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.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


But the example given didn't involve any kind of community, it was a parent teaching their kids the game. And have never seen anyone raging about HOW DARE YOU NOT PLAY A FULL OFFICIAL GAME OF WARHAMMER 40K when a parent puts a couple of basic infantry squads on the table and ignores stratagems/chapter rules/etc. Maybe it happened but there's no way it was anything more than an occasional idiot that nobody likes.

Respectfully, consider the bigger picture your specific example touches on. Welcome to the Internet - that kind of stuff is sadly more common than you realise. There is a large section of the community for whom unless it's 2000pts bleeding edge tourney matched play it's not legit and those who want to play differently get actively shamed. Whether its directly stated or simply a dog whistle. I have seen snide comments in real life echoing this. And frankly it's not a good look. You can say its an 'occasional idiot' and you might be right, but that one individual is also enough to poison people's perception of the hobby.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

So, just to clarify here: are we talking about WAAC as in "making good choices in the list-building part of the game with the intent to win" or WAAC as in "rules lawyering, moving an extra inch because you can get away with it, etc"?

Heh of course - Waac is the dodgy stuff. That stuff ain't cool - ever. Please note though, I am also talking about 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Technically just because somethimg is 'within the rules' doesn't necessarily mean it's OK either. :p and I can reference plenty real life things of perfectly reprehensible things that were 'legal and within the rules'. No doubt, you can to. An over reliance on an ultra-competitive playstyle and community contributed massively to warmachine/hordes' implosion back at the start of mk3.

'Good choices in the list-building part of the game with the intent to win' sounds perfectly legit and in some cases it absolutely is. context is key. That said its cost can be high - like when that desire leads to a hypothetical 97% of the games options and builds being unexplored and deemed 'unplayable'? List building with an eye to 'relative' power opens more doors imo than focusing on 'absolute' power exclusively. And How 'good enough' are we talking about? 'Intent to win' can cover lots of shady stuff. There's consequences, even from perfectly 'legal' and technically legitimate approaches to list building that can have extremely negative effects on the greater community health and game health down the line. It might be only some circumstances and it might be many that are affected. Imo the consequences mean its not always worth it.

That said, my point wasn't to call you out or anything - you're making a fundamentally decent point. I am simply trying to illustrate its a murky grey area. I mean, what happens when you (hypothetical 'you') take your bleeding edge tourney list against some kid with a put together list or a returning-from-a-ten-year hiatus veteran whose list is nowhere near the same level. Or yes, even someone whose codex isn't one of the current crop of top builds (brcause hey its gw and the balance is terrible). They can't play at the same level. Another one - as a narrative player me and my group don't play list-building--for-advantage. List building is a collaborative effort, its a function of the overall scenario, with an eye on the narrative and the historic 'look' of armies, rather than a strategic expression of each players desire to out think each other and win. Its not about 'better' armies its about matching them.

Like i said, just because you're (hypothetical, not 'you') not a bad person does not mean you're not the villain ruining someone else's hobby from their perspective. You're not necessarily wrong in your approach (and if it works for you and yours - great. Just be conscious of the fact that it wont always be like that); they're not necessarily wrong either.

I play Open constantly

I don't want to to the extensive bookkeeping of crusade, agendas, etc, I don't want the tight bonds of Matched Play. I actually enjoy using Open rules that Gw has given us, like CA 18's character customization and battle honours. It's similar to crusade but much much less to keep track of.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
that is like writing a screen play for a movie

Congratulations, you have found out what narrative play is

Aint nothing narrative about the core game though.

No, they took all the narrative stuff out with the change to 8th. Blast weapons not hitting a second squad standing base to base with the squad you're targeting is a great example

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, you are doing a great deal of conflating bob. I'm not nearly the E-Jock you are, what with your quote mining but I'll just respond in a boring block of text.

Try getting your names right? I haven't said anything to you.

1. I like the crafting of lists with points. FINE, No ISSUES HERE.
2. It will make everyone ONLY pick the best options to win, and we'll never see anything but the best models. - And to this I ask again, when was the last time you took non-standard BiS wargear on you lists? When did you take Launchers instead of Plasma? When did you choose Chainswords and Laspistols over Powerswords and Plasma Pistols?

