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: So when do they start banning 3rd party bases?
Luckily they specifically allow 3rd party basing material even in the tournaments run by GW and held at GW venues. I just wish we could play 3rd party heads there because of things like venatari and new dark reapers where a fantastic mini is held back by an awful head and non-GW alternatives seem to fit best.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So when do they start banning 3rd party bases?
Luckily they specifically allow 3rd party basing material even in the tournaments run by GW and held at GW venues. I just wish we could play 3rd party heads there because of things like venatari and new dark reapers where a fantastic mini is held back by an awful head and non-GW alternatives seem to fit best.
From my understanding, there is absolutely a matter of 'control' that GW is trying to express with this partnership.
GW + ITC = most tournaments. You want GW support? You want a GW shop at your tournament and the exclusive GW con/event-exclusive models to be sold at your event? You gotta follow our rules. Not just for gaming, but for modeling and other things.
Tbf, it's a lot like Magic the Gathering and the banning of cards being printed out from your home printer. They want to support their own product while creating as fun of an experience for con/event/tournament-goers as possible, and making the club feel worthwhile. Nothing feels worse than spending 2000 dollars on your army to be trounced by someone that got theirs recast or 3D printed for 1/4th of the cost.
But more than that, tournaments and events that don't want to play ball, to play by GW's rules, will slowly become ostracized. They won't get the GW support that fans want, and will be relegated to small, minor events that wont get GW advertising/marketing on their side.
It's a gamble, because if it doesn't work out and some 3rd party tournament ends up growing because they do things in a way that the fans actually enjoy, then this whole plan will likely fall apart, but there is something to be said for having ITC+GW support for an event. GW may be partnering even more closely with ITC events too, getting more terrain on boards and more prize support and things like that, like they did in the past.
So, we'll see how it all goes.
Does GW give too much attention to the tournament players? Yeah, I think so, but here's the thing: the people that are organizing tournaments and supporting them are a whole other team of people. It's not like GW supporting tournament play is taking away from rules/writing/modeling time from the other teams.
On top of that, every campaign book that comes out has a slew of narrative missions. Every White Dwarf, every Chapter Approved, new missions, many narrative, coming out constantly. You don't hear about them because the narrative players are happy playing with them (and happy customers tend to not come to forums to complain). That's all content that didn't need to be written.
Now, to be fair, we got the Crusade system, which is neat, but one thing that a lot of open/narrative play players want is a return of the Maelstrom of War missions, with their random cards and such. I'd be happy to see that make a return, but we'll see what happens.
Kanluwen wrote: Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
Yep, definitely the casuals fault. The fact that the primary outlets for game and mechanics discussions online is almost completely run by competitive players who essentially tell anyone tuning in that ITC/GT mission packets are the only correct way to play 40k definitely has nothing to do with it.
For various reasons, the competitive side of the community has much greater influence over how the game is played than the casual side does, probably because a hallmark of being a competitive player is to obsess over the game to a higher degree than casuals would, which would naturally extend to starting youtube channels, podcasts, blogs, social media pages, etc. to discuss the game as part of that. For sake of discussion, the ITC has about 10k players. 73% of the players have played 1 or 2 events, the other 27% have played 3+ events (which is a close approximation of the 80/20 rule). In other words, of those 10k players, 7300 or so are probably borderline casuals who probably only attend the occasional local tournament or convention for fun and not because they truly consider themselves "competitive". The remaining 2700 or so on the other hand are much more active in terms of regularly attending tournaments and playing to improve scorings/rankings (and you could probably cut that number down even further by only looking at the percentage who have attended 6+ events to be "fully scored" in the ITC, but unfortunately the rankings are currently down for LVO so I can't pull data). If looking at BCP (important to note that all ITC players are in BPC but not all BPC players are in ITC), there are about 20k individuals registered in the system, of which (since 2019) only about 20% (about 4000 players) have played 4+ events total over the past 3 seasons. So, basically the true global "competitive community" numbers probably no more than about 5000 players (including Aussies who mostly use a different competitive registry than the rest of the world).
