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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
GW: "Hi everybody, we at GW want to give you a little preview of how we're setting up up our tournament tables for our upcoming tournament. The layouts are intended to work with the Grand Tournament 2021 missions so that tournament players can know what to expect and practice their tournament lists in games that emulate what it will be like playing in an official GW tournament."

Dakka: "Aaargh this is bs GW are forcing all the narrative players to play tournament style games. This layout will never suit the way i like to play my narrative games with my friends. I refuse to use this table layout."

Okay.

Yeah... that's a intentional and wilful misrepresentation of what's being said. In other words, you're being dishonest.

I mean, all one has to do is look back at the whole board size thing to see that it might as well now be the standard.

Yeah, no GW. You can take my 6x4 board from my cold, dead hands. Same goes for these dull as dishwater terrain setups. If GW wants to make a tabletop MMO, then they should bloody make one instead of corrupting 40k into something it is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
I mean, somebody literally said they are forcing the game to be some kind of fortnite game and another said they were changing the game to please a vocal minority?

what is wrong with fortnite? fairly balanced, everybody has the same tools and mechanics, a little RNG on what weapons you can find but also have upgrades available and using the mechanics of the game (building) better than opponents can be a huge advantage. its basically a modern unreal tournament with a build mechanic. is it my fav game? nope but i still jump on sometimes for my twitch shooter needs.

Because that is not what 40k is. Never has been.

 SiLKY wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
I mean, somebody literally said they are forcing the game to be some kind of fortnite game and another said they were changing the game to please a vocal minority?

what is wrong with fortnite? fairly balanced, everybody has the same tools and mechanics, a little RNG on what weapons you can find but also have upgrades available and using the mechanics of the game (building) better than opponents can be a huge advantage. its basically a modern unreal tournament with a build mechanic. is it my fav game? nope but i still jump on sometimes for my twitch shooter needs.

He was referring to someone earlier in the thread saying GW is making 40k into fortnite. I'm assuming he's implying that 40k is becoming more "gamey" which I don't see anything wrong with.
It's weird that narrative and casual players have so much vitriol against competitive minded players in 40k when it's clear that GW wants to support all parts of the hobby.
People seem to forget how badly 40k was suffering when the rules were getting worse and worse when competitive play and crisp rules were in the backburner and "we're a model company" was in full effect.

i like 40k as a ciompetative game, and a like narrative stuff. That said they are very different things and I know many people who cannot separate the two.

I face off against great tournament players who have never read a 40k book and total fluffbunnies who read every book, know the lore back and forth with highlighted and marked up pages... that do not grasp most of the tabletop game. The fluff players can get really excited to see their custom space marine chapter master fight a ork warboss after a small campaign spanning 4 games where they write up mini novels about the ramifications for said game (an actual player locally i had a blast playing with actually did this) and i highly recommend this type of play at least a few times. I am admittedly more in the hobbyist side where i more than anything model and paint while listening to battle reports and 40k audiobooks than actual games (by virtue of only playing 1-3 games a week vs nightly hobbying) but i think i enjoy the game of 40k more in general

as for the model company day... yea i remember that also how just plain bad 6th was that we got an immediate 7th so fast they didn't even do a separate starter box, i have the dark vengence versions of both. they took my beloved orks from upper part of the lower 3rd army to the worst one in the game for 2 editions... fun times

 Xenomancers wrote:
Anyone saying this is a typical table...You have a very weird way of playing the game. The terrain is way to close...and that is because the pieces are all large...

No desire to play this game. You wonder why DE and quins have such high winrates...this is why.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with Drukhari's ridiculously low point cost, free cp (pre errata), 2 damage flamers (pre errata) and Harlequins having a good matchup against the most played faction in the game.
Does terrain also explain why admech and sisters were so dominant?

 Grimtuff wrote:


Because that is not what 40k is. Never has been.

Maybe it is a thing that it should be. More of a sport, leave the narrative to the narrative minority, and turn w40k in to what it should be a real game like MtG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SiLKY wrote:


I'm sure this has nothing to do with Drukhari's ridiculously low point cost, free cp (pre errata), 2 damage flamers (pre errata) and Harlequins having a good matchup against the most played faction in the game.
Does terrain also explain why admech and sisters were so dominant?