I will, however, address this point. You're confusing two separate issues here: the best upgrade from an optimization point of view, and the upgrade with the most powerful stat line. On my IG sergeants I normally take a laspistol and chainsword because they cost zero points and it's usually not worth paying to upgrade a sergeant's weapons. But occasionally I'll have some spare points and decide that sure, I'll invest the points in giving that sergeant a better weapon. There's a reasonable tradeoff there: pay 0 points for a weaker option or pay 5 points for a stronger option. But under PL, where the laspistol and plasma pistol have the same point cost, there is no optimization choice. There is no circumstance whatsoever where the right optimization choice is to take the laspistol, the plasma pistol is strictly better and always the correct choice. By eliminating the design space of "weaker but cheaper" you've significantly cut the range of viable options and reduced equipment selection to identifying the gun with the biggest numbers in the stat line.

You see this exact scenario now that GW made infantry squads cost a flat 60 points regardless of equipment. You used to have debates over whether it was worth paying for certain upgrades, now all of that is gone. Every squad has a vox, every sergeant has a plasma pistol and power sword, etc. And the only people not making those choices are doing it because they are reluctant to convert the models with a new codex coming soon, a codex that will hopefully fix the free stuff problem and go back to the old point costs.

PL isn't WAAC, it's the evolution of a broken an unbalanced system brought about in the olden days of 40k, which like all things from back then, is broken, and no longer worth the effort of fixing every 3 months, to appease the WAAC Chuds.

And this is just plain silly. WAAC players don't want regular point updates, they want a broken system where they can continue to take the best options without having to buy new stuff. The people who want frequent updates are the ones who want a fair and balanced game where the overpowered stuff gets brought in line with everything else.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I have had to respond to both Cartbarf and you, precisely because you responded to comments I made to CadianSgt and Voss WITHOUT acknowledging the context that they don't want to improve Crusade, they want it gone. And to be fair to both of them, they didn't explicitly say they wanted Crusade gone, so I am paraphrasing them, and many apologies to both of them if they weren't in fact suggesting that Crusade should be cancelled.

You aren't paraphrasing anything, you're lying and building a straw man argument. Crusade with the normal point system and normal matched play rules is still Crusade. It does not need a separate point system to function and removing PL is in no way the same as removing Crusade.

Well thanks for clarifying. The statement you made was this:

"And why does GW even need multiple play modes? Open Play doesn't need to exist at all, and narrative play worked just fine when you had narrative scenarios and campaigns using the matched play rules."

From that statement, I assumed you were advocating for the complete removal of Crusade: "Why does GW need multiple play modes" does seem to imply that. And if you think that reducing Crusade to just "Narrative Scenarios" and "campaigns" is somehow keeping Crusade, from my perspective- and likely, the perspective, of many other Crusade players, it is not.

Allow me to be clear: Points can be used to play Crusade. I would be okay with that, though I personally feel PL is a better fit for me, for reasons I've already explained. Pretty sure I've said this directly to you more than once. If not, I'm saying it now: Crusade can work with points, and if that's all you're advocating for, I can accept that as a totally reasonable suggestion. I'll still prefer PL, but playing with points isn't unreasonable if that's what you and your group want to do.

If you want to add to the existing bespoke Crusade options in dexes as Unit has suggested, I can probably get behind that too. If you want to tweak certain aspects of the Crusade system to make it work better, that's definitely a discussion worth having as well. In both of those cases, I'd have to evaluate the suggestions individually based on their individual merits before I figured out whether or not they would work for me, just as I'd expect you to evaluate any suggestions I made based on their individual merits.

But if you advocate for the full scale removal of the bespoke content from dexes, which is what I assumed you meant when you said "Why does GW need multiple play modes," that's when your suggestion becomes unreasonable to me and other players with the same interests and preferences. I wouldn't expect you to change such an opinion based on my preferences, just as you shouldn't expect me to change my opinion based on your preferences.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
People say "it'd mean everyone would just take the best options" as if that isn't what is already happening. How much actual variation goes on in 40k. Very little in my opinion. You're either playing netlisters with just last week repainted minis to whatever the stock standard hotness is that week, or you have completely new players who just bought their first set of Ork Nobs, and wants to play a "fun" game to try out their investment.

You all act like there are droves of people using Reivers and Land Raiders, or Custodes Wardens. Or Company Commanders with Laspistols instead of command rods. No one is playing this game or investing in it to lose constantly. Everyone in some fashion is trying to win at least. No one is purposefully being a Low Tier God and maining the weakest units for pride. Everyone is using their best units, because they want to win.

