to a whole hour just to hear a justification for bad balance, so just go ahead and paraphrase.

Agreed.

And it wasn't even an excuse for bad balance, it was a statement of intent of what they intend to the rules to be for and a comment about how some players focus too much on chasing an idea of balance in order to have fun.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
The counter point to the video as that if the rules were actually good they wouldn't need to make a video "declaring intent."

This.

Sloppy rules help absolutely nobody.

Yep but really - it's almost like they are telling us to make our own rules at this point. Lets do it. Lets take ITC/ETC to the next level and write an actual competitive rule set and give it away for free.

The entire discussion presented wasn't focused on tournament play, which accounts for maybe 10% of the people who spend money on this hobby, and more on the more casual play with your friends, so maybe that's why Dakka is so darn confused (other than a failure to do actual research and listen to the podcast being discussed instead of making assumptions of what is said in the podcast based on a contextless summary of the topic).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The "point" of the video is for Wade Pryce to talk to a member of the studio about their job and James is a 40k rules writer so he talked about the rules and ways you can use those rules to tell cool stories and spelled out their intent as trying to let people create cool moments in the game. All these claims about them not caring about balance or the rules themselves are nonsense.

And the rules frequently fail to do that.

If they wanted cool moments then they wouldn't have randomised charge ranges which means that your epic cool commander fails a 3" charge by the player rolling double 1s and is promptly shot to pieces on the next turn. That is not cool for either player, it's just bad luck and rolling getting in the way of cool moments.

If GWs designers wanted cool moments in the game, then getting rid of some of the randomness would be a good start as it would actually make it possible to plan to do a cool moment.

First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The "point" of the video is for Wade Pryce to talk to a member of the studio about their job and James is a 40k rules writer so he talked about the rules and ways you can use those rules to tell cool stories and spelled out their intent as trying to let people create cool moments in the game. All these claims about them not caring about balance or the rules themselves are nonsense.

And the rules frequently fail to do that.

If they wanted cool moments then they wouldn't have randomised charge ranges which means that your epic cool commander fails a 3" charge by the player rolling double 1s and is promptly shot to pieces on the next turn. That is not cool for either player, it's just bad luck and rolling getting in the way of cool moments.

If GWs designers wanted cool moments in the game, then getting rid of some of the randomness would be a good start as it would actually make it possible to plan to do a cool moment.

Randomization is there to create risk. Risk is what makes those stories we tell each other later more interesting. No one cares about all the times their units pass the statistically average number of saves, but I sure do remember the time that my Exorcist tank passed more than 20 6+ Invul saves in 5th edition.

I also remember the time I shot a Necron flyer out of the air and it crashed, exploded and took a large chunk out of my army (basically crashing -on- my army). Those moments stand out because they aren't what we expect to happen, but the random chance the dice gives made it happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Tournament =/= matched play. Using points costs doesn't make you a tournament player.

Second, just because something is used with Matched Play, like the Rule of 3, doesn't mean its intended for all game types. Rule of 3 is intended only for tournament play for example.

Matchplay = Tournament rules. Yes? Regardless of what they are intending they are getting their customer base wrong.

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

but here's the 1000000$ question.
DO you use Ro3?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Matchplay = Tournament rules. Yes? Regardless of what they are intending they are getting their customer base wrong.

Nope. All tournaments are matched play, but not all matched play is tournaments.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

but here's the 1000000$ question.
DO you use Ro3?

Yes

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

Why don't you go to tournaments? Not even Local ones? Why do you prefer matched play over narrative rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Matchplay = Tournament rules. Yes? Regardless of what they are intending they are getting their customer base wrong.

Nope. All tournaments are matched play, but not all matched play is tournaments.

Tournaments aren't special. They are just matched play games in regards to the rules they use.

 Stormonu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

but here's the 1000000$ question.
DO you use Ro3?

Yes

Then techincally you are playing what GW calls organized play.
Which is in essence tournament v 0.5

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

Why don't you go to tournaments? Not even Local ones? Why do you prefer matched play over narrative rules?

Not this person, but with my current job I work the days they tend to do local tournaments. My only days to play are in the middle of the week.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Matchplay = Tournament rules. Yes? Regardless of what they are intending they are getting their customer base wrong.

Nope. All tournaments are matched play, but not all matched play is tournaments.

Tournaments aren't special. They are just matched play games in regards to the rules they use.

Tournaments are special because they're Match Play with extra rules (time limits, FOC restrictions, and so on).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

Why don't you go to tournaments? Not even Local ones? Why do you prefer matched play over narrative rules?

Matched play provides structure and some semblance of fairness - or at least a jumping off point.

As for not going to tournaments, I’ve had several horrid encounters with the local herd - 40K and otherwise (I used to do a lot of Mechwarriorark Age tournaments) and I can no longer stand the mentalities it breeds. I like to use my variety of models and not be prejudged for not optimizing my list to the max, for one.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

but here's the 1000000$ question.
DO you use Ro3?

Yes

Then techincally you are playing what GW calls organized play.
Which is in essence tournament v 0.5

Even if that's true, there is nothing restricting them from doing more with the game than trying to play tournament style games.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

but here's the 1000000$ question.
DO you use Ro3?

