PDA

View Full Version : 6th edition: The rise of the amateur gamer



Commissar Davis
17-07-2012, 14:14
With tournaments threatening to ban allies, fortifications and moving and/or random scenery, the competitive player will likely struggle in the amateur game at the local club, where gamers will be more use to such things.

If one looks at the possibilities that the game today presents us, there is far more challenge availably, with a canny player being able to beat a far stronger list and more experienced player, just by terrain elements and a bit of luck. The more professional player, that will spend time playing a less challenging game, will unlikely have the overall experience to cope with the full range of the rules played at the local level no matter how long they spend at tournaments. A list that won in a tournament may not be suited to play where all the rules are in use, which will have an impact on net lists.

GW has long said that they do not intend to build a game for competitive professional play, and that philosophy has come through loud and clear in this edition.

This edition seems set to make the play for the sake of a game amateur a rising star. Beware the woods, the water feature, and build your defences and statues or shrines. Call for your allies and let loose the conversions and enjoy a friendly came with whoever for the sake of it.

Bubble Ghost
17-07-2012, 14:23
Competitive gamers tend to shout the loudest on the internet, but I don't think the 'amateur gamer' ever went anywhere.

Leeman Russ
17-07-2012, 14:26
'Amateur' implies that we don't know what we're doing, but I agree with Bubble Ghost - we're all still here, we just stick to lurking most of the time ;)

Competitive gamers are in no way a bad thing, however, but there are times and places for everything, as it were.

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 14:29
Many competitive gamers would not be able to do well without their crutches :) many that i know or read on forums do their best to outlist their opponent and minimize the challenge. The challenge for them is coming up with a hard as nails list, which today is as easy as logging into a competitive powergamers forum and Ctl-C a list and Ctl-V it into their army builder program.

That sounds abrasive I realize but for many that tout their mad skills, if you gave them a balanced army to use against another balanced army, they'd often not do so well. Any mechanics that minimize list building and netlists IMO is a good thing. It makes the game more fun and more challenging.

Being poo poo'd for being an "amateur gamer" can be seen as insulting. It takes very little skill to find and abuse a netlist. My 14 year old can do it. I did it back in the day. I won a lot of trophies. Not because I am a good player, but because I knew how to abuse and min/max a list.

Bring on the challenges. The more the better. Kill off netlists. Make players play and rely less on math builds designed around overpowering the game.

By the by I am competitive. I just prefer a game that utilizes the above in my competitions as opposed to breaking the game. I can netlist with the best of them but I prefer a game, not a numbers exercise.

williamsond
17-07-2012, 14:37
I play alot of both fun club narative gaming and (mostley) fun tourney gaming and to be honest am loving 6th. However do feel allies are not a positive thing lets be honest people will abuse this so much both gaming wise and storywise. I already know a few douche bag power gamers who already state their army as Tau with Grey Knights rather than just Tau. While I do think that buying fortifications etc is fine it does feel to me as if it was only put in to generate sales of terrain for GW.

Commissar Davis
17-07-2012, 14:37
'Amateur' implies that we don't know what we're doing, but I agree with Bubble Ghost - we're all still here, we just stick to lurking most of the time ;)

Competitive gamers are in no way a bad thing, however, but there are times and places for everything, as it were.

You know that most sports and athletes were done at an amateur, rather than professional level (were not paid) up in till rather recently. Rugby Union was the last international amateur sport to go professional, and that didn't happen until the late 1990's.

Leeman Russ
17-07-2012, 14:41
@Commissar Davis: That's a fair point :) The word 'amateur' to me always came across as more of an insult rather than merely a distinction between levels of skill/achievement.

Pyriel
17-07-2012, 14:45
IMHO
playing competitive 40k without list-building is like preparing for a combat sport without strength & conditioning workouts.
the body is a combat athlete's tool, he should seek any advantage he can get.technique is tons important, but will never be utilised without conditioning at the top level.
likewise, the ARMYLIST is the competitive gamer's tool, he should seek any advantage he can get. his stratagems and skills will never be applicable against top level competition without a good armylist to support them.

of course, this is for tournaments. i stand by what i said, story games/campaigns =/= tournaments. everything has a time and a place.

nosebiter
17-07-2012, 14:45
@Commissar Davis: That's a fair point :) The word 'amateur' to me always came across as more of an insult rather than merely a distinction between levels of skill/achievement.

Lol, that didn't make it sound better. Non-tourney gamers would be a better fix. Non-pro even, if such a thing as a Pro 40k gamer exists.

Leeman Russ
17-07-2012, 14:59
Lol, that didn't make it sound better. Non-tourney gamers would be a better fix. Non-pro even, if such a thing as a Pro 40k gamer exists.

Haha! Now that you mention it, no, it didn't sound any better! Yes, non-tourney would work better (and help me muddle my way out of the confusion!)

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 15:00
"Professional" 40k gamers are those guys that live and die by netlists and play the game like a professional sport. Professional is not a good term because they aren't paid or endorsed by anyone to play, they are basically playing in min/max environments. Amateur is a person not paid to participate in a hobby or sport. As such, all of us are amateurs.

Competitive gamer is also not accurate because one can be competitive without wanting to play broken builds. ONe can be competitive and field a balanced list. However, the math of the game means that a balanced list will be at a serious disadvantage against a power math build.

Playing "competitive 40k" without list building akin to combat sports without training? No. In fact, if you really want to test someone's true tactical ability, have an event where the lists are all set and on the same level as everyone else. You'll see quickly who is good and who relies on netlists to carry them through quickly, much like a chess tournament. List building is like playing chess where one side can have six queens and the other doesn't. That's not a measure of skill.

I prefer "A" list tournaments. "A" lists are hard lists but not broken. Net list tournaments like Ard Boyz are about using broken builds. There is a big difference in the two. Its a preference thing I understand.

Commissar Davis
17-07-2012, 15:03
Lol, that didn't make it sound better. Non-tourney gamers would be a better fix. Non-pro even, if such a thing as a Pro 40k gamer exists.

I simply used the definitions that fitted. As the tourney scene does offer financial incentive it can be termed professional while the game at the local club amateur. Use what ever terms you think fit, the definitions would still be the same.

Pyriel
17-07-2012, 15:08
"competitive" is not a word meaning "wanting to win", despite what it originaly meant. especialy in tournaments, "competitive " is associated with one and only one thing: going for the title. that, and a "1st is 1st, 2nd is nothing" mentality.

same in combat sports: Roy Nelson has great jujitsu/grappling technique, solid chin, great punching power; he will NEVER win an mma title, and it is clear to all, because he is fat as hell and refuses to improve his physique.he becomes a boxing bag in each fight against a serious opponent! ergo, NOT competitive.

the same with 40k: try pitting an excellent tactician with a non-optimised armylist against a seriously good tactician with an optimised armylist. the non-optimised guy will lose so badly he wont even get a chance to play for the draw.

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 15:09
I think that going for the title and 1st is first and 2nd is nothing mentality is actually closer to WAAC (win at all costs) than competitive.

PapaNurgle
17-07-2012, 15:10
How about using 'Tournament Gamer' or 'Local Gamer' with the distinction that a Tournament goer is more likely to go to tournaments where there is a more generic level playing field and a Local Gamer tends to hang out at their local FLGS or basement with a potentially more specific playing field - more house rules, more gentlemen's agreements. Not necessarily less competetive, but more specialized.

And I like the point of the original post, before it got sidetracked with people who don't get paid to play objecting to being called 'amateur' I think that with the new rule set and the multiple configurations it allows, you will see some very interesting combinations in a FLGS, players will have to get a much broader and in depth knowledge of how the various armies work and the synergies inherent in various combinations, and local available terrain will definitely play a part in the local Meta-Game. Should be interesting, and I plan to make it fun.

althathir
17-07-2012, 15:27
With tournaments threatening to ban allies, fortifications and moving and/or random scenery, the competitive player will likely struggle in the amateur game at the local club, where gamers will be more use to such things.

If one looks at the possibilities that the game today presents us, there is far more challenge availably, with a canny player being able to beat a far stronger list and more experienced player, just by terrain elements and a bit of luck. The more professional player, that will spend time playing a less challenging game, will unlikely have the overall experience to cope with the full range of the rules played at the local level no matter how long they spend at tournaments. A list that won in a tournament may not be suited to play where all the rules are in use, which will have an impact on net lists.

GW has long said that they do not intend to build a game for competitive professional play, and that philosophy has come through loud and clear in this edition.

This edition seems set to make the play for the sake of a game amateur a rising star. Beware the woods, the water feature, and build your defences and statues or shrines. Call for your allies and let loose the conversions and enjoy a friendly came with whoever for the sake of it.

I think your looking at players being "competitive" as a black & white set of traits with no grey area. Being competitive doesn't mean that someone just loads the internet searches for a netlist, and shows up. Hell to be honest I don't know how many people are really guilty of that to begin with, take eldar depending on the units you liked you needed transports (small expensive fragile guys on foot hasn't worked ever), you needed something to destroy vehicles, so mechdar with dragons. Thats gonna look like it came off the net but really its fairly apparent by the same token its not shocking that most footdar lists are similiar.

Most of the guys that I would consider competitive won't really have a problem with any of these changes because they tend to be better because they put more time into the hobby (the whole hobby not just the game).


"Professional" 40k gamers are those guys that live and die by netlists and play the game like a professional sport. Professional is not a good term because they aren't paid or endorsed by anyone to play, they are basically playing in min/max environments. Amateur is a person not paid to participate in a hobby or sport. As such, all of us are amateurs.

Competitive gamer is also not accurate because one can be competitive without wanting to play broken builds. ONe can be competitive and field a balanced list. However, the math of the game means that a balanced list will be at a serious disadvantage against a power math build.

Playing "competitive 40k" without list building akin to combat sports without training? No. In fact, if you really want to test someone's true tactical ability, have an event where the lists are all set and on the same level as everyone else. You'll see quickly who is good and who relies on netlists to carry them through quickly, much like a chess tournament. List building is like playing chess where one side can have six queens and the other doesn't. That's not a measure of skill.

I prefer "A" list tournaments. "A" lists are hard lists but not broken. Net list tournaments like Ard Boyz are about using broken builds. There is a big difference in the two. Its a preference thing I understand.

I don't think I've ever heard someone try to imply 'ard boyz was a competitive event, its never been close to balanced. It was a free tourney that encouraged cheese at a high point level to boost sales a bit... thats it.

Lord Damocles
17-07-2012, 15:28
I don't see why a 'competetive' player should suddenly struggle when faced with the opportunity to use more stuff :confused:

Assuming a reasonable level of competance, why should a tournament player not be able to cope with facing/including allies and/or fortifications?

Similarly, random terrain might be different, but it's hardly likely to have such an effect on the game that it can't be adapted to in a couple of seconds.