When did it become bad to want to win?

I have a company commander with a laspistol who had never had a rod of command, and I play reivers regularly. Does that make me a “low tier god”??

I just play the models I think are cool and that have a good back story. As for winning…. If game is about telling a story then winning and losing don’t matter. But that’s maybe just me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
I play Open constantly

I don't want to to the extensive bookkeeping of crusade, agendas, etc, I don't want the tight bonds of Matched Play. I actually enjoy using Open rules that Gw has given us, like CA 18's character customization and battle honours. It's similar to crusade but much much less to keep track of.

Love those rules and still use them myself.

PenitentJake wrote:
From that statement, I assumed you were advocating for the complete removal of Crusade:

You assumed incorrectly. Removing Open Play and the concept of Official™ Play™ Types™ with their own separate fundamental rule systems is what needs to happen. Crusade would remain as an expansion on the normal matched play rules. It would use normal points, normal army construction rules, etc, just like older narrative systems built on their edition's core game. You didn't need a separate Way™ To™ Play™ The™ Game™ with a separate point system to play a Planetary Empires campaign in older editions, you don't need Narrative™ Play™ With™ Power™ Level™ to play Crusade.

I'll still prefer PL, but playing with points isn't unreasonable if that's what you and your group want to do.

What I want is for PL to cease to exist at all. And I'm glad we're in agreement that Crusade would work just fine without it, so there is no obstacle to its removal other than GW being reluctant to admit their idea failed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
Respectfully, consider the bigger picture your specific example touches on. Welcome to the Internet - that kind of stuff is sadly more common than you realise. There is a large section of the community for whom unless it's 2000pts bleeding edge tourney matched play it's not legit and those who want to play differently get actively shamed. Whether its directly stated or simply a dog whistle. I have seen snide comments in real life echoing this. And frankly it's not a good look. You can say its an 'occasional idiot' and you might be right, but that one individual is also enough to poison people's perception of the hobby.

Maybe I'm just active in better parts of the internet but I have never seen someone criticizing a parent for not playing a full 2000 point game with all official material included when teaching their kid how to play. And yeah, one TFG can ruin the game for someone but that's not a problem you can fix with game rules. Every activity will have a TFG somewhere if you look hard enough, what matters is whether that kind of thing is common.

Please note though, I am also talking about 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Technically just because somethimg is 'within the rules' doesn't necessarily mean it's OK either. :p and I can reference plenty real life things of perfectly reprehensible things that were 'legal and within the rules'.

That's what I mean by rules laywering: technically it's RAW but it's against RAI and only a WAAC TFG will try to abuse it.

There's consequences, even from perfectly 'legal' and technically legitimate approaches to list building that can have extremely negative effects on the greater community health and game health down the line. It might be only some circumstances and it might be many that are affected. Imo the consequences mean its not always worth it.

Sure, but now we're getting into different approaches to the game, not "is this WAAC". A player who wants competitive games and a player who wants to play according to their specific narrative will struggle to have balanced and enjoyable games but that's far from "at all costs". It's just an unfortunate incompatibility between reasonable adults. That's why I think it's important to draw a line between actual WAAC behavior with rules laywering, cheating, etc, and people who just enjoy list optimization more than other people. WAAC without "at all costs" is just competitive play.

*jumps up and down*
Huh I guess us Open players are invisible.
I only use PL now, I'm done with points.

 Blndmage wrote:
Huh I guess us Open players are invisible.

What are you doing with your games that requires GW to give you official permission that Open™ Play™ is permitted? Would you be unable to run your 200 point solo game if GW didn't tell you it was legal according to the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Open™ Play™ Rules™?

This is the thing I don't get about Open Play as an Official™ Way™ To™ Play™, it's literally just telling you that you are permitted to change the rules if you want to. And that's an obvious fact about how games work. If GW removed all references to it you'd still be able to change the rules when playing with people who also want those changes, just like people have done in all previous editions of 40k. So what is the official Open™ Play™ adding to this situation?

I only use PL now, I'm done with points.

Honest question: why? What is paying zero points for most upgrades doing for you that is so essential?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Huh I guess us Open players are invisible.

What are you doing with your games that requires GW to give you official permission that Open™ Play™ is permitted? Would you be unable to run your 200 point solo game if GW didn't tell you it was legal according to the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Open™ Play™ Rules™?

It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.

Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.