In case of ad mecha yes, in case of sob it is more a combination of miracle dice and how cheap they are. Harlis and DE win rates benefit from the rules they have, but the game play of both of the armies is based around the fact, that they can fly over terrain park their transports in a such a way that no matter if the opponent went first or second they are always at an adventage. And they can't only perform those feats, because the core rules of w40k in 9th, and after the expiriance of 8th require a ton of LoS blocking terrain. If you want to check how good DE do, play them on a board without LoS, and see what happens. specially vs an army which is shoty and goes first.

Karol wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


Because that is not what 40k is. Never has been.

Maybe it is a thing that it should be. More of a sport, leave the narrative to the narrative minority, and turn w40k in to what it should be a real game like MtG.
.

O sweet summer child....you are speaking of things you have no comprehension about.


MTG is not something 40k should ever aspire to be.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


Because that is not what 40k is. Never has been.

Maybe it is a thing that it should be. More of a sport, leave the narrative to the narrative minority, and turn w40k in to what it should be a real game like MtG.
.

O sweet summer child....you are speaking of things you have no comprehension about.


MTG is not something 40k should ever aspire to be.

I mean... Clear, concise rules that have answers seems like something to strive for.

I mean as long as I have been playing 40k it has always attracted most people at the FLGS to actually jump in and play the game. generally they ask abotu how each faction plays and wanting to play demo games to try a few factions before buying models to... play the game. very few players I run into were introduced via narrative side. One guy locally was reading the books then realized there was a game but that is the honest only one i know of. Some like playing narrative scenario games once they get used to things but locally they are the minority

Racerguy180 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


Because that is not what 40k is. Never has been.

Maybe it is a thing that it should be. More of a sport, leave the narrative to the narrative minority, and turn w40k in to what it should be a real game like MtG.
.

O sweet summer child....you are speaking of things you have no comprehension about.


MTG is not something 40k should ever aspire to be.

Who are you to decide what 40k should aspire to? I understand people can be attached to something that isn't anymore but GWs profits are up and as far as I'm aware more people are playing 40k than they ever have...

 Eldarsif wrote:
I enjoy these layouts on a tournament level. It means you get to pit your skills against your opponent while minimizing the danger of ridiculous terrain layout.

Knowing how to deploy and maneuver in order to minimize an opponents terrain advantage and maximize your own is a skill.

This thread is full of weird gatekeeping. 'No, you can't have fun this way. That's not the way the game used to be, and it's not the way I want the game to be. People having fun are wrong and that makes me have less fun.' Look, you can play any way you want, and so can everyone else. If you aren't at a tournament, this literally doesn't affect you.

Even if you think this sets a precedent that you're going to have to conform to against your will, it doesn't. If you're playing a pick-up game at your local store, just talk to your opponent about how you want to set up the board. Befriend some people who aren't interested in competitive play and do your own thing.

If you're playing narrative games, this explicitly doesn't affect you. Play whatever you want, GW puts way more support into campaign books and supplements than it does competitive. My local Crusade league plays a variety of 4x5' boards at 1000pts, using a combination of a White Dwarf campaign ruleset, Beyond the Veil and Crusade missions, and some homebrew rules about an overarching mystery. You can do whatever you want. Next league we'll probably do the Book of Rust campaign.

Now, if you do have complaints from a purely competitive perspective, that's fair. I'd, however, point to the top player's opinions like Seigler, Lennon, and Nanavati who've been very positive.

Without a strong narrative that is prioritized over all else... W40K will cease to be W40K.

Without a strong narrative that is prioritized over all else... The game will fail; like Warmachine, Hoards, Malifaux, Infinity, Drop Fleet and all of the other games that sought to prioritize competitive play and failed.

I don't think I agree with "prioritized over all else", but I agree with the sentiment. However, that's not at issue. Like I said, competitive gets one tournament pack a year, and now a small tournament guidance packet. Narrative gets multiple supplement books per year, and tons of additional content in White Dwarf campaigns and army rules.