Also, who should a tournament game (with or without extra stuff like random terrain) be a 'less challenging' environment/game? Surely if these evil competetive tournament players are all running their 'net lists' and being all WAACy, that should make for a tougher game than against honest Joe the casual amateur, regarless of whether the river suddenly turns out to be made of fire...

Plus, how many 'competetive' players won't also play with a friendly group anyway? I for one have never met a tournament goer who's such a hard-bitten pro-gamer that they spend all of their time going from town to town like some gunslinger in a Clint Eastwood movie with no room in their scedule of beatdowns to relax a little.

totgeboren
17-07-2012, 15:29
I thought the opposite of "amateur" was "professional"? That is, someone who makes a living by doing what they do. At least that's how I'm used to hearing the terms when it comes to sports. But then again, is doesn't really apply to many of the smaller sports, as there is simply not enough money in the game for people to be able to do it full-time.

Anyway, I fail to see how the new rules would in any way be an obstacle for die-hard tournament players, allies and fortification or not? ctrl-c ctrl-v isn't really any harder now than it was a few weeks ago. Or is the problem simply that they will need to change their lists? That has happened with every new edition, the composition of the net-lists always change. The only difference now it that you will need to bring two codices instead of one to the tournament, as I assume the top-dog lists will include allies.

However, the dilution of the theme that armies should have "strengths & weaknesses" isn't a problem at all. First off, consider the GK codex. What weaknesses do they have? Personally I would say "none", and this started way earlier to a lesser extent with the IG getting powerful fast skimmers and quite elite infantry (hello Eldar?). Also, my orks always bring a battlewagon with a supakannon, using rules from FW (slightly less official I know) because I really wanted a proper tank for my boys, but had no access to it in the standard codex. This is a general theme of all the 40k armies, when they get updated, they get new units who cover some of the gaps in the army (so people will buy them).
In the end, everyone can do everything, and including allies into that mix isn't much of a problem, as it doesn't change anything.

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 15:41
I don't think I've ever heard someone try to imply 'ard boyz was a competitive event, its never been close to balanced. It was a free tourney that encouraged cheese at a high point level to boost sales a bit... thats it.

Many people I know, plus people I read on forums refer to Ard Boyz as the pinnacle of "competitiveness"

Commandojimbob
17-07-2012, 15:52
Its horses for courses ! Personally (that is the key term here) I am so glad with what GW have done with 6th - it is a much better game than 5th, more dynamic, more options and perfect for a better narrative. GW want their games to be played with mates drinking beer and eating pretzels and having fun - they are sticking to their principals which I admire.

40k was never designed for competitive play, GW have always stated that, so it always irks me so much to have people complain about GW not producing a game for tournaments when GW said they wont - it is almost like complaining to a chef that the omelette you ordered tastes of eggs - go play something else if uber competitive tourney play is your thing - there are plenty of other options ! The rules and codices ARE balanced to the degree of what GW intended, which is free and open with mates, and the only reason they become broken is that tounament gamers break them to the nth degree - I have faced all the top tier armies many times and not had any issues - because I am playing mates who are not trying to break or spam the army lists.

I dont like the term "amateur" - it suggests anyone who is not WAAC , using spammy copy paste uber lists does not know how to play - of course we do in fact I would argue we know how to play even better as we use a diverse selection of units and combinations, and we face an equally large diverse selection of units and combinations and not the same lists over and over again with only slight tweaks to it from time to time to counter a small shift in the local meta . I think 6th will see the rise in "flexible" and "Narative" gamers!

All hail 6th edition - hats off to you GW, but of course I would say that as I am openly a "Fanboy" of GW !!

mercury14
17-07-2012, 15:52
My FLGS tournament last week banned:

- Mysterious terrain
- Warlord powers (not sure why)
- Fortifications

de Selby
17-07-2012, 16:01
Playing "competitive 40k" without list building akin to combat sports without training? No. In fact, if you really want to test someone's true tactical ability, have an event where the lists are all set and on the same level as everyone else.

Aye. It's more like combat sports without weapons. Ard boyz in this analogy would be a combat sport in which both sides are allowed to bring the most powerful weapon they can afford...

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 16:04
My FLGS tournament last week banned:

- Mysterious terrain
- Warlord powers (not sure why)
- Fortifications

I'm seeing a lot of this unfortunately. They basically should just stick wiht 5th edition.

The Song of Spears
17-07-2012, 16:06
Its horses for courses ! Personally (that is the key term here) I am so glad with what GW have done with 6th - it is a much better game than 5th, more dynamic, more options and perfect for a better narrative. GW want their games to be played with mates drinking beer and eating pretzels and having fun - they are sticking to their principals which I admire.

40k was never designed for competitive play, GW have always stated that, so it always irks me so much to have people complain about GW not producing a game for tournaments when GW said they wont - it is almost like complaining to a chef that the omelette you ordered tastes of eggs - go play something else if uber competitive tourney play is your thing - there are plenty of other options ! The rules and codices ARE balanced to the degree of what GW intended, which is free and open with mates, and the only reason they become broken is that tounament gamers break them to the nth degree - I have faced all the top tier armies many times and not had any issues - because I am playing mates who are not trying to break or spam the army lists.

I dont like the term "amateur" - it suggests anyone who is not WAAC , using spammy copy paste uber lists does not know how to play - of course we do in fact I would argue we know how to play even better as we use a diverse selection of units and combinations, and we face an equally large diverse selection of units and combinations and not the same lists over and over again with only slight tweaks to it from time to time to counter a small shift in the local meta . I think 6th will see the rise in "flexible" and "Narative" gamers!

All hail 6th edition - hats off to you GW, but of course I would say that as I am openly a "Fanboy" of GW !!

I 100% agree with this.

Now for those of us who want to play something other than 2000pts of "crush the other guy" can. There are elements to reduce frustrations with odd army lists (like 3rd ed players who still have their word bearers and the demons they painted to be summoned by them) and there are rules to make terrain interactive, more than just a thing you place a model on for cover. Heck, I am modeling bio-waste and carnivorous plants just to used the fun mysterious terrain rules (which are very fun btw - use them!).

6th has brough fun back to 40k, in a big way :)

PANZERBUNNY
17-07-2012, 16:16
To be honest, 40k has always been an amateur game, but most of the changes from what I can see are starting to pull it out of that category.

Stores banning rules from the rulebook. *shakes head.*

For games between people who agree, but this is just wrong in my eyes.

Selective rule cropping. I claim BS.

Where's the Inquisition when you need it.

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 16:19
The same people houseruling the 6th edition rules out were the ones touting that if you houseruled it was because you were "weak" and couldn't beat something. Irony in motion lol,

For the record I'm all for houseruling I do it often.

PANZERBUNNY
17-07-2012, 16:21
The same people houseruling the 6th edition rules out were the ones touting that if you houseruled it was because you were "weak" and couldn't beat something. Irony in motion lol,

For the record I'm all for houseruling I do it often.

ya, but for a store to "official" ban rules is a bit thick. A store is a common place, in theory, for people who know a game to show up and play from the rules unless something is agreed on between the players, playing a game. Banning rules breeds conflict, elitism and general BS between people if it's applied with "these 4 walls."

Bubble Ghost
17-07-2012, 16:23
I can completely understand why tournaments block things like warlord traits and mysterious terrain. They're only going to have a detrimental effect when you have only a 4 or 5 game series to establish a hiercharchy. It's when you hear of people getting grumpy about them in any other environment that it gets depressing.

IcedCrow
17-07-2012, 16:28
Whether your tournament is played at a store or other venue, the fact is there is typically one tournament organizer. What rules he wants is what goes. So long as they are letting it be known ahead of time I have no problem with it other than for those that used to mock people for houseruling as being inferior and who now do it because they don't like random elements (just because its hypocritical).

Rick Blaine
17-07-2012, 16:39
I like the OP's premise.

I am reminded of a comic I saw the other day. A warrior challenges this hero, saying "I have trained all my life to face you!" The hero (the local gamer, in our case) answers "Then you have already lost, for I have trained all my life to face the unknown."

PapaDoc
17-07-2012, 16:41
I don't like that of all miniature communities (Ive played FoW and Warmachine) the Warhammer players try so hard to group each other in "competative" and "casual". We are all 40k players and we all try to enjoy the game when we play it.

But as for OP, I think that this ruleset is not very amatuer friendly. An experienced player will have a massive advantage over an unexperienced one. That is because the wound allocation rules are not very straight forward. How is IG-sargeants shouting challenges to deamonprinces to lock them down a couple of turns? There is a lot of "rule silliness" in this game that a unexperienced player simply won't get.

Gorbad Ironclaw
17-07-2012, 16:48
What rules he wants is what goes. So long as they are letting it be known ahead of time I have no problem with it

I think this is a really good point. If you arrange something and inform people you have the right to do impose whatever house rules you like, whatever it's at your house or at a tournament. I'm sure a whole number of tournament organisers would wish people would just vote with your feet rather than complain and complain and complain.

Now it seems a little weird to me that a store would impose house rules, shouldn't the owner be happy to sell anything and then let the players take things away with houserules if they don't like them? Anyway, I doubt it will mean much in the long run. Good players will be good players (mostly) whatever the format. Tournament players often perform well in local groups because they (generalising) will often play more and invest more time and effort into the game than someone just popping down to the club/shop ever so often.
Now we have a new edition and without doubt some changes will not be to everyone's liking and some will complain that the game have gone in a direction they don't like (or maybe they will just quietly scale back/stop playing) and yes, some people will do worse than before and if choosing to not generally use certain things won't be as prepared for them as others might be but I don't think it's really going to be that big of a deal for most people.

Sythica
17-07-2012, 16:53
If a store is going to ban parts of the rulebook, they might as well just post a sign that says "We don't play 6th edition here." Then I'll know ahead of time to keep away, and not bother spending money there.

Szafraniec
17-07-2012, 16:58
6th is just as good for the competitive gamer as the casual gamer, they just havn't realized it yet. Theres more randomness in some places, less in others. The addition of allies has done nothing to limit net-listing, its just opened up a wide array of new lists.

Net-listing is not a bad thing until people just copy paste. Most net listing starts with someone wanting to know if their army is good or not, and the community responding. Suggestions both ways. Battle reports. People discuss what worked well, what didn't, why battles went the way they did. By the end of it all, some units just rise to the top. Some are just better for their points than others. Then you shore up the things in your army that keep failing. This leads to a general concensus on what is good and what is not, with all sorts of grey areas.

What I love about 6th is that they've made the meta much less predictable, between terrain changes and just the wide variety of possible top-tier lists. This will cause the meta to shift toward a 'take all comers' list, but you'll still have the people that min/max vs. those who did not. 6th edition won't make any SW players start taking Skyclaws and Lone Wolves if they did not before, they'll still spam Grey Hunters because they're extremely good. But now more armies will have an answer for that. PFists are no longer 'mandatory', some people will vary what they take and where. The rock/paper/scissors equation just became a lot more complicated.