So, how big is the 40k community total? We don't know, but its big... the Warhammer 40k Subreddits has almost 460k subs, the majority of whom I'm guess are what could be considered casual players or casual fans if they don't play at all, etc.
So 5000 players, about 1.1% of the games total playerbase (I'm guessing that theres probably another 500k+ individuals who aren't counted in the reddit subs who just don't use social media or reddit, etc. so that number might really be more like 0.5%) is essentially dictating the terms of the game to the remaining 98.9% (or 99.5%).
Even if we're more generous with the definition of what constitutes "competitive" players and count it at approximately 25k comp players based on BCP + I'm guessing another 5k or so players in Australia, we're still saying that 5% of the games playerbase partakes in competitive play at best (potentially as little as 2.5% based on the assumption that only about half the games playerbase is subbed on reddit), and that 5% is dictating the terms to the remaining 95% (or 97.5% as the case might be).
Thats kinda screwy. fethed even. Casual players are literally, mathematically, the default, so why is the game being catered to competitive players??
(Just so its clear, yes Kanluwen I recognized your sarcasm, I am agreeing with you).
Here in 2022, it's time for competitive 40k players to stop pretending they're going to tournaments for every game night.
Amen. AMEN! Shout it from the rooftops. You can't say that casual players are at fault for playing pickup games against competitive gamers, sometimes theres no other option for the casual player. Sometimes the casual player doesn't know that the person they are playing is competitive, just because a competitive player is prepping for a tourney - even if they at some point mention it out loud while chatting with a group - doesn't necessarily mean the casual in question heard it or was aware of it. Sometimes the casual is actually a baby seal, bright eyed and new to the game, and has no idea what the disparity in skill and playstyle is between a casual and a comp meta player, and they walk into the game not knowing what they should be expecting and get wrecked. Competitive players don't need to play like every game matters, yet they do.
Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
Have you considered not doing that?
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Kanluwen wrote: Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
Yep, definitely the casuals fault. The fact that the primary outlets for game and mechanics discussions online is almost completely run by competitive players who essentially tell anyone tuning in that ITC/GT mission packets are the only correct way to play 40k definitely has nothing to do with it.
For various reasons, the competitive side of the community has much greater influence over how the game is played than the casual side does, probably because a hallmark of being a competitive player is to obsess over the game to a higher degree than casuals would, which would naturally extend to starting youtube channels, podcasts, blogs, social media pages, etc. to discuss the game as part of that. For sake of discussion, the ITC has about 10k players. 73% of the players have played 1 or 2 events, the other 27% have played 3+ events (which is a close approximation of the 80/20 rule). In other words, of those 10k players, 7300 or so are probably borderline casuals who probably only attend the occasional local tournament or convention for fun and not because they truly consider themselves "competitive". The remaining 2700 or so on the other hand are much more active in terms of regularly attending tournaments and playing to improve scorings/rankings (and you could probably cut that number down even further by only looking at the percentage who have attended 6+ events to be "fully scored" in the ITC, but unfortunately the rankings are currently down for LVO so I can't pull data). If looking at BCP (important to note that all ITC players are in BPC but not all BPC players are in ITC), there are about 20k individuals registered in the system, of which (since 2019) only about 20% (about 4000 players) have played 4+ events total over the past 3 seasons. So, basically the true global "competitive community" numbers probably no more than about 5000 players (including Aussies who mostly use a different competitive registry than the rest of the world).
So, how big is the 40k community total? We don't know, but its big... the Warhammer 40k Subreddits has almost 460k subs, the majority of whom I'm guess are what could be considered casual players or casual fans if they don't play at all, etc.
So 5000 players, about 1.1% of the games total playerbase (I'm guessing that theres probably another 500k+ individuals who aren't counted in the reddit subs who just don't use social media or reddit, etc. so that number might really be more like 0.5%) is essentially dictating the terms of the game to the remaining 98.9% (or 99.5%).