I'm finding it hard to picture Infinity and Malifaux as failed games when I haven't really seen any indication that their base is shrinking? But I guess if you have evidence otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.

 DarkHound wrote:
This thread is full of weird gatekeeping. 'No, you can't have fun this way. That's not the way the game used to be, and it's not the way I want the game to be. People having fun are wrong and that makes me have less fun.' Look, you can play any way you want, and so can everyone else. If you aren't at a tournament, this literally doesn't affect you.

Even if you think this sets a precedent that you're going to have to conform to against your will, it doesn't. If you're playing a pick-up game at your local store, just talk to your opponent about how you want to set up the board. Befriend some people who aren't interested in competitive play and do your own thing.

If you're playing narrative games, this explicitly doesn't affect you. Play whatever you want, GW puts way more support into campaign books and supplements than it does competitive. My local Crusade league plays a variety of 4x5' boards at 1000pts, using a combination of a White Dwarf campaign ruleset, Beyond the Veil and Crusade missions, and some homebrew rules about an overarching mystery. You can do whatever you want. Next league we'll probably do the Book of Rust campaign.

Now, if you do have complaints from a purely competitive perspective, that's fair. I'd, however, point to the top player's opinions like Seigler, Lennon, and Nanavati who've been very positive.

LOL - you know those top players...

They invented this type of play right? GW went directly to the ITC circuit for "advise" on how to set up the game in the next edition. OFC they are positive. It is the game they wanted. As few variables as possible.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I enjoy these layouts on a tournament level. It means you get to pit your skills against your opponent while minimizing the danger of ridiculous terrain layout.

Knowing how to deploy and maneuver in order to minimize an opponents terrain advantage and maximize your own is a skill.

For armies that can do it. which are very few. For armies that can not, it just creates games where you lose before deployment, because your opponent picked the side that has all the adventages.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
Now, if you do have complaints from a purely competitive perspective, that's fair. I'd, however, point to the top player's opinions like Seigler, Lennon, and Nanavati who've been very positive.

LOL - you know those top players...

They invented this type of play right? GW went directly to the ITC circuit for "advise" on how to set up the game in the next edition. OFC they are positive. It is the game they wanted. As few variables as possible.

That's not a problem, that's how an intelligent organization creates a healthy competitive environment: they listen to the top players. They were among the top players before working with GW directly. It's not a conspiracy where they bend the rules to make themselves personally better at the game (obviously they couldn't even if they wanted)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The game they want limits variables. Are you implying you'd want a competitive scene with more uncontrollable variables? You can already have any non-competitive format to be anything you want, to be clear.

I mean, they went to competitive players to advise on how to set up their competitive games.

I really don't understand how you have so many people who are massively into the narrative fluff aspect of 40k that are so uncomfortable stepping outside of the restrictions of GT tournament rules.

You can literally do anything you want. You can play on a 1ft by 14ft table, you can play 500pts Vs 1500 pts. You can use legends units, you can give CSM 3 wounds. It's a sandbox.

But if you want to play in a tournament then you are probably gonna play GT 2021 with the recommended table size and terrain layouts.

GW have brought out I think two narrative supplements already this edition, I've not really seen much of a buzz around them. Crusade seems popular but again it doesn't seem to be as discussed as GT on the internet.

I think it's disingenuous to claim that nobody wants this, or lament GWs focus on tournament play.

I love both competitive and narrative but I'd much rather GW focus on tightening up the competitive side of the game because I need them to do that in order for it to be enjoyable. Tournament play needs to be solid and balanced otherwise it falls apart.

Narrative I can do what I want I don't need GW to balance it, I can do that amongst my play group...

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I enjoy these layouts on a tournament level. It means you get to pit your skills against your opponent while minimizing the danger of ridiculous terrain layout.

Knowing how to deploy and maneuver in order to minimize an opponents terrain advantage and maximize your own is a skill.

Sure, but with how books are balanced it is an extra factor that can snowball and is utterly pointless in a tournament setting.

I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill. Tournaments have been running pretty standardized layouts for some time now and only thing GW is just iterating what tourneys are already doing on the tournament floor. If you aren't playing tournaments none of this will ever affect you. I mean, ITC events will stick to ITC layouts which tourney players tend to prefer over the current GW layout(even if it is a decent layout tourney-wise).