Whatever 40k was meant to be, it has a competitive side to it. A very popular side. A side that contributes money to the hobby (which keeps increasing in price anyway) the same as you do. People would usually rather win than lose. Rules are there to play by. The rules should make sense. And if its all "beer and pretzels", then stop complaining about a spam army and eat some more pretzels, what do you care?

I don't net-list, but I am good at knowing whats decent in a codex. 80-90% of my army is geared to win, with the rest usually being something I find super-cool or fun. I'm PSYCHED about 6th because now ill face a whole new crop of powerful lists. My chances of facing something different each battle have increased because there will be so many more options.

Szafraniec
17-07-2012, 17:00
I will also note that a store banning certain rules from a game they sell is heresy. Slippery slope..."oh, and the new rulebook doesn't adequately represent space marine armor, all power armor saves are 2+".

static grass
17-07-2012, 17:10
It's not really a surprise that tourneys ban these things. They all bring uncertainty to the game - which tourney gamers hate. No irony there for a hobby based on rolling dice.

Allies may get added back in once the waac players figure out how to break it.

These rules are more to please the narrative gamer.

totgeboren
17-07-2012, 17:16
Banning fortifications and mysterious terrain is something I expect to be the norm at tournaments. This is because of some very simple reasons. The rules clearly state that fortifications should be placed before the rest of the terrain is set up. How are you supposed to do that at a tournament? You simply don't have the time to allow the players to set up the terrain before each fight. Instead of making up their own rules, it is much easier and more fair for all to simply ban fortifications.

Mysterious terrain, though it looks fun isn't necessary in any way for the game, and is also clearly stated to be optional. It adds a lot of time to the game, and I personally think they are more suited for friendly games where you have more than two hours to play the game.

This is not "not playing 6ed", as both these rules are stated as optional, and fortifications would force the organizers to make up some house rules to play them on a table that is already set up, whilst mysterious terrain is just a fun add-on to spice things up.

Egaeus
17-07-2012, 17:33
This makes me think of back when I used to play collectible card games...tournament rules were (are I would suspect still are) almost always a more limited subset of the "normal" rules (card limits, banned/restricted cards, etc.). This intent is to make the tournament more about skill than abusing what are seen as broken builds/combos. I don't recall ever hearing that "tournament players wouldn't be able to hack it in normal play" (not claiming such a thing wasn't ever said). If anything tournament rules are typically adopted as the de facto rules to play by because there is something of a vested interest in ensuring the most balanced environment possible.

Ironically, it seems to be the opposite of the tournament scene in 40K, where it is all about creating the most min-maxed "abusive" lists one can so long as it is "by the book" (disclaimer: I played in my second and last tournament in 2001). So even when a majority of players acknowledge that certain aspects are broken there is this sense of "since GW published it then it's inviolable". Additionally, the methods attempting to limit some of the excesses often impact some armies more than others, so there isn't usually a "simple fix" that is equally applicable across the board.

I can see allies being banned from tournaments because now you have another set of rules to keep track of per player, which [I]can complicate things, especially in a tournament environment where you have a limited time in which to play your games. So I can see an argument for trying to keep things simple. How valid such an argument is could be a discussion in itself.

While I think "randomness for randomness' sake" can be entertaining I can also understand why a tournament wouldn't want to deal with such things. Again, it's not about the players being unable to deal with it, but about trying to keep the games running smoothly.

I don't believe there there is anyone who makes their living solely by playing 40K (I could be wrong) which to me would be the distinguishing feature of a "professional" gamer...as someone else mentioned that means we're all really "amateurs". Although I can see the term being used in other contexts.

Commissar Davis
17-07-2012, 19:08
My FLGS tournament last week banned:

- Mysterious terrain
- Warlord powers (not sure why)
- Fortifications

This pretty much makes my point. Tournament players are more likely to focus on playing games that miss these rules, where as those that don't will probably have more experience using playing the game as written in the BRB.

Oh, and I am one of those amateur players. I don't train at getting better, nor do I care if I am using the best things in the codex or come second. I play what I like the look of to a written theme and as long as it was an interesting or close game, who cares who wins it.

red_zebra_ve
17-07-2012, 19:28
I just read all this in the WHFB forum!!!!

Is it so difficult to adapt a bit of wackyness? We are playing a Science Fiction... Space Opera game, not WW2, not Star Trek!
Or a Fantasy, not medieval nor renaissance nor ancient armies.

Afraid of terrain, buy small units to scout!

Nurgling Chieftain
17-07-2012, 19:56
Space Opera game, ... not Star Trek!While Star Trek isn't all Space Opera, there's quite a bit of it in there... :p

ReveredChaplainDrake
17-07-2012, 22:00
It's always bewildered me why a company called "Games Workshop" is so bad at making games. Part of making games is making games that people want to play. That involves appropriate rules writing and playtesting so as to make any army valid. Ever played Tyranids, only to have a GK player preemptively apologize to you before the game? I see nothing unreasonable about expecting GW to make a mechanically functioning game, no matter what their PR guys say. There's a difference between "not designed for tournaments" and "we make stuff we don't like mechanically non-functional". The former would have every army having their own power army, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, turning the game into an expensive, incredibly complicated version of rock-paper-scissors, with the type with the least weaknesses eventually floating to the top. Pardon the example, but imagine running lots of Dragons in Gen 1 Pokemon. Dragon-types were the Grey Knights of their day as their only major weakness (other than other Dragons; no kidding, they were literally weak to each other) and the incredibly-rare Ice type that just about nobody ran because their sole purpose is to take on Dragons. 40k is only like that to an extent, where there are certain tiers of army that compete against each other fairly well, but there is no way for lower-tier armies to compete. What determines what's the next power army? Is it a unilateral boost to weak stuff and nerfbats to good stuff? Not to the point where it's a rule. Space Wolves were always alright until they became insane, whereas Tyranids were only so-so before GW broke the nerfbat over their head. When you hand IG to a treadhead, Space Wolves to the beer & pretzel guy, and Grey Knights to a fanboy, of course you're gonna' get some insanely powerful armies. You get significantly more lackluster results when you task the treadhead with the biotech melee army and the beer & pretzel guy with satisfying 12 years of neglect with one single book that must be perfect.

GW should just stick to writing (and can Matt Ward once and for all) if they want to make a "narrative". Their narrative is just fine (again, Matt Ward notwithstanding), and their fluff is and has always been their strong point. Why, just yesterday, I was about twenty feet away from the cash register with a starter Cryx army when I was reading the rules and realized that... there are only about four or five named warcasters in any particular race. And no generics whatsoever. PP, for all their gaming elegance, expects me to believe that all the fights in Immoren are done by a very small handful of different individuals from each race and their drag-along mooks? Made me wonder who was really building the army: me, or my warcaster? What about my Lich Lord? Can't I convert up my own servant of the Dragonfather? Can't I arm my own guy the way I want? So, about an hour later, I walked out with a Necron Croissanwich and a box of Warriors. For all their derpy fluff, the galaxy is a large enough place that I can take it or leave it at my leisure. And that's when I figured out what kind of gamer I am: I'm the big fish in the small pond who takes pleasure in annihilating guppies with something I drew up, built, and painted. GW kept me in an inferior game by every conceivable metric through the sheer power of their narrative. And their Necron narrative, at that!

yabbadabba
17-07-2012, 22:14
If I may add to the definiton argument? How about "gamer" and "wargamer"? The wargamer is interested in playing a wargame first and foremost and hopes to win. The gamer wants to play to win, and has chosen a wargame as the expression of that want.

In addition there is nothing wrong with the Allies rules from a wargamers perspective but there is everything wrong with it from a gamers perspective. As a consequence there is a real fear of abuse in the mind of the gamer, whereas the wargamer is alive with the opportunities to expand or recreate the background more to their imagination.

6e 40K and 8e WFB definitely favour the wargamer over the gamer and we could end up in a position where the wargamer becomes more confident and conversant with the entire width of the rules than the gamer. Add into this that those who attend clubs and/or game at home will reflect this advantage over those who play in tournaments/events/pick up games and we might see a little churn in the dynamics of GWs user base.

Rated_lexxx
17-07-2012, 22:15
There was a thread I had started a long time ago that had a lot of good responses but in short let repeat my thoughts.

The rules should be written with competition in mind. Not because it should be geared towards competitive players, but the rules would be more balanced and cause less confusion.

I like the 6th rules a lot and I hope they are balanced(which is a big thing for me, but I understand not to everyone)

I always get worried when I hear the rules were not written with competition in mind. My thought is they made a rule "fun" but with no thought of interactions with other rules or how it will affect other armies

Pyriel
17-07-2012, 22:22
this is WRONG, though, ReverendChaplainDrake.

Grey Knights are not as dominant in the hardcore competitive scene (NOVA, Adepticon, Feast of Blades, and other tournaments) as many think!!!!

this is important to understand: Grey Knights are most definitely not super-powerful, Draigowing especialy is a super-easy list to beat, and the only truly powerful build i saw wasnt even purifier-based(their strongest unit): it had supersmall units of Acolytes for troops as an excuse to take and spam lots of Psybacks-that and Psyrifledreads were its main strengths, with some Purifiers only on secondary role. I can totaly face Purifiers spam , and i will feel extremely lucky when facing Draigowing(and i DONT have a new codex for my army). i shudder to think of facing Blood Rodeo even some IG Leafblower lists(non-GK lists. btw, i am judging by 5th-ed, cause thats the tournament data i have)

a mere Vanilla marine list , like Thunderbubble, would easily destroy Draigowing and other GK "hard" builds; other armies easily beating many GK builds are, "shootyTermiebubble"(BT list with about 30 missiles per turn plus some lascannons/meltaguns and tons of powerfists. YES this is a 3-editions-old codex, not some ubernew flavour of the month), Tony Kopach's Space Wolves(lots of Grey Hunters on Rhinos supported by ICs and Long Fangs, with Scouts flanking), as well as most Dark Eldar/Tau lists(tons of shooting which GKs cant easily handle since most their firepower is 24"-based, even their psycannons). sure, GK beat some other matchups, but hey, they gotta be good at something too, right?...

the competitive scene had tons of vaqriety, from Vanilla marines playing 12-14 vehicles, to Space Wolves grey hunters spam, to Dark Eldar venomspam, to some hybrid lists like Blood Rodeo(blood angels), to several others. he only thing that didnt see much play in the top level was "Rock" lists. 5th edition was not NEARLY as unbalanced as people think, provided you were a competitive player who others call WAAC. sure, if you're NOT, then the WAAC will beat you, but he deserves to beat you since he put more effort to the win instead of the modelling/fluff aspect(he specialised).

doesnt he have the right to be good at what he specialised too?... thats like saying an unathletic fat Black Belt in jujitsu should ever stand a chance against a well-conditioned Blue Belt. sorry, its a fight, the body is the tool, and a merely decent technique will be more effective with better strength/speed/flexibility/cardio. its just how it is. at least inr eal life, not in movies. thats the same for a wargame. the armylist is your tool. top-notch tool, top-notch success.