I only use PL now, I'm done with points.

Honest question: why? What is paying zero points for most upgrades doing for you that is so essential?

It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.

He's being needlessly insulting, I believe, but I'm sure he meant to direct it to GW and not you or other players.

Basically, what stops you from doing the same in any edition of any game? I play WHFB 6th, and we don't use the vast majority of books. Me and my friends used 8th edition 40k for a while, but we don't use anything besides the point updates on Battlescribe. We play Infinity, and just use the 20 missions in the ITS book. I've never read any of the other books.

What's most important, besides Infinity, I can tell you the amount of house rules we use.

WHFB, we completely changed sweeping advance, so that it is auto hits instead of killing the entire unit. Any time a weird issue popped up, we fixed it with another rule. Well, since the unit isn't destroyed, what happens next? Well, the unit that advanced now counts as charging into that unit, so they get a bunch of first hits.

Me and my friends implemented a very basic Alternate Activations in 8th because of how tired we were of doing nothing during the enemy's turn, and we'd often let people go over the point limit if it meant for a more fun game.

In Infinity, I'm trying to stat some Admech models to play against my friend.

In exactly zero of these situations do I need permission from Games Workshop. Open Play was a marketing gimmick.

I hope that I don't come across as insulting, or mean in any way. Open Play for marketing does help in that some people might now be open to altering rules, but I imagine most players you would meet in the wild wouldn't do so, so it's one of those rules that means nothing, because the people who use it would do so without the rule anyways (it's your game, do what you want), and the people who wouldn't have done so regardless most likely won't still.

I'm a TTRPG game designer.

I don't want to do that when I'm trying to relax.

They literally made rules that I can use when I want to play but my mind is tired. And it keeps me (and my roommates, not just solo play) able to play the game.

If I have the energy to play at a store, ya, I'll use whatever the common is, and probably be way out of my depth.

Yeah, the weird part (@PenitentJake) about "NO DON'T REMOVE CRUSADE" is that for people like me, who have been doing narrative for years, Crusade is actively worse than the stuff we used to run.

Write my own rules for Path of the Tanker as Eldar? Sure, when I am participating in a homebrew campaign with a GM. He would probably appreciate my contribution and, after addressing any obvious issues, would let me play my tanks on their Path.

Write my own rules for Path of the Tanker as Eldar in Crusade ? Nope. It's not the GW Approved™ way to play Eldar. There is no "GM" for a Crusade campaign - just a bunch of people on the club webchat. There is no final "Yes or No" except GW, who said no.

GW making "real narrative content" has crippled narrative play, turning it into an unbalanced mess - a race to collect upgrades to make units super powerful and curbstomp the enemy. I appreciate the effort...

...but on top of the actual Core Rules not supporting narrative in the slightest (which we have also talked about before), for me, 9th edition (and 8th before it) has actively harmed my enjoyment of narrative play. It ripped out narrative core mechanics, and replaced them with a progression system that only facilitates GW Approved™ Narratives - or ends up needing houseruled anyways, like your gathering of the Triumph relics.

But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.

They've made a ton of Open play content.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?

Am I doing something wrong?

Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.

I'm using the rules in the books, it's that simple. I don't need to dig through CP or Strats, unless I'm actually running BATTLEFORGED forces. Which isn't freaking mandatory to play the game.

I even use the Core Rules method of terrain sometime, rather than the Advanced terrain rules.

That's still a valid way to play the game. Some days I can't manage any if the Advanced rules (like the terrain keywords, CP/strats, the whole detachment thing).

 Blndmage wrote:
*jumps up and down*
Huh I guess us Open players are invisible.
I only use PL now, I'm done with points.

And Bob is fine with you no longer playing. It boggles the mind why someone would want another person(whose enjoyment of the game doesn't involve them) to stop playing. They feel that if you do not play the way they want you to, you are lower than them and deserve nothing. What a wonderful person they must be.

 Blndmage wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.

They've made a ton of Open play content.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?

Am I doing something wrong?

Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.

I'm using the rules in the books, it's that simple. I don't need to dig through CP or Strats, unless I'm actually running BATTLEFORGED forces. Which isn't freaking mandatory to play the game.

I even use the Core Rules method of terrain sometime, rather than the Advanced terrain rules.

That's still a valid way to play the game. Some days I can't manage any if the Advanced rules (like the terrain keywords, CP/strats, the whole detachment thing).