Even if we're more generous with the definition of what constitutes "competitive" players and count it at approximately 25k comp players based on BCP + I'm guessing another 5k or so players in Australia, we're still saying that 5% of the games playerbase partakes in competitive play at best (potentially as little as 2.5% based on the assumption that only about half the games playerbase is subbed on reddit), and that 5% is dictating the terms to the remaining 95% (or 97.5% as the case might be).
Thats kinda screwy. fethed even. Casual players are literally, mathematically, the default, so why is the game being catered to competitive players??
(Just so its clear, yes Kanluwen I recognized your sarcasm, I am agreeing with you).
Here in 2022, it's time for competitive 40k players to stop pretending they're going to tournaments for every game night.
Amen. AMEN! Shout it from the rooftops. You can't say that casual players are at fault for playing pickup games against competitive gamers, sometimes theres no other option for the casual player. Sometimes the casual player doesn't know that the person they are playing is competitive, just because a competitive player is prepping for a tourney - even if they at some point mention it out loud while chatting with a group - doesn't necessarily mean the casual in question heard it or was aware of it. Sometimes the casual is actually a baby seal, bright eyed and new to the game, and has no idea what the disparity in skill and playstyle is between a casual and a comp meta player, and they walk into the game not knowing what they should be expecting and get wrecked. Competitive players don't need to play like every game matters, yet they do.
Yes, that's why we're all stuck playing points and ITC based missions. Those blasted casuals!
Have you considered not doing that?
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
The fact that some comp players can not fathom taking anything less than the best combo is really at the crux of it. Their only drive is to "crush their enemies and hear the lamentations of their women". If they are not doing the aforementioned then it is impossible to have fun just for the sake of fun.
But definitely not all competitive players. Several of my friends went to LVO and last week they were actually doing tourney prep. Which makes sense, but funny thing is that each of them have zero issues with playing casually(i.e. Open war deck, PL, being able to exercise restraint in list building, etc.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: But, to be clear, this clearly is a heavily narrative focused edition of 40k because Crusade exists.
That's the 1 saving grace....I almost puked typing that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/31 00:09:34
So, the rest of us aren’t supposed to be concerned that a relatively tiny part of the player base that enjoys a dumbed down, colorless, bastardized version of 40K now has outsized influence on the future of the game with their direct line to GW?
Take templates as just one example. They were fun, and helped fuel the imagination while playing. It was always satisfying to whip out the flame template. But, it had to go, to support the tournamentification of 40K; too many whiny players spending all day at tourneys arguing over whether a single model was hit or not…Solution? Remove fun from the game, and replace it with even more buckets of dice rolling, so the game would be ‘competitive’…
There’s already a perfectly bland, completely balanced, utterly boring game out there for those of you that desire it - chess. Play that, and leave your phony tournament ‘balance’ out of 40K.
But definitely not all competitive players. Several of my friends went to LVO and last week they were actually doing tourney prep. Which makes sense, but funny thing is that each of them have zero issues with playing casually(i.e. Open war deck, PL, being able to exercise restraint in list building, etc.)
I find the ability of competitive players to "downtune" really varies depending on the degree to which they engage in competitive gaming. The most competitive among them really struggle to comprehend what a casual game looks like, for instance one friend in particular (currently at LVO) who basically plays in a tournament every weekend (travels around regionally often so that he can get games in when local stores aren't hosting something) will very deliberately make it a point when playing me to tear up his competitive list and take units which he would never include if he was going to a tournament in order to build a list that in his mind he would not manage to win a game with in an average tournament. Often, some of the less aggressively competitive players will comment that his list is extremely aggressive or take jabs at him that hes an donkey-cave for bringing a tournament list to a casual game/"I thought this was supposed to be a casual game", and he struggles to comprehend that his list isn't truly "casual" - because he spends so much time on tournaments and focusing on tournaments, he doesn't have a good sense of how the game is played casually and his impression of what it means to bring a casual list is heavily warped.