Egaeus
17-07-2012, 22:38
The rules should be written with competition in mind. Not because it should be geared towards competitive players, but the rules would be more balanced and cause less confusion.

I agree with this 100%. The funny thing to me is that if you allow house rules anyways then even with a "tighter" system you're still free to house rule away...so you really lose absolutely nothing by having a clean, consistent set of rules (the only significant issue would be with those anal types who think that the rules are there so you have to use them ;)).

I have always thought that part of the issue is that people seem to think that if the rules were written for "competitive play" then they are going to be excessively long and bogged down in minutia. I don't believe this has to be the case at all...the rules as they are aren't all that bad (although this is clearly a matter of opinon ;)) but there are usually some areas that need cleaning up and pinning down how they are intended to work. A lot of times the game just seems to need a level of polish to make it decent.

FallenAfh
17-07-2012, 22:52
Its hard for me to see the 40k scene as competitive until players get rid of the mentality of self identifying with a specific army. If we're talking about true competition, no one should have a problem of using the best tools available to them. M:TG (which is miles ahead of 40k and most wargaming) doesn't distinguish if said color/tribe/decktype (aggro,combo,control) does better at a given time. A purifier list is different from Draigowing, which is different from an acolyte list, but most players would whine that all GK lists are broken anyway.

Anyway my ideas on how to make the 40k scene truly competitive, not saying that it should be, this primarily a modelling hobby

1. Get rid of composition, or any buffs/nerfs that are suppose to re-balance the armies
2. Play with custom scenarios. They do a better job at encouraging diversity (for each tournament) then any hamfisted attempt at balance
3. Play the game as it is, random objectives/terrains, allies, fortifications what not
4. M:TG style draft matches. Its probably not practical, but this shuts up all the people whining of people paying/netlisting their way to success. Although M:TG players have long recognized the fact that netdeckers are never ever going to be successful at magic at the top, wargamers still cling on to the mentality that its all you need.

Col. Tartleton
17-07-2012, 22:57
I think it should be very obvious that the less control you have over events transpiring the more skill it takes to win consistently.

It's clear GW can't release a polished product, although eventually it gets better, but the notion that allies and terrain are going to break the game is childish.

If you can't play the game, you aren't good at it. If you can't win the game with the rules of the game, there's nothing competitive about you. You might be good at that other game, but you're no good at 6th edition warhammer.

It's like playing Chess without the Queen because she's broken... Or nerfing pawns.

FallenAfh
17-07-2012, 22:58
I agree with this 100%. The funny thing to me is that if you allow house rules anyways then even with a "tighter" system you're still free to house rule away...so you really lose absolutely nothing by having a clean, consistent set of rules (the only significant issue would be with those anal types who think that the rules are there so you have to use them ;)).

I have always thought that part of the issue is that people seem to think that if the rules were written for "competitive play" then they are going to be excessively long and bogged down in minutia. I don't believe this has to be the case at all...the rules as they are aren't all that bad (although this is clearly a matter of opinon ;)) but there are usually some areas that need cleaning up and pinning down how they are intended to work. A lot of times the game just seems to need a level of polish to make it decent.

I disagree, most people whine that randomness is "Non-competitive". M:tG is also a randomized game, but the best players manage separate themselves from the rest despite of the randomness.


I think it should be very obvious that the less control you have over events transpiring the more skill it takes to win consistently.

It's clear GW can't release a polished product, although eventually it gets better, but the notion that allies and terrain are going to break the game is childish.

If you can't play the game, you aren't good at it. If you can't win the game with the rules of the game, there's nothing competitive about you. You might be good at that other game, but you're no good at 6th edition warhammer.

It's like playing Chess without the Queen because she's broken... Or nerfing pawns.

My thoughts exactly. Managing randomness is and should be part of what separates 2 players (not necessarily a good and a bad one, but a good and better one).

Nurgling Chieftain
17-07-2012, 23:57
If we're talking about true competition, no one should have a problem of using the best tools available to them. ...this primarily a modelling hobbyYou kind of answered this yourself, here. I don't happen to own or even want to put in the immense amount of money, time, and effort to own, any of the top-tier lists available right now. And I've got four armies, some of which were top-tier in previous editions (3.5 ed. CSM, 4th ed. Eldar).

Spell_of_Destruction
18-07-2012, 00:17
Adding restrictions and house rules in tourneys is a funny thing.

Competitive gaming has turned into an exercise of pushing the game to its limits, often beyond what the designer intended.

If on the one hand we agree that competitive gaming ignores consensual restrictions such as fluff concerns and enjoyment of a balanced game, on what basis do we turn the tables and say - "this isn't what we want" (with regards to the types of lists that people are fielding in tourneys).

Competitive 40k has always struck me as slightly silly because the system was not designed to be pushed to those limits. I think you either have to adhere to the principle of RAW or really go to town with house rules to try and bring some balance to the game that is otherwise absent when gamers put their competitive hat on.

Anything else seems half assed and arbitrary to me. You're still left with a handful of dominant builds. You haven't fixed anything - you've just added in some restrictions to what end?

Commissar Davis
18-07-2012, 01:14
Banning fortifications and mysterious terrain is something I expect to be the norm at tournaments. So someone that has built a perfectly legal list using fortifications cant use it in a tournament, that is stupid. The list complies to the rules that the TOs are claiming the tournament is for, if they ban them, then it is not a tournament for 40K in this edition and they should not claim that it is.

Caitsidhe
18-07-2012, 01:42
I don't see why Tournament Organizers can't apply any and all local standards they want. The only thing expected of people doing so is to have such deviations from the norm clearly advertised. If you know up front (and ignorance of the rules and regulations of an event is no excuse) what is allowed, you can decide yourself if you want to go or not. It is as simple as that.

necroyp
18-07-2012, 01:56
I don't play 40k but I am getting back into it with 6th. However all the same doom saying is here as was with the last fantasy edition. At the end of the day when the dust settles the same top players will still win. Why because the game still requires skill to play. The pieces may change but its still a game of skill. Over the next 12 months the tournament scene will adjust and we can all get back to enjoying our gaming. We should try to be more positive because too much negativity will drive players away and hurt the tournament scene which is a very bad thing.
Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

Spell_of_Destruction
18-07-2012, 02:17
I don't see why Tournament Organizers can't apply any and all local standards they want. The only thing expected of people doing so is to have such deviations from the norm clearly advertised. If you know up front (and ignorance of the rules and regulations of an event is no excuse) what is allowed, you can decide yourself if you want to go or not. It is as simple as that.

The main problem is that it that until a set of house rules are tried and tested it is difficult to assess how they might impact the balance of the meta.

I remember a 7th ed WHFB tourney a few years ago (when Daemons were THE army) which tried to address some of the imbalances but in the end the changes impacted some of the lower tier armies a lot more than the upper tier armies the house rules were intended to target.

Battleworthy Arts
18-07-2012, 02:43
So the difference is between "amateur" and "competitive"?

"Amateur" makes no sense, since no one is "professional".

What is meant by "competitive"... gamers who adhere to some arbitrary sense of balance? Players who attempt to circumvent the spirit of the game by trying to make the rules and codexes do things they were not meant to do?

I was recently chastised in an Apoc event from a player who said I advertised the event as "casual". He brought 5 super heavies- two of which were titans, the other side brought NONE, but one player had sternguard with combi-meltas and he said that was "uber-competitive" and quit turn two because the sternguard dropped his titan. So I guess I need more clarification on what that word is supposed to mean in the context of wargaming.

I know that when I make lists, I make them to be efficient AND to look cool. I read the descriptions of things, and pretty much approach them the way they are described. I pull no punches on a table, I seek out ever casualty I can inflict... but I do remind players who have forgotten to move or fire units. If GW has printed the rule, I play that rule. If they say allies, then I am okay with allies. I may not use them, but Im not going to chastise my opponent for doing so. Ive been playing since 1986, I think I win more than I lose (I dont keep that close of a tally), but I rarely think about how to win my next game... usually I spend my time agonizing over paint jobs, or what actor would play my army's general in the 40k movie in my head. However, my playstyle is aggressive, I take things that appear optimal to me (provided they also look cool), and am always willing to congratulate an enemy on a clever move or a lucky dice roll. So am I competitive or not? Its hard to have a political discussion when you don't know what party you belong to.

althathir
18-07-2012, 02:45
Many people I know, plus people I read on forums refer to Ard Boyz as the pinnacle of "competitiveness"

If you mean being encouraged to be as WAAC as possible then yes, but it wasn't a tournament you went to expecting close games, the missions weren't great, and a lot of the older books were designed for much smaller games.


It's not really a surprise that tourneys ban these things. They all bring uncertainty to the game - which tourney gamers hate. No irony there for a hobby based on rolling dice.

Allies may get added back in once the waac players figure out how to break it.

These rules are more to please the narrative gamer.

Allies will be back in when people figure out what to do for nid players, they basically get a smaller FoC then everyone else otherwise.


I think it should be very obvious that the less control you have over events transpiring the more skill it takes to win consistently.

It's clear GW can't release a polished product, although eventually it gets better, but the notion that allies and terrain are going to break the game is childish.

If you can't play the game, you aren't good at it. If you can't win the game with the rules of the game, there's nothing competitive about you. You might be good at that other game, but you're no good at 6th edition warhammer.

It's like playing Chess without the Queen because she's broken... Or nerfing pawns.

I don't think the issue with terrain is that its breaking the game, it has more to do with space & time in tourney setting. We already bring a ton of stuff with us for tournies and some of the terrain pieces are large and who knows how big some of the home brewed will be. setting up the tables between every round would add a few minutes, same for rolling on mysterious terrain tables. So tournies will streamline the game to make sure they have enough time.

Freman Bloodglaive
18-07-2012, 02:53
If you mean being encouraged to be as WAAC as possible then yes, but it wasn't a tournament you went to expecting close games, the missions weren't great, and a lot of the older books were designed for much smaller games.



Allies will be back in when people figure out what to do for nid players, they basically get a smaller FoC then everyone else otherwise.



I don't think the issue with terrain is that its breaking the game, it has more to do with space & time in tourney setting. We already bring a ton of stuff with us for tournies and some of the terrain pieces are large and who knows how big some of the home brewed will be. setting up the tables between every round would add a few minutes, same for rolling on mysterious terrain tables. So tournies will streamline the game to make sure they have enough time.

Always allow nids to fill what would be the allies complement from their main list, so they can have three HQs, 4 elites, 8 troops, 4 fast attack, and 4 heavy support.