There's two main points of confusion I have. Not judgement, or anything like that-just confusion.

1) PL vs. Points. For me, at least, adding 202+38+300+110 and so on isn't meaningfully harder than 10+2+15+6. Especially given easy access to a calculator. The main issue I have building a list is deciding what I want, not the exact points values.
I know you've got major health issues, though not exactly what they are. It just seems odd to me that you'd have to spend more than a minute or two on adding up points, if you already know what you're taking.

2) For Open Play, it seems weird that GW saying "You can ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like," matters when you can do that among your playgroup with or without "permission" from GW.

I hope this post doesn't cause you any trouble-but I'm legitimately confused, and would appreciate clarity.

I was very calm and not at all asking you to justify yourself when you say you play Open. I don't care that anyone plays how they want. I think having GW say that Open Play is allowed is better than them not saying so, even if it changes nothing. I do not like the idea that I was uncharitable in any way, as all I did was say that it was a marketing thing more than anything else, and that you don't need open play to play that way. I specifically said earlier that I play the way I like, whether or not GW says I can. You don't have to justify how you play, and hell, GW doesn't have to justify Open Play. I was just making a point.

 Blndmage wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Huh I guess us Open players are invisible.

What are you doing with your games that requires GW to give you official permission that Open™ Play™ is permitted? Would you be unable to run your 200 point solo game if GW didn't tell you it was legal according to the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Open™ Play™ Rules™?

It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.

Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.

I only use PL now, I'm done with points.

Honest question: why? What is paying zero points for most upgrades doing for you that is so essential?

It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.

Use Battlescribe and you won't have to worry about recalculation as much.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.

They've made a ton of Open play content.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?

Am I doing something wrong?

Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.

I'm using the rules in the books, it's that simple. I don't need to dig through CP or Strats, unless I'm actually running BATTLEFORGED forces. Which isn't freaking mandatory to play the game.

I even use the Core Rules method of terrain sometime, rather than the Advanced terrain rules.

That's still a valid way to play the game. Some days I can't manage any if the Advanced rules (like the terrain keywords, CP/strats, the whole detachment thing).

There's two main points of confusion I have. Not judgement, or anything like that-just confusion.

1) PL vs. Points. For me, at least, adding 202+38+300+110 and so on isn't meaningfully harder than 10+2+15+6. Especially given easy access to a calculator. The main issue I have building a list is deciding what I want, not the exact points values.
I know you've got major health issues, though not exactly what they are. It just seems odd to me that you'd have to spend more than a minute or two on adding up points, if you already know what you're taking.

2) For Open Play, it seems weird that GW saying "You can ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like," matters when you can do that among your playgroup with or without "permission" from GW.

I hope this post doesn't cause you any trouble-but I'm legitimately confused, and would appreciate clarity.

1) I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.

2) sometimes I just want a simple game. I don't want complicated bickering. Hell's I'm still trying to collect the Indexes and use those. It all depends on how much energy I have. I'll play Matched Play 2,000 points, but it'll take me days, if not a week, to recover from.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Huh I guess us Open players are invisible.

What are you doing with your games that requires GW to give you official permission that Open™ Play™ is permitted? Would you be unable to run your 200 point solo game if GW didn't tell you it was legal according to the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Open™ Play™ Rules™?

It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.

Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.

I only use PL now, I'm done with points.

Honest question: why? What is paying zero points for most upgrades doing for you that is so essential?

It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.

Use Battlescribe and you won't have to worry about recalculation as much.

Given Blndmage's situation, I wouldn't be surprised if Battlescribe is not the easiest thing to use.

It's handy as hell for most people, but the GUI is far from the best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
1) I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.

2) sometimes I just want a simple game. I don't want complicated bickering. Hell's I'm still trying to collect the Indexes and use those. It all depends on how much energy I have. I'll play Matched Play 2,000 points, but it'll take me days, if not a week, to recover from.

To 1), nothing stops you from using the old points. Your game, you do you. Though I definitely agree that the organization SUCKS-and it used to be better, dammit!