Yeah, no GW. You can take my 6x4 board from my cold, dead hands. Same goes for these dull as dishwater terrain setups. If GW wants to make a tabletop MMO, then they should bloody make one instead of corrupting 40k into something it is not.

GW isn't sending its team of designers to break into your apartment/house and break your boards and terrains. If you are adults you are literally free to play as you want as long as you can find a consenting partner.

So find likeminded people, have fun, and enjoy life.

I get the feeling a lot of people who claim they are into narrative play aren't really into narrative play. Have people bought the Crusade books or Warzone Charadon? Because those books are literally made for, and have a lot of rules for, narrative players(a fun campaign in Book of Rust) who want to have fun without the tourney stuff screwing with their day. Hell, even White Dwarf provides missions and scenarios for narrative players.

 Eldarsif wrote:


I get the feeling a lot of people who claim they are into narrative play aren't really into narrative play. Have people bought the Crusade books or Warzone Charadon? Because those books are literally made for, and have a lot of rules for, narrative players(a fun campaign in Book of Rust) who want to have fun without the tourney stuff screwing with their day. Hell, even White Dwarf provides missions and scenarios for narrative players.

Plastering rules onto more rules does not a narrative make. 9th is anti-narrative at its core because all the special rules are a generic mish-mash of +1s and rerolls and options within units are becoming increasingly restricted.

Yup, after reading this, anti-narrative is how I'd describe the rules.

Stripping away rules from dataslates and making them strats is one of the most anti of them all.

The limits on +/- stuff is boring, lack of meaningful movement(outflanking your opponent), etc...

 Xenomancers wrote:
They invented this type of play right? GW went directly to the ITC circuit for "advise" on how to set up the game in the next edition. OFC they are positive. It is the game they wanted. As few variables as possible.

I mean that's why I've been calling 9th "Tournament Edition" since they started talking about who was involved in the "extensive" playtesting.

Everything about this edition has been done to make it more like ITC/NOVA and so on. Is it any wonder we get gak articles like this terrain one which show off symmetrical tournament boards on GW's idiotic minimum/standard/recommended board size.

DarkHound wrote:If you're playing narrative games, this explicitly doesn't affect you.

And as we keep saying, this isn't strictly true. Look at the board size thing. GW didn't mandate that, but it has become the standard. Every tournament scrambled to introduce that smaller board size. The various mat making companies all fell over one another to be first to market with smaller mats. There's even a mat maker local to Australia, something unheard of given that most of them are in Europe, that exclusively only makes mats in GW's smaller size.

Tournaments inform the rest of the game, and what becomes standard for them spreads out and becomes standard for everyone else. Of course there will be people who never get on that bandwagon, either by choice, disinterest in tournaments, or simply because they have no desire of changing things that they've spent a lot of time and/or money on, but to ignore the influence that these sort of high-level structural changes have to the game is naive.

Honestly GW makes for the worst looking boards, I looked at the post they made and it just looks bad for even tournament play.

They need new terrain, but it’s too late being they have put the size up for both models and how big army’s should be.
Why lowering the size of the boards, even if they don’t think they did.

I was rather concerned about it. But after watching Tabletop tactics actually play a game using that terrain layout I am coming round to it.

Let's put it this way. If Lawrence can play a world eaters army with 4 Rhinos packed with berserkers, 3 venomcrawlers and a Lord of DIscordant and those 8 vehicles manage to make it up the board without major problems. Then I think the 2D layout doesn't show properly the width of the lanes actually available for vehicles to move through. From that game, I think even knights and vehicles like baneblades and Lord of skulls should be able to move up the board from one end to the other.

I think its good to have a discussion with your opponent before the game starts anyway. Where you agree on whether vehicles can or cannot move through a "narrow" passageway. If you brought vehicles or a big superheavy like a knight or Lord of skulls, I am sure if you bring it up before the game, your opponent would be willing to say "ok this path is wide enough for your vehicles to pass through".