Inquisitor Shego
18-07-2012, 03:00
As an EX-Mormon (I left) they used to have a saying about the church. It was "God had a perfect religion, until he introduced people into it"

The same can be said for GW. No matter what they do, no matter how hard they test, we will find a way to break it. Sure some things are GW's fault, but no matter how tight the product, we shall unfasten it!

Ronin_eX
18-07-2012, 03:58
Honestly I find it kind of weird that tournies are taking a stance on anything this early in the game's lifespan. Before anyone even knows what the metagame will look like people are already itching to hack chunks off. Houseruling is all well and good but I am a huge proponent of actually learning the rules as they exist before going ahead and making house rules.

What's more, the changes they make now may well be moot once we see actual 6E codices come out and they will be forced to scramble changes to their houserules or they risk a weird metagame.

Now, GW aren't master game designers who know better than us and cannot be questioned, but give some of these things a try first. So many people bitched about fortifications, flyers, allies and dual-FoCs before the rules had even been released that it is no wonder some tourney organizers jumped on trying to houserule things right away. But with so many people declaring that they would never you X, Y, or Z components of 6th it will only take us longer to determine what the actual metagame of 6E should even look like.

The other odd bit is the last edition's imbalances didn't seem to perturb any tourney organizers who gleefully allowed MSU-mech lists dominate gameplay. No organizer ever made house rules to change things like the broken damage allocation system (to my knowledge at least) or any of the other wonky bits of 5th. So it is odd that some are making the stand here, in the name of balance.

Flyers, fortifications, allies or dual-FoCs may be broken, they also may not be. So I honestly think people should actually play the game as written before hacking off things they don't think they'll like. So if you are playing a 2000 point game then see how things go with two primary FoCs, two ally FoCs and double fortifications. Maybe you'll be surprised, hell, maybe you'll even have fun. :p

I hope hacks and houserules for tourneys is just a fad (at least until they do a few, proper, rules-as-written tourneys), otherwise they are likely to really screw up the competitive metagame compared to the casual one and that will just make the tribal divide even wider (and this thread shows how wide it already is). It's not like 40k tournaments have ever been havens of perfect balance, so they may as well try the actual game before deciding to inject bits of 5th back in. I may not have liked a lot of changes in 3rd, but at least I played the damn thing first without declaring I was going back to percentile force composition rules and re-implementing allies. Hell if it is so important, after you have ascertained that 6th Edition is not what you want then just go back and play RT, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th. I played 2nd Edition after dropping 4th and played it right through till 6th Edition. At least by doing that you wont be making a convoluted house rule doc that will still probably not be what you want.

althathir
18-07-2012, 04:28
Always allow nids to fill what would be the allies complement from their main list, so they can have three HQs, 4 elites, 8 troops, 4 fast attack, and 4 heavy support.

Yeah that would be the simplist solution, and its what I think will end up happening. That said TO's can be strange.

totgeboren
18-07-2012, 06:04
So someone that has built a perfectly legal list using fortifications cant use it in a tournament, that is stupid. The list complies to the rules that the TOs are claiming the tournament is for, if they ban them, then it is not a tournament for 40K in this edition and they should not claim that it is.

Do you really think setting up the terrain anew before each game is a realistic solution at a tournament? And if not, what do you do if you can't fit your fortification (if you want to place it after terrain is set up, I.e. making up house rules?) Either the games will take a lot longer, or you need house rules to use fortification. None of these solutions are good for a tournament.

yabbadabba
18-07-2012, 08:54
Either the games will take a lot longer, or you need house rules to use fortification. None of these solutions are good for a tournament. Most tournaments house rule all the time; they just like to call it comp! As for time, that's an issue for the TOs. In short tournaments are a buyers market, so if they don't tick all the boxes they won't last for long.

TOs have to make some decisions and I think more than a few will get it wrong as they go with an instinct developed through different game superstructures than this one.

Utred
18-07-2012, 11:56
I think you're missing what pro actually means. Use chess as an example. If you're world class player you aren't copying "netlists" or copying other players moves. You're inventing them. I'm not a starcraft player - but you could say the same thing with the pro Korean league players.

If you're not actually a pro - you copy them. Netlists are about fotm or flavour of the edition in 40k. But we can all beat a netlist if we know which one we face, and write a list to counter it. If you can't, then maybe you use google you can download one that can. The thing is that is what WAAC is about , and don't mistake someone who is actually a pro. Just because someone's winning - it doesn't mean they are doing so at any cost.

Your average "amateur WAAC" has downloaded something, and read the instructions and in 5th they could do well, 6th puts a spanner in that with it's randomness. As such someone able to adapt to "differences" will thrive and beat players who can't. Isn't that the definition of greatness? There's a quote on one of the loading screens of Rome Total War - greatness is only achieved by having a and beating a challenge. As has also been said, it's those that play the most that will do well. But isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Someone earlier in the thread said netslist were like physical conditioning - and that I disagree with, both from a 40k view point and an actual hand to hand view point. It's actually getting down and dirty and "Alea iacta est" that teaches you to fight.

Commissar Davis
18-07-2012, 12:34
Do you really think setting up the terrain anew before each game is a realistic solution at a tournament? And if not, what do you do if you can't fit your fortification (if you want to place it after terrain is set up, I.e. making up house rules?) Either the games will take a lot longer, or you need house rules to use fortification. None of these solutions are good for a tournament.

If they cannot do this then they cannot claim to be running a 6ed tourney, nor can anyone winning it claim to be a good 6ed player or run a 6ed list by doing so.

Tournaments either adapt to play the new rules, or they say point blank that they are not running a 6ed tournament.

This is where the non-tourney player will end up with more experience with the rules in there entirety than tourney players, and will end up better players overall.

Pyriel
18-07-2012, 12:48
...well, ecept for the 40k special olympics called "events with comp rules" hehe.

aim
18-07-2012, 14:13
With tournaments threatening to ban allies, fortifications and moving and/or random scenery, the competitive player will likely struggle in the amateur game at the local club, where gamers will be more use to such things.

If one looks at the possibilities that the game today presents us, there is far more challenge availably, with a canny player being able to beat a far stronger list and more experienced player, just by terrain elements and a bit of luck. The more professional player, that will spend time playing a less challenging game, will unlikely have the overall experience to cope with the full range of the rules played at the local level no matter how long they spend at tournaments. A list that won in a tournament may not be suited to play where all the rules are in use, which will have an impact on net lists.

GW has long said that they do not intend to build a game for competitive professional play, and that philosophy has come through loud and clear in this edition.

This edition seems set to make the play for the sake of a game amateur a rising star. Beware the woods, the water feature, and build your defences and statues or shrines. Call for your allies and let loose the conversions and enjoy a friendly came with whoever for the sake of it.

Bringing luck into something doesn't make it more challenging, it makes it more random, allowing less skilled players to beat more skilled players more easily, this is not competition friendly, as competitions should be won by the better, not the luckier one. Look at a game like counter-strike compared to a game like COD. conter-strike hasa much higher skill ceiling and therefor skill gap than COD in part (there are a lot of elements, like regenerating health, not just this, but it is important) due to the fact that running and gunning and getting lucky is part of the gameplay in COD, it isn't in counter-strike, if you run and gun in counter-strike, you maybe get lucky once, the rest of the time you die.



'Amateur' implies that we don't know what we're doing, but I agree with Bubble Ghost - we're all still here, we just stick to lurking most of the time ;)

Competitive gamers are in no way a bad thing, however, but there are times and places for everything, as it were.

Amateur actually just implies that you don't make money from it, its not an insult or meant to say you are bad, but to be professional, you need to make money from it. If you are not professional, you are amatuer.

RandomThoughts
18-07-2012, 14:17
Many competitive gamers would not be able to do well without their crutches :) many that i know or read on forums do their best to outlist their opponent and minimize the challenge. The challenge for them is coming up with a hard as nails list, which today is as easy as logging into a competitive powergamers forum and Ctl-C a list and Ctl-V it into their army builder program.

That sounds abrasive I realize but for many that tout their mad skills, if you gave them a balanced army to use against another balanced army, they'd often not do so well. Any mechanics that minimize list building and netlists IMO is a good thing. It makes the game more fun and more challenging.

Being poo poo'd for being an "amateur gamer" can be seen as insulting. It takes very little skill to find and abuse a netlist. My 14 year old can do it. I did it back in the day. I won a lot of trophies. Not because I am a good player, but because I knew how to abuse and min/max a list.

Bring on the challenges. The more the better. Kill off netlists. Make players play and rely less on math builds designed around overpowering the game.

I don't think netlists and powerlists are the same. Using an optimized list to compete on the highest levels (which I personally have no interest in, just to be clear) is the same as Mercedes and Honda Formula 1 pilots driving the best racing cars their company can provide.

THe idea is essentially that the best gear plus the best skill will get you to the top.


I don't see why a 'competetive' player should suddenly struggle when faced with the opportunity to use more stuff :confused:

The idea is that he won't be familiar with allies and fortifications and stuff if those get bannd from tournaments, so they run into a disadvantage once they have to deal with them in casual games in their LGS. Personally, I don't think that's how it'll work out. Most casual lists will still be weaker than their potimized builds, even with allies, fortifications and double FOCs. I do't usually associate with tournament players, but the ones I know would rather fight an unusual but strong build (like a double allies double fortifications) list to see how it performs and how they can beat it than outright refuse the game. Let them do ts a few times, and they'll be well prepared for most lists possible unter 6th.


I thought the opposite of "amateur" was "professional"? That is, someone who makes a living by doing what they do.

Exactly my thought.


Anyway, I fail to see how the new rules would in any way be an obstacle for die-hard tournament players, allies and fortification or not? ctrl-c ctrl-v isn't really any harder now than it was a few weeks ago. Or is the problem simply that they will need to change their lists? That has happened with every new edition, the composition of the net-lists always change. The only difference now it that you will need to bring two codices instead of one to the tournament, as I assume the top-dog lists will include allies.

However, the dilution of the theme that armies should have "strengths & weaknesses" isn't a problem at all. First off, consider the GK codex. What weaknesses do they have? Personally I would say "none", and this started way earlier to a lesser extent with the IG getting powerful fast skimmers and quite elite infantry (hello Eldar?). Also, my orks always bring a battlewagon with a supakannon, using rules from FW (slightly less official I know) because I really wanted a proper tank for my boys, but had no access to it in the standard codex. This is a general theme of all the 40k armies, when they get updated, they get new units who cover some of the gaps in the army (so people will buy them).
In the end, everyone can do everything, and including allies into that mix isn't much of a problem, as it doesn't change anything.

I pretty much agree to all of that.


Aye. It's more like combat sports without weapons. Ard boyz in this analogy would be a combat sport in which both sides are allowed to bring the most powerful weapon they can afford...