Take templates as just one example. They were fun, and helped fuel the imagination while playing. It was always satisfying to whip out the flame template. But, it had to go, to support the tournamentification of 40K; too many whiny players spending all day at tourneys arguing over whether a single model was hit or not…Solution? Remove fun from the game, and replace it with even more buckets of dice rolling, so the game would be ‘competitive’…
I prefer the dice rolling to the templates, personally. Glad they're gone, long may they stay dead.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/31 01:46:20
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
I wouldn't call 40k bland, but I understand people like their templates, scatter dice, random tables, and all that stuff. I personally don't miss any of that, and I'm not a competitive player.
All of those things caused more arguments even in casual games than they helped.
I'm torn about blast markers. I liked them in 3rd. When they made everything scatter in latter editions it got really stupid (thanks Jervis! ). And I've played against people who spend every turn measuring out max coherency between ever model. I can't decide which I'd prefer: Arguments over scatter or anal retentive players?
Laughing Man wrote: So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
When people continually are fed misinformation about missions, power v points, etc...is that a surprise?
Whilst I don't think there's any "misinformation" being given out, and the "power vs points" thing is really just Kan's personal axe that he has ground down to a smooth and shiny pole devoid of an actual edge, ultimately he is right about this for reasons that many of us have been stating for quite some time now.
Tournaments become the norm. Large swathes of 40k players play pick-up games, and those are invariably matched play games, which in turn take up whatever the latest changes are from the tournament circuit. Again, calling it "misinformation" is certainly a stretch, but any attempts to weasel in things like "you're a minority so stop complaining no one wants to play like you" are simply shifting the conversation away from the real issue: Tournaments playing a larger and larger role in shaping the game as a whole, and an absolute minuscule amount of people (the top tournament types) having an influence on the game's direction (with no conflict of interest, naturally! ).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/31 04:23:30
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm torn about blast markers. I liked them in 3rd. When they made everything scatter in latter editions it got really stupid (thanks Jervis! ). And I've played against people who spend every turn measuring out max coherency between ever model. I can't decide which I'd prefer: Arguments over scatter or anal retentive players?
Laughing Man wrote: So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
When people continually are fed misinformation about missions, power v points, etc...is that a surprise?
Whilst I don't think there's any "misinformation" being given out, and the "power vs points" thing is really just Kan's personal axe that he has ground down to a smooth and shiny pole devoid of an actual edge, ultimately he is right about this for reasons that many of us have been stating for quite some time now.
Tournaments become the norm. Large swathes of 40k players play pick-up games, and those are invariably matched play games, which in turn take up whatever the latest changes are from the tournament circuit. Again, calling it "misinformation" is certainly a stretch, but any attempts to weasel in things like "you're a minority so stop complaining no one wants to play like you" are simply shifting the conversation away from the real issue: Tournaments playing a larger and larger role in shaping the game as a whole, and an absolute minuscule amount of people (the top tournament types) having an influence on the game's direction (with no conflict of interest, naturally! ).
So you don't see any conflict between "There's a minority of players that drive the balance of 40K" and "I am in a minority of players who are upset we aren't allowed to drive the balance of 40K"?
Take templates as just one example. They were fun, and helped fuel the imagination while playing. It was always satisfying to whip out the flame template. But, it had to go, to support the tournamentification of 40K; too many whiny players spending all day at tourneys arguing over whether a single model was hit or not…Solution? Remove fun from the game, and replace it with even more buckets of dice rolling, so the game would be ‘competitive’…
It was happening in casual games as well. Lots of casual players are happy they're gone, or don't really care about it.
and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
just looking at Bolt Action, which is based on 40k, and removed templates with 1st Edi as an improvment over the original rules
and brought them back with 2nd edition
Might be that the removing was driven by the tournament crowed, but not because it is hard to use or open to arguments, but it was a hard counter to certain lists and competitive players want as less hard counters as possible in their game
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm torn about blast markers. I liked them in 3rd. When they made everything scatter in latter editions it got really stupid (thanks Jervis! ). And I've played against people who spend every turn measuring out max coherency between ever model. I can't decide which I'd prefer: Arguments over scatter or anal retentive players?