I keep up with what's happening. Ie my Necrons and the dataslate.
If I could afford the new books I'd use them. 3rd part products are nice, but not always accessible (visually impaired). Our unnamed eastern European friends have made it way more accessible. But I need time away from screens and the books help.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
From that statement, I assumed you were advocating for the complete removal of Crusade:

You assumed incorrectly. Removing Open Play and the concept of Official™ Play™ Types™ with their own separate fundamental rule systems is what needs to happen. Crusade would remain as an expansion on the normal matched play rules. It would use normal points, normal army construction rules, etc, just like older narrative systems built on their edition's core game. You didn't need a separate Way™ To™ Play™ The™ Game™ with a separate point system to play a Planetary Empires campaign in older editions, you don't need Narrative™ Play™ With™ Power™ Level™ to play Crusade.

I'll still prefer PL, but playing with points isn't unreasonable if that's what you and your group want to do.

What I want is for PL to cease to exist at all. And I'm glad we're in agreement that Crusade would work just fine without it, so there is no obstacle to its removal other than GW being reluctant to admit their idea failed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
Respectfully, consider the bigger picture your specific example touches on. Welcome to the Internet - that kind of stuff is sadly more common than you realise. There is a large section of the community for whom unless it's 2000pts bleeding edge tourney matched play it's not legit and those who want to play differently get actively shamed. Whether its directly stated or simply a dog whistle. I have seen snide comments in real life echoing this. And frankly it's not a good look. You can say its an 'occasional idiot' and you might be right, but that one individual is also enough to poison people's perception of the hobby.

Maybe I'm just active in better parts of the internet but I have never seen someone criticizing a parent for not playing a full 2000 point game with all official material included when teaching their kid how to play. And yeah, one TFG can ruin the game for someone but that's not a problem you can fix with game rules. Every activity will have a TFG somewhere if you look hard enough, what matters is whether that kind of thing is common.

Please note though, I am also talking about 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Technically just because somethimg is 'within the rules' doesn't necessarily mean it's OK either. :p and I can reference plenty real life things of perfectly reprehensible things that were 'legal and within the rules'.

That's what I mean by rules laywering: technically it's RAW but it's against RAI and only a WAAC TFG will try to abuse it.

There's consequences, even from perfectly 'legal' and technically legitimate approaches to list building that can have extremely negative effects on the greater community health and game health down the line. It might be only some circumstances and it might be many that are affected. Imo the consequences mean its not always worth it.

Sure, but now we're getting into different approaches to the game, not "is this WAAC". A player who wants competitive games and a player who wants to play according to their specific narrative will struggle to have balanced and enjoyable games but that's far from "at all costs". It's just an unfortunate incompatibility between reasonable adults. That's why I think it's important to draw a line between actual WAAC behavior with rules laywering, cheating, etc, and people who just enjoy list optimization more than other people. WAAC without "at all costs" is just competitive play.

Why do you want PL & Open Play to cease to exist? You're clearly not using them, so they have no impact upon how you play. So what's it to you if they exist & are used by others? So GW wastes some ink on a few pages. Just ignore it & play on. So someone playing a game you're not in is adding up PL instead of points. So what?

Blndmage wrote:Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?

Am I doing something wrong?

Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.

100% agreed, and I know how that feels as someone who is also a PL-only player and at this point, would define myself as playing Open Play.

No other system of rules is scrutinised so hard, or even has to face the question of "why do you play that way" - because it shouldn't matter, surely? WHY do any of us need to justify why we enjoy what we do?

If anyone is asking "why do you enjoy this" without in the same breath saying "your enjoyment is entirely valid, and I support your right to enjoy it", then may I kindly suggest not asking?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.

They've made a ton of Open play content.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?

Am I doing something wrong?

Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.

I'm using the rules in the books, it's that simple. I don't need to dig through CP or Strats, unless I'm actually running BATTLEFORGED forces. Which isn't freaking mandatory to play the game.

I even use the Core Rules method of terrain sometime, rather than the Advanced terrain rules.

That's still a valid way to play the game. Some days I can't manage any if the Advanced rules (like the terrain keywords, CP/strats, the whole detachment thing).

There's two main points of confusion I have. Not judgement, or anything like that-just confusion.

1) PL vs. Points. For me, at least, adding 202+38+300+110 and so on isn't meaningfully harder than 10+2+15+6. Especially given easy access to a calculator. The main issue I have building a list is deciding what I want, not the exact points values.
I know you've got major health issues, though not exactly what they are. It just seems odd to me that you'd have to spend more than a minute or two on adding up points, if you already know what you're taking.

2) For Open Play, it seems weird that GW saying "You can ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like," matters when you can do that among your playgroup with or without "permission" from GW.