Nay. More like Formula One, where each drier is allowed to bring the best racing car his company can build.




My FLGS tournament last week banned:

- Mysterious terrain
- Warlord powers (not sure why)
- Fortifications

I'm seeing a lot of this unfortunately. They basically should just stick wiht 5th edition.

So, essentially they banned random stuff with little real impact on the game that get's in the way of competitive competition and leads to longer games and an extention rule that would screw with table layouts and give players with a car an unfair advantage over those players that have to carry their stuff on the subway?

I don't really see the issue here.


I like the OP's premise.

I am reminded of a comic I saw the other day. A warrior challenges this hero, saying "I have trained all my life to face you!" The hero (the local gamer, in our case) answers "Then you have already lost, for I have trained all my life to face the unknown."

The only problem is: The logic doesn't pan out.

So, okay, the super-dude prepared for the unknown, so he prepared for everything a bit. Let'c call him an "all-comers dude". The other guys prepared for the exact opponenthe knew he was going to face, so let's call him "list-tailored counter dude".

I think it becomes pretty clear why the second dude has a clear advantage in agame of 40K, but I believe he would also have an advantage ifthis was an actual fight. Unless the first dude id freaking Bruce Lee, he'll be a regular Karate-ka or Boxer who trained to fight all kinds of styles that are out there, while the scond dude pretty much specialized in beating a boxer or a karate-ka...


I don't like that of all miniature communities (Ive played FoW and Warmachine) the Warhammer players try so hard to group each other in "competative" and "casual". We are all 40k players and we all try to enjoy the game when we play it.

But as for OP, I think that this ruleset is not very amatuer friendly. An experienced player will have a massive advantage over an unexperienced one. That is because the wound allocation rules are not very straight forward. How is IG-sargeants shouting challenges to deamonprinces to lock them down a couple of turns? There is a lot of "rule silliness" in this game that a unexperienced player simply won't get.

True and true.


Net-listing is not a bad thing until people just copy paste. Most net listing starts with someone wanting to know if their army is good or not, and the community responding. Suggestions both ways. Battle reports. People discuss what worked well, what didn't, why battles went the way they did. By the end of it all, some units just rise to the top. Some are just better for their points than others. Then you shore up the things in your army that keep failing. This leads to a general concensus on what is good and what is not, with all sorts of grey areas.

I don't net-list, but I am good at knowing whats decent in a codex. 80-90% of my army is geared to win, with the rest usually being something I find super-cool or fun. I'm PSYCHED about 6th because now ill face a whole new crop of powerful lists. My chances of facing something different each battle have increased because there will be so many more options.

Sounds pretty convincing to me.


It's always bewildered me why a company called "Games Workshop" is so bad at making games. Part of making games is making games that people want to play. That involves appropriate rules writing and playtesting so as to make any army valid.

*sigh*
So true and so sad... :(


Why, just yesterday, I was about twenty feet away from the cash register with a starter Cryx army when I was reading the rules and realized that... there are only about four or five named warcasters in any particular race. And no generics whatsoever. PP, for all their gaming elegance, expects me to believe that all the fights in Immoren are done by a very small handful of different individuals from each race and their drag-along mooks? Made me wonder who was really building the army: me, or my warcaster? What about my Lich Lord? Can't I convert up my own servant of the Dragonfather? Can't I arm my own guy the way I want?

That was my biggest issue with Warmachine as well, for several years until I finally got so bored with GW rules & mechanics that I took a plunge and dropped in. I still thought way too much about games withou Warcasters and without character units, until I realized how much gameplay value the Warcasters provide. Using them is fun, each of tem makes his whole army play differently in some way, each of them is like a different beast that needs to be learned and mastered. Just figuring out how a certain waraster plays can be quite worthwhile. :)

Regarding the fluff, the game setting pretty much covers a single area the size of the western half of the USA, warcasters are a rare commodity in the fluff, they are kind of like James Bond running into his arc nemesis Blofeld every couple of months, like Batma and the Joker locked in an eternal grudge match, like Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Moriaty locking horns. Personally, once I go over the fact that they are not "my" characters, I realized how much character of their own they carry.


If I may add to the definiton argument? How about "gamer" and "wargamer"? The wargamer is interested in playing a wargame first and foremost and hopes to win. The gamer wants to play to win, and has chosen a wargame as the expression of that want.

Brilliant definition. I like your terms.


In addition there is nothing wrong with the Allies rules from a wargamers perspective but there is everything wrong with it from a gamers perspective. As a consequence there is a real fear of abuse in the mind of the gamer, whereas the wargamer is alive with the opportunities to expand or recreate the background more to their imagination.

6e 40K and 8e WFB definitely favour the wargamer over the gamer and we could end up in a position where the wargamer becomes more confident and conversant with the entire width of the rules than the gamer. Add into this that those who attend clubs and/or game at home will reflect this advantage over those who play in tournaments/events/pick up games and we might see a little churn in the dynamics of GWs user base.

First time ever I fully and 100% agreed with a post of yours. :)


this is WRONG, though, ReverendChaplainDrake.

Grey Knights are not as dominant in the hardcore competitive scene (NOVA, Adepticon, Feast of Blades, and other tournaments) as many think!!!!

this is important to understand: Grey Knights are most definitely not super-powerful, Draigowing especialy is a super-easy list to beat, and the only truly powerful build i saw wasnt even purifier-based(their strongest unit): it had supersmall units of Acolytes for troops as an excuse to take and spam lots of Psybacks-that and Psyrifledreads were its main strengths, with some Purifiers only on secondary role. I can totaly face Purifiers spam , and i will feel extremely lucky when facing Draigowing(and i DONT have a new codex for my army). i shudder to think of facing Blood Rodeo even some IG Leafblower lists(non-GK lists. btw, i am judging by 5th-ed, cause thats the tournament data i have)

a mere Vanilla marine list , like Thunderbubble, would easily destroy Draigowing and other GK "hard" builds; other armies easily beating many GK builds are, "shootyTermiebubble"(BT list with about 30 missiles per turn plus some lascannons/meltaguns and tons of powerfists. YES this is a 3-editions-old codex, not some ubernew flavour of the month), Tony Kopach's Space Wolves(lots of Grey Hunters on Rhinos supported by ICs and Long Fangs, with Scouts flanking), as well as most Dark Eldar/Tau lists(tons of shooting which GKs cant easily handle since most their firepower is 24"-based, even their psycannons). sure, GK beat some other matchups, but hey, they gotta be good at something too, right?...

the competitive scene had tons of vaqriety, from Vanilla marines playing 12-14 vehicles, to Space Wolves grey hunters spam, to Dark Eldar venomspam, to some hybrid lists like Blood Rodeo(blood angels), to several others. he only thing that didnt see much play in the top level was "Rock" lists. 5th edition was not NEARLY as unbalanced as people think, provided you were a competitive player who others call WAAC. sure, if you're NOT, then the WAAC will beat you, but he deserves to beat you since he put more effort to the win instead of the modelling/fluff aspect(he specialised).

doesnt he have the right to be good at what he specialised too?... thats like saying an unathletic fat Black Belt in jujitsu should ever stand a chance against a well-conditioned Blue Belt. sorry, its a fight, the body is the tool, and a merely decent technique will be more effective with better strength/speed/flexibility/cardio. its just how it is. at least inr eal life, not in movies. thats the same for a wargame. the armylist is your tool. top-notch tool, top-notch success.

In short:
What you describe in fine detail is the environment in which top lists compete. It's a world most of us casual gamers never so much as glance at, mostly we get crushed when we run up against any of thse armies you just listed. Same way it doesn't matter whether you use a Mercedes or a Honda Formula One racing car to drive against my bicycle.


So someone that has built a perfectly legal list using fortifications cant use it in a tournament, that is stupid. The list complies to the rules that the TOs are claiming the tournament is for, if they ban them, then it is not a tournament for 40K in this edition and they should not claim that it is.

So, how is that different from running Battle Patrol tournaments, with no vehicles and monstrous creatures and ultra tough infantry allowed?


"Amateur" makes no sense, since no one is "professional".

I also find the choice of words problematc, but it's been discussed to death by now...


Ive been playing since 1986, I think I win more than I lose (I dont keep that close of a tally), but I rarely think about how to win my next game... usually I spend my time agonizing over paint jobs, or what actor would play my army's general in the 40k movie in my head. However, my playstyle is aggressive, I take things that appear optimal to me (provided they also look cool), and am always willing to congratulate an enemy on a clever move or a lucky dice roll. So am I competitive or not? Its hard to have a political discussion when you don't know what party you belong to.

I can tell you which party you belong to: Mine! :)

No, seriously, we're both the moderates of the 40K universe, or rather in the 40K community (as there are no moderates in the 40K universe).

IcedCrow
18-07-2012, 14:33
I've never seen a net list NOT be a power list, so while it may be technically true to say not all netlists are power lists, it is a very rare thing.


So, essentially they banned random stuff with little real impact on the game that get's in the way of competitive competition and leads to longer games and an extention rule that would screw with table layouts and give players with a car an unfair advantage over those players that have to carry their stuff on the subway?

I don't really see the issue here.

There really is no "issue". It's just that it seems 5th edition would be more to what they are trying to accomplish.

If we are that concerned about balance then make each player field the same army list. That way balance is the same and no one has an unfair advantage. Then it's totally up to skill and not army list =)

AndrewGPaul
18-07-2012, 14:49
If someone wishes to run a tournament with additional house rules not in the rulebook - be that disallowing certain options such as allies or fortifications, or something as minor as having pre-set up tables, that's their shout. Claiming that it's suddenly "not proper 6th edition" is a bit daft to me. As long as the restrictions are posted ahead of time, do what you like. Plus, it adds a bit of variety. If one place runs a tournament allowing allies and another does not, or allows Forge World army lists, or something else different, well, that gives you a bit of a change. It's no different from professional sports, where tennis players can play on clay, grass or artificial surfaces, or cricketers playing a full Test match, 1-day or 20/20 matches.

Having said that, I've always seen tournament wargaming as being a subset of gaming, and using a restricted ruleset compared to the "full" game. For one thing, I don't see many tournaments using Apocalypse, Cityfight or Planetstrike rules, or Forge World army lists, all of which are part of 40k. Warmachine and Flames of War are the same, using a restricted set of scenarios (and for good reason, I might add).

Still, I bet no-one's seen a set of league/tournament rules as restrictive as those for the Official GW Gaming League for 1990/91; for the Warhammer 40,000 League, the only permissible army was Space Marines, chosen from a special, restricted army list, and you had to have no more than three squads. No vehicles, no psykers, no other races.