Laughing Man wrote: So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
When people continually are fed misinformation about missions, power v points, etc...is that a surprise?
Whilst I don't think there's any "misinformation" being given out, and the "power vs points" thing is really just Kan's personal axe that he has ground down to a smooth and shiny pole devoid of an actual edge, ultimately he is right about this for reasons that many of us have been stating for quite some time now.
Tournaments become the norm. Large swathes of 40k players play pick-up games, and those are invariably matched play games, which in turn take up whatever the latest changes are from the tournament circuit. Again, calling it "misinformation" is certainly a stretch, but any attempts to weasel in things like "you're a minority so stop complaining no one wants to play like you" are simply shifting the conversation away from the real issue: Tournaments playing a larger and larger role in shaping the game as a whole, and an absolute minuscule amount of people (the top tournament types) having an influence on the game's direction (with no conflict of interest, naturally! ).
So you don't see any conflict between "There's a minority of players that drive the balance of 40K" and "I am in a minority of players who are upset we aren't allowed to drive the balance of 40K"?
Look at it like this there's 1-2% driving/inputting change at the top end. There's maybe 75% in the middle who just follow the 1-2% to some degree because that's what they think they're supposed to do/is the norm. The remainder are the extreme casual/narrative/new players who either know no better ro insulate inside their narrative campaigns.
No matter which bracket you fit into, that 1-2% have more influence or power over the other 99-98% than any other sub group.
A lot of this stems from the constant want/need to Ash Ketchum and be the best, of their group, of their area, of an event. More than ever playing for the fun of it is a foreign concept for the bulk of discussion about this game.
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't? A dakkajet firing 42 shots or a 9 man squad of warbikes firing 108 shots should definitely be appropriate examples of units that have the chance to hit multiple units, much more than a guy wielding a flamer or firing a missile.
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
No, what he's saying is that most players don't want to put in the effort to actually try something new because they've been told it's not worth it and most people want to travel the path of least resistance and just play "normal 40K", something which is being dictated by tournament players in most stores.
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't? A dakkajet firing 42 shots or a 9 man squad of warbikes firing 108 shots should definitely be appropriate examples of units that have the chance to hit multiple units, much more than a guy wielding a flamer or firing a missile.
Machine gun style weapons clearly need arc of fire templates to represent their accurate method of usage. Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/31 08:59:22
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
Templates disappearing coincided with less emphasis on the table, scale and placement of models, and generally a reduction in 'realism' imho to suit a mindset corrupted (again, imho) by CCG and video game mechanics. Sure, scatter was a problem and sure, some arses maxed their coherencies to minimise template effectiveness, in my relatively limited experience, but (again imho) the best strategy there was to just not hang out with those people anymore, if it was an option. Frankly, I am confused as to why technology hasn't been applied to solve these problems. I mean, Mansions of Madness uses an app - why not a photo of the table with scatter done on the phone? Or, why not blast markers like dice with little lasers inside that point in the direction of the scatter? GW could make them. I am sure that more clever people than I could manage a better solution, retaining the old table top realism and what was a superior mechanic barring low-intellects who abused it...
As for the iTC partnership, in this thread, one point got passed by quickly, and this was that ITC and GW store owners/managers would be brought into conversation, each with slightly different interests. Stores might like leagues and narrative army building events spread over months, as people collect new stuff and meet there on are nights, also maybe buying snacks and picking up comics and magazines and so on depending on the store. Tourney minded people might pull the hobby toward matched play comp list building (again, deck building CCG corruption, imho) and this might not only drive sales to some degree, but also inform GW of emerging demand. I mean, GW as we know it now, a purely for-profit global corporatocracy would not be doing this for any reason but to cut back on waste and to manage their consumer base so that they do not overproduce some things while missing out on what people want to buy to win. Maybe there is a sweet spot between WAAC and FAAC that is WARC or winning at a reasonable cost, and maybe in the tension between hobby shop interests and tourney winner interests, GW is trying to identify this point of highest returns for themselves...