It would take a real dick to insist the terrain blocks all vehicles from moving up the board even before the game even starts, and if that's the case, then its perfectly possible to adjust the terrain slightly so that there is enough space for the vehicles to move through.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Yup, after reading this, anti-narrative is how I'd describe the rules.

Stripping away rules from dataslates and making them strats is one of the most anti of them all.

The limits on +/- stuff is boring,

Serious question, how is a limit on dice roll modifiers 'less narrative?'
Especially the way multiple modifiers stack to render certain armies useless.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I was rather concerned about it. But after watching Tabletop tactics actually play a game using that terrain layout I am coming round to it.

Let's put it this way. If Lawrence can play a world eaters army with 4 Rhinos packed with berserkers, 3 venomcrawlers and a Lord of DIscordant and those 8 vehicles manage to make it up the board without major problems. Then I think the 2D layout doesn't show properly the width of the lanes actually available for vehicles to move through. From that game, I think even knights and vehicles like baneblades and Lord of skulls should be able to move up the board from one end to the other.

I think its good to have a discussion with your opponent before the game starts anyway. Where you agree on whether vehicles can or cannot move through a "narrow" passageway. If you brought vehicles or a big superheavy like a knight or Lord of skulls, I am sure if you bring it up before the game, your opponent would be willing to say "ok this path is wide enough for your vehicles to pass through".

It would take a real dick to insist the terrain blocks all vehicles from moving up the board even before the game even starts, and if that's the case, then its perfectly possible to adjust the terrain slightly so that there is enough space for the vehicles to move through.

I think that the idea that a standard layout would restrict vehicles designed for the game to be able to move reasonably to support other units and factions existing is a bit of a design failure.
The game design has allways been avg, but honestly just seems like no one cares enough about 40k to fix anything at GW.

Voss wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Yup, after reading this, anti-narrative is how I'd describe the rules.

Stripping away rules from dataslates and making them strats is one of the most anti of them all.

The limits on +/- stuff is boring,

Serious question, how is a limit on dice roll modifiers 'less narrative?'
Especially the way multiple modifiers stack to render certain armies useless.

I used to have a post from Dakka saved about this. I can't find it now but the gist was something like this:

If you set up your super sneaky sniper stealth savant Eldar Pathfinders in a concealed position in some terrain vs a Custodes army, the Custodes could jump about about with heavy weapons trying to 720 noscope the Pathfinders and still have the same chance to hit as if they'd just stayed still.

Voss wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Yup, after reading this, anti-narrative is how I'd describe the rules.

Stripping away rules from dataslates and making them strats is one of the most anti of them all.

The limits on +/- stuff is boring,

Serious question, how is a limit on dice roll modifiers 'less narrative?'
Especially the way multiple modifiers stack to render certain armies useless.

Some things should be really hard to hit.
Just like it shouldn't be possible to wound some stuff with some weapons.

Racerguy180 wrote:


Stripping away rules from dataslates and making them strats is one of the most anti of them all.

This also. When the tyranid PA came out and had monster specific strats that very blatantly should have been special rules I think thats when I gave up on the game. Its dumb and not at all narritive that toxicrenes randomly have extra long tendrils for a few minutes or tyranid warrior carapace varies in thickness from turn-to-turn.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:


Stripping away rules from dataslates and making them strats is one of the most anti of them all.

This also. When the tyranid PA came out and had monster specific strats that very blatantly should have been special rules I think thats when I gave up on the game. Its dumb and not at all narritive that toxicrenes randomly have extra long tendrils for a few minutes or tyranid warrior carapace varies in thickness from turn-to-turn.

Agree on that.
Luckily 9th has been putting those abilities back where they belong, so I have good hopes in that regard.

Karol wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I enjoy these layouts on a tournament level. It means you get to pit your skills against your opponent while minimizing the danger of ridiculous terrain layout.

Knowing how to deploy and maneuver in order to minimize an opponents terrain advantage and maximize your own is a skill.

For armies that can do it. which are very few. For armies that can not, it just creates games where you lose before deployment, because your opponent picked the side that has all the advantages.

Odds are that whoever you're watching lose like this lacks the afore mentioned skill.