Caitsidhe
18-07-2012, 15:08
Again... local tournaments are merely organized "pick up games" wherein the TO and the Players have agreed to abide by certain things. If you play a pick up game with someone, you and your opponent both must agree on what will be used. If you can't agree, you don't play. There is no reason whatsoever that local Tournaments should be under anymore obligation than anyone else. There is no "standard," and Games Workshop has effectively abdicated all power and responsibility to the locals. Good. Those who organize and throw tournaments will make local players happy or they won't show up. It is as simple as that. All this griping about how other people choose to play or run their tournaments seems rather odd. I'd go so far as to say it is rather hypocritical since the same people calling other people whiners for not liking a game are now whining about how other people want to play. So they complain about a game they don't like, and you guys complain about them playing it how you don't like.

Lord Damocles
18-07-2012, 15:41
The idea is that he won't be familiar with allies and fortifications and stuff if those get bannd from tournaments, so they run into a disadvantage once they have to deal with them in casual games in their LGS. Personally, I don't think that's how it'll work out. Most casual lists will still be weaker than their potimized builds, even with allies, fortifications and double FOCs. I do't usually associate with tournament players, but the ones I know would rather fight an unusual but strong build (like a double allies double fortifications) list to see how it performs and how they can beat it than outright refuse the game. Let them do ts a few times, and they'll be well prepared for most lists possible unter 6th.
By that logic though, tournament players should be having all sorts of problems facing Tau armies because you don't see them often at tournments either.

The assumption also seems to be that these tournament players do absolutely nothing but play in tournaments (or practice for tournaments, I suppose); never taking a break from their endless competitions or training montages, which from my experience seems fantasically unrealistic.

Caitsidhe
18-07-2012, 15:59
The assumption also seems to be that these tournament players do absolutely nothing but play in tournaments (or practice for tournaments, I suppose); never taking a break from their endless competitions or training montages, which from my experience seems fantasically unrealistic.

I thought this was the best post I'd read in some time. In my area the people playing in tournaments are largely (at least 90%) the same people who are playing the rest of the time. Go figure.

Chivs
18-07-2012, 16:05
By that logic though, tournament players should be having all sorts of problems facing Tau armies because you don't see them often at tournments either.

The assumption also seems to be that these tournament players do absolutely nothing but play in tournaments (or practice for tournaments, I suppose); never taking a break from their endless competitions or training montages, which from my experience seems fantasically unrealistic.

I think a 40k training montage would be absolutely hilarious to watch (if you were in on the joke, otherwise just dull). To quote the Team America song: "With every shot show a little improvement, to show it won't take too long." How do you show improvement in a 40k montage? Have the guy smile a little bit more after each roll? Have his opponent looking more dejected each time?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've only attended 1 tournament before (Astronomicon when I was living in Vancouver) and it was a very friendly event. I took my regular army (limited by what models I had been able to bring into the country at the time) and met some great people. I've thought about trying to get to a UK based 40k tournament just so I can have a weekend of playing a game I love, and don't get to play very often (I have no local store, or club, and I don't drive :() Seems this isn't the right sort of attitude to go to a tournament with: I'd go to play, not to win at all costs. :( It's very off putting.

It still baffles me whenever I hear that people are jerks if they bring a tournament list to a casual game. If the distinction is that vast, then there's something flawed with the game. Optimising your list should be something done on all levels, such as when you realise that a squad isn't being put into combat often enough to justify the Squad Leader and Power weapon upgrade you've paid for, or that the unit you've most recently painted needs that transport more urgently than you thought, so get painting! Not creating an entirely different style of gameplay.

Col. Tartleton
18-07-2012, 16:27
Bringing luck into something doesn't make it more challenging, it makes it more random, allowing less skilled players to beat more skilled players more easily, this is not competition friendly, as competitions should be won by the better, not the luckier one. Look at a game like counter-strike compared to a game like COD. conter-strike hasa much higher skill ceiling and therefor skill gap than COD in part (there are a lot of elements, like regenerating health, not just this, but it is important) due to the fact that running and gunning and getting lucky is part of the gameplay in COD, it isn't in counter-strike, if you run and gun in counter-strike, you maybe get lucky once, the rest of the time you die.

Warhammer 40k isn't "competition friendly." Randomness does in fact make less skilled players more likely to win, but here's the key thing. It doesn't make them win.

The good player can beat the other player when the odds stacked against him. Besides, statistically it will work out that better players are better.

Now, you might need to put a different structure in place such as a round robin, and the person with the best win-loss ratio will be the champion.

Or, you might have a preliminary elimination structure followed by a round robin to thin the herd out before you compete for top slots.

Adjusting the tournament format is not a big deal.

IcedCrow
18-07-2012, 16:56
meh when 8th came out there was a *giant* uproar about how Timmy the competitive power gamer would suddenly get beaten by Joey the newb because of the random elements and you know, I've yet to see that in a couple years of playing. The guys that did good in tournaments largely still do good in tournaments. What that means to me is that while technically possible for Joey the newb to beat Timmy the Powergamer, it is still not very likely.

There are several reasons for that, mainly that the army list is still the difficulty level. Timmy can still twink his list, and Joey the newb still has no clue and brings a "C" list which is like playing on Very Hard mode.

Now if Timmy was up against Timothy and both were Power Gamers extraordinaire then their lists would both be of the same level and then the randomness of the game could play a bigger factor because the army lists would not be a factor (they are both twinked).

I think it comes down to that modifier right there. Army list. If the army lists are the same in power, then you start seeing the random terrain and random elements playing a bigger part and the player skill becomes more important. However, in a game with a strong list vs a weak list or an average powered list, the random elements play less a role because the strong list has larger % of success in its actions so that its actions are more often than not successful, whereas the average or weak list will have a larger % of failure in its actions. This is why optimizers optimize. To get their power quotient to a point where most of their actions are successes and to reduce the impact of the dice by stacking the math on their side.

Some will strongly disagree but army lists to me are the key to winning. A strong army list vs a weak army list will undoubtedly produce a win for the strong army list. A weak player with a strong army list up against a strong player with an average army list would be a good game because the strong player will have to overcome being mathematically more difficult in his odds of success, whereas the weak player would be crutching his poor ability at tactics and strategy with a strong mathematical probability of success in his actions.

A newb with a strong list vs a strong player with a strong list... it is possible but rare for the newb to win. The random elements are not *that* random.

10 years ago in 2002 net lists started getting more popular and it became easier and easier for new players to bring strong lists to the table on day 1. In 1998... that was not the case. In 2012... it's easier than ever to find a net list and run with it. A netlist won't guarantee you victory. What it will give you is a jumping stone to having to figure out the game and make a strong list on your own.

The unfortunate part of netlisting is that the same handful of lists are what are strongly represented at tournaments typically with some minor variations here and there.

Carlosophy
18-07-2012, 17:17
So a true competitive gamer wouldn't actually use a Netlist, they'd come up with their own personal list and then not share it, as doing so rids them of a competitive advantage?

totgeboren
18-07-2012, 17:28
I think a 40k training montage would be absolutely hilarious to watch (if you were in on the joke, otherwise just dull). To quote the Team America song: "With every shot show a little improvement, to show it won't take too long." How do you show improvement in a 40k montage? Have the guy smile a little bit more after each roll? Have his opponent looking more dejected each time?

I just have to point out that the lyrics go;
"And with every shot show a little improvement
To show it all would take to long" :p

Still, I can picture it in my head, having the guy playing a game, and four smaller pics superimpose on the big pic one by one, with the guy reading a codex, one painting, one going in to a GW store and so on. It would be super geeky but hilarious. :)

IcedCrow
18-07-2012, 17:37
So a true competitive gamer wouldn't actually use a Netlist, they'd come up with their own personal list and then not share it, as doing so rids them of a competitive advantage?

No that is quite impossible in this day and age. A "competitive gamer" is a gamer that plays the game to win. That's not a bad thing or negative or to be confused with WAAC. I am a competitive gamer however most of my lists are "B" grade lists (a mix of unoptimized and good units). Not all competitive gamers are optimizers, the power of the list represents a style of play / army power. A "B" list environment is very diverse and suits my attitude toward the game more than an "A" list or "A+ ard boyz" list environment does.

It's impossible to not share a list. If I'm at a big tournament and doing well, there are people taking notes and sharing that list across the webz whether I share it or not. That's how many netlists happen. "Jim won Big Uba Tournament with this list... " and they copy it down and clone it to see how well they do. If its easy to use then Billy and Tommy take note of it and do the same. And it goes from there until a cutesy name is applied to it ala "Jim's Big Hammer of Doom list" which becomes like "Draigo wing", "Purifier Spam", "Leaf Blower", etc...

Utred
18-07-2012, 17:44
A "competitive gamer" is a gamer that plays the game to win. That's not a bad thing or negative or to be confused with WAAC.

Agree totally


It's impossible to not share a list.

But you don't publicise it before you rock up... That gives you the edge for that tournament, yet for the next you'll bin your now publicised list, and move onto the next one.

Thoth62
18-07-2012, 17:48
Bringing luck into something doesn't make it more challenging, it makes it more random, allowing less skilled players to beat more skilled players more easily, this is not competition friendly, as competitions should be won by the better, not the luckier one. Look at a game like counter-strike compared to a game like COD. conter-strike hasa much higher skill ceiling and therefor skill gap than COD in part (there are a lot of elements, like regenerating health, not just this, but it is important) due to the fact that running and gunning and getting lucky is part of the gameplay in COD, it isn't in counter-strike, if you run and gun in counter-strike, you maybe get lucky once, the rest of the time you die.

You realize that this is a game of dice, right? In theory, every time you roll a die, you're letting luck and randomness determine what happens in the game.

IcedCrow
18-07-2012, 17:58
Also bringing luck into somethign does make it more challenging. What we are dealing with here are two polar opposite thought processes:

1) some random is good and helps challenge players to think ahead and be able to deal with unknown elements
2) random is bad and the game should be more like chess where it's entirely skill-driven.

althathir
18-07-2012, 18:02
If they cannot do this then they cannot claim to be running a 6ed tourney, nor can anyone winning it claim to be a good 6ed player or run a 6ed list by doing so.

Tournaments either adapt to play the new rules, or they say point blank that they are not running a 6ed tournament.

This is where the non-tourney player will end up with more experience with the rules in there entirety than tourney players, and will end up better players overall.

It depends to a degree, setting up terrain between every round would add a lot of time to events, and without dimensions for how big different terrain pieces should be, you could end up with some massive modeled for advantage terrain pieces. So I can see a tourney not wanting to use those rules, and i wouldn't consider it to not be a game of 6th. Plus with this logic any tournament in 5th that made their own missions wasn't a 5th edition tourney.

That said the competitive crowd already knows the fortifications (lots of sites have ranked them already), and a lot of them are gonna adept to the mysterious objectives & terrain rules fast because they play as much as they do.


I've never seen a net list NOT be a power list, so while it may be technically true to say not all netlists are power lists, it is a very rare thing.



There really is no "issue". It's just that it seems 5th edition would be more to what they are trying to accomplish.