I hope this post doesn't cause you any trouble-but I'm legitimately confused, and would appreciate clarity.

To be able to "ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like" without the existence of the separate Open Play section of the book, you would have to first go through the entire "normal" rulebook, see what you deem unnecessary, boggle down in details of rules interactions to make sure you didn't forgot to ignore some part of the rules that depend on other already ignored rules etc... You would have to first understand the whole fething complex game you deliberately want not to have to understand , be it not yet or not at all. Open Play is not permission to ignore rules, it is a specifically chosen set of stripped down rules aiming at those who do not care, or do not want to play by the full rules.

It blows my mind that any of you have trouble understanding such a simple concept.

1st:

Smudge, welcome back, glad to see you're still here!

2nd:

It's kinda the 40k Forum way though, to constantly gateguard against even the slightest change to the system. Change has to be brutal in 40k, it has to, every time, drag the player base kicking and screaming into the new system, no matter what the cause is. There are still people here advocating we entirely scrap 9th and go back to 5th, or 3rd. Or whatever, but not 6-8. Not those!

I personally haven't been here since before 7th. I got in right as 7th birthed 8. That being said, I read the entire BRB for 7th, and was so confused, I didn't build the box of GK Terminators I'd bought for 2 months, because I was confused as to what I could and could not give them. Granted I didn't buy their codex. Back then a box of GK terminatores and the 7th BRB was around 90 USD total, which was around a day's wages @ 9.50/hour. So I didn't know what could or couldn't get put where. So I made one of each thing the book said I could make. Low and behold, I had followed the paper guide in the box, and now had a completely invalid squad. I had three HWs, and 2 SWs. And two had THs.

This game is rediculously, needlessly, pointlessly, agressively, anti-new player. No one on the "tactics" forums has the time, or is willing to give the time, to explain the rules. It's always, look on BS or check the dex. Never, hey, let me see if I can help you learn to play this game.

I wish PL had existed back then. It would have made my first experience in this game faaaar more enjoyable. As such, my first experience in AoS was waaaay better, because you literally can't build an illegal unit. They can all take anything, the choice is mine if I want to give my lizard man a hammer, a spear, or a sword. 40k needs to do this, if it ever wants to increase it's player base beyond the competitive gate keepers.

 Blndmage wrote:
It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.

See, that's what I don't get. Open Play gives you no structure besides permission to ignore the rules if you want. You still have to choose which rules to include, you are still writing your own scenarios, etc. And all of that stuff happened the same way before 8th, the lack of official approval from GW didn't stop anyone at all.

Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.

I'm mocking GW, not you. Remember that the whole Open™ Play™ brand thing came as a clumsy attempt to get people to buy primaris kits for their Tyranid armies. It had nothing to do with people like you, it was the result of some detached management person saying "WTF, why do we have rules that prevent everyone from buying every new release".

It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.

Is it really that much of a difference? Like JNAProductions said, most of the difficulty in list building is figuring out what you want to include in your list. Adding the actual numbers up is a tiny part of it, especially when there are tools like Battlescribe to do all of it for you. And TBH PL is harder to make lists with. If my list is at 26 out of 25 PL I can't get down below the limit without removing an entire unit, and that usually means reshuffling other units to accommodate it. If I'm at 501 out of 500 points I can usually modify an upgrade somewhere to make it all work with a minimum of changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
To be able to "ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like" without the existence of the separate Open Play section of the book, you would have to first go through the entire "normal" rulebook, see what you deem unnecessary, boggle down in details of rules interactions to make sure you didn't forgot to ignore some part of the rules that depend on other already ignored rules etc... You would have to first understand the whole fething complex game you deliberately want not to have to understand , be it not yet or not at all. Open Play is not permission to ignore rules, it is a specifically chosen set of stripped down rules aiming at those who do not care, or do not want to play by the full rules.

Did you miss the part where the Open Play rules also say that you can use all of that other stuff if you want? It asks you to make that exact same decision, which means having the exact same level of understanding of detachments/stratagems/etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
Why do you want PL & Open Play to cease to exist? You're clearly not using them, so they have no impact upon how you play. So what's it to you if they exist & are used by others? So GW wastes some ink on a few pages. Just ignore it & play on. So someone playing a game you're not in is adding up PL instead of points. So what?