For myself, all the more reason to focus on older editions, home-brew editions like Prohammer, once I get into a stable home then a 3d printer and so on.
Dunno about Kan, but in my case I have. Nobody wants to play anything but the comp standard, even the other casual players I've approached locally. In most cases if you ask them to play using open war/eternal war/crusade mission pack they'll usually say something to the effect of "nah, those missions suck, lets play with the GT mission pack, they're much better balanced and more fun". Heres the thing though, overwhelmingly they haven't played any of those missions, of the dozens of people I've asked I've only found a literal handful who have ever tried any of those missions, ever - yet they all seem to know that the missions suck, are unbalanced, unfun, etc. Why? Because the discourse surrounding the game is dominated by around 1% of the community, for whom those missions do not fulfill their definition of what good/fun gameplay is like, etc. and they are the ones who go out and critique and criticize those missions, etc. and generally messge to the community not to bother with them.
So what you're saying is that players like you are the vast minority, since nobody wants to play the way you do?
No, what he's saying is that most players don't want to put in the effort to actually try something new because they've been told it's not worth it and most people want to travel the path of least resistance and just play "normal 40K", something which is being dictated by tournament players in most stores.
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't? A dakkajet firing 42 shots or a 9 man squad of warbikes firing 108 shots should definitely be appropriate examples of units that have the chance to hit multiple units, much more than a guy wielding a flamer or firing a missile.
Machine gun style weapons clearly need arc of fire templates to represent their accurate method of usage. Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/31 10:19:00
kodos wrote: and yet templates are still the easiest solution to weapons that should hit multiple units (aka being a counter to dense packed multiple small units blocking the objective)
just looking at Bolt Action, which is based on 40k, and removed templates with 1st Edi as an improvment over the original rules
and brought them back with 2nd edition
Might be that the removing was driven by the tournament crowed, but not because it is hard to use or open to arguments, but it was a hard counter to certain lists and competitive players want as less hard counters as possible in their game
I moved from 40k to Bolt Action and really enjoyed 1st edition. The shoddy v2 rulebook, errors and typos as well and mainly bringing templates into v2 killed my fun of the game. No templates means far less micromanaging of models so less can be hit under a template. All that micromanaging and spacing of models really slows the game down and removes the fun.
As far as the ITC thing goes for GW?
Well, GW won't do anything without some kind of profit in mind so they must have some plans up their sleeves.
When I played 40k casually, I'd be lucky to get a game in every couple of months, the same with a lot of the crowd I played with. I'd far more prefer a thorough playtest with competitive tournament players who probably get far more games in than most casuals and GW themselves. GW's playtesting was more than likely a couple of casual games over a dinner period at GWHQ, and those games were probably photographed as the big battles for WD as well.
What I'd like to see? A day when any unit in a codex could be taken without you getting scoffed/laughed at for bringing it. That would be a start to balance.
Currently most played: Silent Death, Mars Code Aurora, Battletech, Warcrow and Infinity.
Blackie wrote:
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't
because it is a game and not a simulation, hence you have some kind of stone/paper/scissor mechanics
for the same reason Anti-Tank weapons do not cause Mortal Wounds for all their damage, it would be realsitic that infantry is instant killed by something that can remove a Land Raider, but it would make them better Anti-Infantry weapons than AT weapons (and vica versa, were in 7th the best AT weapons were anti-infantry weapons)
and no, it makes no sense to argue for realism in 40k (and games based on that), as this is beyond what the rules can do, it is a game, not a simulation
and from a game perspective, not having a counter play to MSU meatshield on objectives outside of melee is a problem if not all armies have access to fast melee units that can do it (so we go back to the balance issue that not all armies can do everything which makes some superior by default detc)
Platuan4th wrote:Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
most games that want to have a realism use fire corridors for that and no those have less templates as they might have only 1 in addition (for artillery) if at all
but people who like 40k don't want realism found in historical games so having such things instead of specific targets and things like overwatch is out of question
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
I tried logging on to the ITC results page to see who the likely group of players are who might be involved in this, but the site is down at the moment due to the LVO. My impression in the past has been that the ITC is essentially a US thing. Am I wrong?