Yes

Then techincally you are playing what GW calls organized play.
Which is in essence tournament v 0.5

Even if that's true, there is nothing restricting them from doing more with the game than trying to play tournament style games.

For which a more balanced and less sloppy ruleset will be much more valuable than any number of videos telling us about what the design team are trying to do, rather than what they actually manage to do.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
For which a more balanced and less sloppy ruleset will be much more valuable than any number of videos telling us about what the design team are trying to do, rather than what they actually manage to do.

And not a single statement made in that entire Voxcast said they weren't trying to make a balanced ruleset. It called out people for putting balance on a pedestal, but it never said the game wasn't written with the intent of giving fair games for all involved.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

Why don't you go to tournaments? Not even Local ones? Why do you prefer matched play over narrative rules?

Matched play provides structure and some semblance of fairness - or at least a jumping off point.

As for not going to tournaments, I’ve had several horrid encounters with the local herd - 40K and otherwise (I used to do a lot of Mechwarriorark Age tournaments) and I can no longer stand the mentalities it breeds. I like to use my variety of models and not be prejudged for not optimizing my list to the max, for one.

Well IMO there is nothing wrong with that. Plus you aren't the only one that likes to play with all their units. There is a social construct required for this kind of gaming though. If you are playing toned down lists - your opponents need to as well or you aren't actually playing at a good "jumping off point" the balance between good and bad units is that bad. A fair number of games I play are between mono armies in which we try to bring similarly balanced armies. We use tournament style rules though for the same reason you do - it's a good jumping off point.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well IMO there is nothing wrong with that. Plus you aren't the only one that likes to play with all their units. There is a social construct required for this kind of gaming though. If you are playing toned down lists - your opponents need to as well or you aren't actually playing at a good "jumping off point" the balance between good and bad units is that bad.

All games are built on social constructs. Even if that construct is agreeing to only use the rules, or following an understanding that you'll be playing a tournament mission pack, it's still a social construct. This idea that only certain kinds of games require a social construct is misunderstanding what a social construct is and how it works.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

but here's the 1000000$ question.
DO you use Ro3?

Yes

Then techincally you are playing what GW calls organized play.
Which is in essence tournament v 0.5

Even if that's true, there is nothing restricting them from doing more with the game than trying to play tournament style games.

For which a more balanced and less sloppy ruleset will be much more valuable than any number of videos telling us about what the design team are trying to do, rather than what they actually manage to do.

Correct.

 flandarz wrote:
I'd honestly be surprised if a fair portion of GW's revenue wasn't generated by the competitive crowd "chasing the meta". Buying the best units (only to do it again when something gets nerfed or buffed). Getting paints and glue. Buying all the latest rulebooks. And, really, an unbalanced ruleset favors a business model that sells to those types.

The data suggests they are a surprisingly minor. While such players are 'whales' that buy a large amount of stuff, they also dip heavily into the second market and are massively outnumbered by narrative players (who buy a similar amount of material) and casual/modeling only players (who buy little but massively outnumber the other margins.

The truth is that for every competitive player is one guy playing casually at a store, three guys buying the latest models for their home play meta that consists of maybe 4 other people, and 4 other people that actually haven't played a game in 6 months.

^ disclaimer: given as an example, but the ratios are actually far worse. The number of people who play once-twice a year (or less) are almost 8 to 1 who plays more than once a month.

 Stormonu wrote:
Matched play provides structure and some semblance of fairness - or at least a jumping off point.

As for not going to tournaments, I’ve had several horrid encounters with the local herd - 40K and otherwise (I used to do a lot of Mechwarriorark Age tournaments) and I can no longer stand the mentalities it breeds. I like to use my variety of models and not be prejudged for not optimizing my list to the max, for one.

This.

The general rule of the forum (particularly YMDC) tends to discourage us from discussing "The Most Important Rule (TMIR) " - however, I find this to be the actual most important rule in the entire game. It essentially tells you that coming up with a house rule is recommended, if not a required, aspect of the game itself. The internet community and hardcore RAW-elitist would tell us that houseruling in itself is cheating ("not playing the actual game"), but it is precisely the copious and generous application of TMIR that makes the game work and help define the 'local meta' of the game.

In fact, in a sense, tournament organizers are doing exactly the same thing by tacking on their own sets of rules & rewards that encourage min-maxing lists. Tournament in themselves are not necessarily a test of skills and tactics, but rather a game of how much money you have to spend on the hobby and how far you can break the system. It's the game mode where TMIR is not applied (which in itself is "breaking" the rule since the rules specifically tell you to come up with a rule that works for both parties).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

but here's the 1000000$ question.
DO you use Ro3?

Yes

Then techincally you are playing what GW calls organized play.
Which is in essence tournament v 0.5

Even if that's true, there is nothing restricting them from doing more with the game than trying to play tournament style games.

For which a more balanced and less sloppy ruleset will be much more valuable than any number of videos telling us about what the design team are trying to do, rather than what they actually manage to do.

I pretty much agree with this. There is literally no downside to having a well balanced ruleset. IMO it helps causal and narrative the most because those players put the least effort into optimising their list to make sure it rules and can accomplish things.