I want them gone because I'm tired of GW sinking development time and effort into doubling down on their mistakes to avoid admitting defeat instead of fixing the rest of the game. I want PL gone because the latest round of points updates are clearly aimed at moving towards a PL-like system and laying the foundation for going PL-only in the future. And I want PL gone because the sole useful function I've ever seen from it is CAAC gatekeepers using it as a way to tell competitive players they aren't welcome in a group.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Blndmage wrote:Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?

Am I doing something wrong?

Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.

100% agreed, and I know how that feels as someone who is also a PL-only player and at this point, would define myself as playing Open Play.

No other system of rules is scrutinised so hard, or even has to face the question of "why do you play that way" - because it shouldn't matter, surely? WHY do any of us need to justify why we enjoy what we do?

If anyone is asking "why do you enjoy this" without in the same breath saying "your enjoyment is entirely valid, and I support your right to enjoy it", then may I kindly suggest not asking?

Curiosity is invalid if it isn't accompanied by platitudes? That are honestly, obviously, going to be empty, because anyone who's asking isn't going to understand your perspective enough to give meaningful validation before you answer the question.
A 'that's cool' might be fine after they get an answer, but how can it mean anything before?

Open play is what people were doing for years, decades without it. So yeah, it needs some justification for taking up space in the book. It isn't a 'you' problem. Its a GW problem.

Racerguy180 wrote:
And Bob is fine with you no longer playing. It boggles the mind why someone would want another person(whose enjoyment of the game doesn't involve them) to stop playing. They feel that if you do not play the way they want you to, you are lower than them and deserve nothing. What a wonderful person they must be.

That's a nice straw man you've built there. Too bad being rude and dishonest is not a substitute for having an actual point to make.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.

See, that's what I don't get. Open Play gives you no structure besides permission to ignore the rules if you want. You still have to choose which rules to include, you are still writing your own scenarios, etc. And all of that stuff happened the same way before 8th, the lack of official approval from GW didn't stop anyone at all.

Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.

I'm mocking GW, not you. Remember that the whole Open™ Play™ brand thing came as a clumsy attempt to get people to buy primaris kits for their Tyranid armies. It had nothing to do with people like you, it was the result of some detached management person saying "WTF, why do we have rules that prevent everyone from buying every new release".

It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.

Is it really that much of a difference? Like JNAProductions said, most of the difficulty in list building is figuring out what you want to include in your list. Adding the actual numbers up is a tiny part of it, especially when there are tools like Battlescribe to do all of it for you. And TBH PL is harder to make lists with. If my list is at 26 out of 25 PL I can't get down below the limit without removing an entire unit, and that usually means reshuffling other units to accommodate it. If I'm at 501 out of 500 points I can usually modify an upgrade somewhere to make it all work with a minimum of changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
To be able to "ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like" without the existence of the separate Open Play section of the book, you would have to first go through the entire "normal" rulebook, see what you deem unnecessary, boggle down in details of rules interactions to make sure you didn't forgot to ignore some part of the rules that depend on other already ignored rules etc... You would have to first understand the whole fething complex game you deliberately want not to have to understand , be it not yet or not at all. Open Play is not permission to ignore rules, it is a specifically chosen set of stripped down rules aiming at those who do not care, or do not want to play by the full rules.

Did you miss the part where the Open Play rules also say that you can use all of that other stuff if you want? It asks you to make that exact same decision, which means having the exact same level of understanding of detachments/stratagems/etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
Why do you want PL & Open Play to cease to exist? You're clearly not using them, so they have no impact upon how you play. So what's it to you if they exist & are used by others? So GW wastes some ink on a few pages. Just ignore it & play on. So someone playing a game you're not in is adding up PL instead of points. So what?

I want them gone because I'm tired of GW sinking development time and effort into doubling down on their mistakes to avoid admitting defeat instead of fixing the rest of the game. I want PL gone because the latest round of points updates are clearly aimed at moving towards a PL-like system and laying the foundation for going PL-only in the future. And I want PL gone because the sole useful function I've ever seen from it is CAAC gatekeepers using it as a way to tell competitive players they aren't welcome in a group.

Top to bottom

Bolded 1) the book literally has the Open Hostility Mission Pack, which, I gak you not, has rules for miss matched PL. I just pick the one that fits the the scenario best, as well as Theaters of War. There are tons of awesome rules that enhance the play experience than Matched Play only folks won't even try.

Bolded 2) can you please explain who people like us are?

Bolded 3) an you wonder why we're feeling the need to be on the offensive?