My only hope with the next edition of 40k is that crusade persists and that some of the abysmal wording we now have in the rules gets reviewed. I work with UK legislation on a daily basis and frankly reading that is easier that the overly verbose rules we now have.
Machine gun style weapons clearly need arc of fire templates to represent their accurate method of usage. Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
That was sarcasm and meant to be ad absurdium, not the desirable conclusion. I'm one of those that agrees with the removal of Templates and the "Argument Phase".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/31 11:14:36
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
Blackie wrote:
Why are flamers and blast weapons supposed to hit multiple units and weapons that spray countless bullets aren't
because it is a game and not a simulation, hence you have some kind of stone/paper/scissor mechanics
for the same reason Anti-Tank weapons do not cause Mortal Wounds for all their damage, it would be realsitic that infantry is instant killed by something that can remove a Land Raider, but it would make them better Anti-Infantry weapons than AT weapons (and vica versa, were in 7th the best AT weapons were anti-infantry weapons)
and no, it makes no sense to argue for realism in 40k (and games based on that), as this is beyond what the rules can do, it is a game, not a simulation
and from a game perspective, not having a counter play to MSU meatshield on objectives outside of melee is a problem if not all armies have access to fast melee units that can do it (so we go back to the balance issue that not all armies can do everything which makes some superior by default detc)
Platuan4th wrote:Don't just bring back templates, introduce MORE templates.
most games that want to have a realism use fire corridors for that and no those have less templates as they might have only 1 in addition (for artillery) if at all
but people who like 40k don't want realism found in historical games so having such things instead of specific targets and things like overwatch is out of question
The only argument behind people arguing about bringing templates back is realism/immersion. Nothing else.
I agree about the game not being a simulation, and that's why I don't miss templates at all.
Yeah, if I wanted to play a card game, I would play a card game. Realism means that the table and the models and the scale and the space of the board matters. Dice only data slate driven CCG inspired mechanics gets around all of this, so that people can put huge models on a kitchen table and pretend they are not playing a card game. Sad, imho, when "list building" (which is really just deck building by another name) "metas" (which is really just gaming the game instead of using the game to moderate something more like an RPG with a small army) are more important than a model based hobby with realistic terrain features and something like a battlefield dynamic in mind. With current iterations, the models themselves are only placeholders for what might as well be cards, and a card game is much more suited to a kitchen table sized table than models in the first place... makes me wonder why people who don't want "realism" in the game don't just play with cards instead. But oh well, I suppose I am a voice from the margins, here, as the people who cheer ITC secondaries and so on and CPs and model scale creep and chasing the "meta" all seem too point of fact, as if they are the voices of reason that "realism doesn't belong in the game" and so on, when again, i don't understand why they don't just play with cards on their mom's kitchen table trying to get a half dozen games in before dinner, instead...
Besides that, to me it seems obvious that the problem with templates and so on is less with the actual mechanic than the attitudes of people who abuse them, so why people will call template use the "argument phase" and so on. And again, my solution is to simply not hang out with people of such a attitude.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/31 12:25:13
Have you actually played a modern day card game? Tabletop games have always had iterations with cards and such.. I mean 2nd edition warhammer and it's wargear cards were common for that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/31 12:41:29
I started with 2nd. Wargear cards and contemporary 9th are worlds apart in this regard imho...
And no, I do not play card games... last card game that I enjoyed was about vampire clans, can't remember that actual name of the game but I think that it changed after its first iteration. That would have been around 1994 maybe...
). And I've played against people who spend every turn measuring out max coherency between ever model. I can't decide which I'd prefer: Arguments over scatter or anal retentive players?