If we are that concerned about balance then make each player field the same army list. That way balance is the same and no one has an unfair advantage. Then it's totally up to skill and not army list =)

IDK I've seen example lists for what a typical craftworld list may look like for biel-tan, and the other major craftworlds, same for examples of different ork tribes. They just tend to be posted in different area's (not in tactics), and if your not interested in the particular fraction really easy to overlook.


meh when 8th came out there was a *giant* uproar about how Timmy the competitive power gamer would suddenly get beaten by Joey the newb because of the random elements and you know, I've yet to see that in a couple years of playing. The guys that did good in tournaments largely still do good in tournaments. What that means to me is that while technically possible for Joey the newb to beat Timmy the Powergamer, it is still not very likely.

There are several reasons for that, mainly that the army list is still the difficulty level. Timmy can still twink his list, and Joey the newb still has no clue and brings a "C" list which is like playing on Very Hard mode.

Now if Timmy was up against Timothy and both were Power Gamers extraordinaire then their lists would both be of the same level and then the randomness of the game could play a bigger factor because the army lists would not be a factor (they are both twinked).

I think it comes down to that modifier right there. Army list. If the army lists are the same in power, then you start seeing the random terrain and random elements playing a bigger part and the player skill becomes more important. However, in a game with a strong list vs a weak list or an average powered list, the random elements play less a role because the strong list has larger % of success in its actions so that its actions are more often than not successful, whereas the average or weak list will have a larger % of failure in its actions. This is why optimizers optimize. To get their power quotient to a point where most of their actions are successes and to reduce the impact of the dice by stacking the math on their side.

Some will strongly disagree but army lists to me are the key to winning. A strong army list vs a weak army list will undoubtedly produce a win for the strong army list. A weak player with a strong army list up against a strong player with an average army list would be a good game because the strong player will have to overcome being mathematically more difficult in his odds of success, whereas the weak player would be crutching his poor ability at tactics and strategy with a strong mathematical probability of success in his actions.

A newb with a strong list vs a strong player with a strong list... it is possible but rare for the newb to win. The random elements are not *that* random.

10 years ago in 2002 net lists started getting more popular and it became easier and easier for new players to bring strong lists to the table on day 1. In 1998... that was not the case. In 2012... it's easier than ever to find a net list and run with it. A netlist won't guarantee you victory. What it will give you is a jumping stone to having to figure out the game and make a strong list on your own.

The unfortunate part of netlisting is that the same handful of lists are what are strongly represented at tournaments typically with some minor variations here and there.

The army list is important, but knowing what your opponent has & what they're capable of is IMO just as huge of a factor. Thats why the newb gets his ass kicked even more than the underpowered list. I tend to lose my first few games againist an army i'm unfamiliar with regardless of how good the list is because I don't know the armies capabilities. That said I agree that the random elements aren't gonna make worse/new players all the sudden draw even.

IcedCrow
18-07-2012, 18:33
I won't argue that knowing your opponent's army capabilities is also huge yes.

Caitsidhe
18-07-2012, 18:38
It always goes in cycles (primarily because GW does such a poor job with the rules):

1. Random Cycle (Competitive Whine)
The rules are all new and seem to be thrown together primarily to make everything work entirely different from the previous edition, i.e. reversing the value of models, invalidating tactics, and making everyone relearn the rules. During this random period you hear the so-called "non-competitive" types cheering and saying how great GW is and how all the WAAC jerks are crying in their beer because the rules have been fixed to keep them from only winning by use of their crutches (i.e. taking the time to learn the rules, build the best lists, and utilize them the most efficient way).

2. Reality Sets In:
After a few months both sides of the issue (game sucks, game is awesome) quiet down as the realization sets in that the game is mediocre at best with huge holes in it, more exploits than there were before, and no balance whatsoever. The non-competitive types are quieter because they are still in their "safe zone" wherein they can win games without actually having to be tactical, and the competitive types are quieter because they have resigned themselves to another issue of silliness and are diving into internalizing the tactics of the new game. The competitive types complain about the exploits and problems which they can plainly see and identify along with the silliness of changes to what worked before.

3. The Real Whine Begins (Non-Competitive Types Whine that Never Ends)
After six months to a year of break in period the old pro whiners are back at full volume. Things have reached equilibrium. The good players, i.e. those who learn ALL the rules, build the best lists they can, and learn to use them efficiently start to dominate. Having correctly identified the broken things (the very things they complained about in stage one) they are now using them spitefully in revenge for the all the crap they took from the "GAME IS AWESOME" group for having the temerity to complain. You think the game is brilliant skippy? Here, let me show you how great it is. This whinefest lasts for years, i.e. until a new edition starts the process all over.

All things considered, compared to the whine for the first six months by the people who want a balanced, competitive game versus the next SIX YEARS of the so-called non-competitive types crying about the unfairness of all these WAAC types who keep trouncing them, I prefer the former.

yabbadabba
18-07-2012, 19:02
Brilliant definition. I like your terms. Thank you.

First time ever I fully and 100% agreed with a post of yours. :) Don't worry, I won't let you down and do that again :D!

yabbadabba
18-07-2012, 19:50
I prefer the former. Funny that eh? And that seems nothing like what I experience, and that includes 13 years of working for GW where you will be a target for moan if there is one to be had. But there we go, this is the internet and reality is only true from the individual's perspective.

Of course the reason why it goes in cycles is despite the idea that GW is haemorraging customers, so many keep coming back to buy this pile of old tat they call a rule system, that those people flood the interwebz to moan about how it was better in the old days (being no longer than 2 editions ago) see, irrelevant. If all those people who moaned stop throwing good money after bad two things would happen:
GW would have gone bust in 1994 when I first started dealing with these sorts of issues or
GW would change their strategies by now.

Hmm....

In essence the internet is a highly concentrated version of reality much like a tournament, or like a GW store (something GW never cottoned onto), and as such what you see and experience is far more intense than the whole reality. I have been fortunate to meet a huge number of gamers of all ages and as soon as they hit 16 or so, many of them are into GWs games for two reasons; they and everyone they play with grew up with them and because it lets them have fun. Are there things they want to change - of course. Desperate to change - only prices. FAQs are helpful and a surprise, not compulsory and a disappointment. In essence though, they just aren't bothered and deal with things as they crop up, normally by the time honoured tradition of throwing a dice.

To bring it back on topic, the vast majority of GWs customers are amateur gamers. They like the product, they enjoy it, they don't care much for anything outside of it and would be a bit happier if it was cheaper but that's about it. Importantly they make decisions about their own hobby without any direct impact from GW and cope to a greater or lesser extent with any barriers that come their way - they are wargamers. GW have produced games which suit the gamer but the gamer has rejected; fair enough that's business. Where the gamer has let down the wargamer for me is in their choice of language and how they have used the language they have chosen.

Do GW need to make competitve games? No, the evidence supports this. So instead of saying that GW games should be written for competitions, or competitive gamers, which alienates the narrative RPG minded wargamers, gamers could be asking for clarity, simplicity, efficiency. Gamers have an amazing and admirable ability to see thought he loopholes almost immediately, so their support and guidance could be a pillar for the community. Instead of getting immediately helpful suggestions, FAQs, guidance notes, what we first get is abuse, denigration and hissy fits - normally by people who still carry on playing and buying the new stuff! How does that make the person who actually thinks its all cool feel? A bit hacked off, a bit harrassed - even belittled? And we know how this is reciprocated

They key thing is that there are two ways to influence GW. The first is to stop buying - I really can't stress how much the beancounters influence decisions and directions at GW especially at that top. Not enough people are stopping buying to make enough of an impact.
The second is the long, slow and independent way. Gamer and wargamer working together to create a more functional and multi-use product that is fit for purpose and is not reliant on GW deciding whether they can be bothered to do anything. This is something else GWs upper managment will not like, that they cannot influence the customer base the way they want. Most importantly it means that the hobby belongs to all hobbyists, and not purely at the beck and call of GW.

Anyway apologies for the TL: DR.

IcedCrow
18-07-2012, 20:10
On that note, when the last price hike hit in May or whenever, a few vocal locals stressed how they were done with GW forever (a typical response to price hikes) and that everyone they knew were also doing the same. I saw a lot of forum posts, blog posts, facebook posts, from these people stating GW was done and would go bankrupt and fail.

This has been said since the early 2000s.

London stock exchange has GW stock as having gone up since then despite assurance that this was the final straw and that GW was now going to fail.

Go figure.

The internet is indeed a hyper focused subset of gamers. THe vocal people on the internet may be very vocal, but they often tend to be very much the minority. Its important to take anything you read on the internet with a grain of salt.

Easy E
18-07-2012, 20:23
Is this a bad time to mention, Codex: Tournaments? It seems like no better time than now to come out with some alternate guidelines for such events, sicne tournies seem to want to void significant parts of the rulebook, Forgeworld stuff, and some army lists.

Since most casual players still play using "tournament" rules, will this make Allies, Fortifications, and Wierd Terrain something that is in the rulebook but will never actually be seen on the table?

AndrewGPaul
18-07-2012, 20:33
As I mentioned above, they apparently tried that twenty-two years ago; at least for 40k. I've no idea how it was received, since the League rules I described were in the very first White Dwarf I ever bought, and it was at least a year before I got into 40k.

I won't be using fortifications much - too much trouble to lug 'em to the games club - but I'm all for Weird Terrain and Allies. I'll be using them as a matter of course.

Egaeus
18-07-2012, 21:13
Do GW need to make competitve games? No, the evidence supports this. So instead of saying that GW games should be written for competitions, or competitive gamers, which alienates the narrative RPG minded wargamers, gamers could be asking for clarity, simplicity, efficiency.

I'm very tempted to quote this in my signature...would you have an issue with that?

I do think this is one of the main issues, and I said as much (although I don't recall if was in this thread or another)...basically the idea that "casual" gamers seem to think of the idea of "competitive" rules as something overly restrictive or arcane...although as I mentioned if you truly are a casual gamer who is willing to house rule stuff having more/more complex rules shouldn't be an issue. Most RPGs contain a clause about changing whatever suits your game, so the rules can contain a massive amount of rules that will simply never get used because they simply aren't relevant to the players...I think some of the irony here is that part of the complaining is that since things like random terrain and fortifications are in the rules they have to be used, even if they are distinctly optional (as I understand it terrain is, not sure about fortifications as I haven't yet decided whether I am willing to commit myself to 6th edition).

I think part of the problem is that GW still tries to present itself as an RPG writ as a wargame...instead of playing a single character you're playing a whole army. But then you don't have a Game Master, you just have another player, and as a nominally competitive game (as your armies are fighting one another) you both want to win. So there's a level at which changing the rules implies that someone is gaining an advantage from those changes and so one has more trepidation about altering things because they don't want to give their opponent an unfair advantage* (again, there might be people who are willing to house rule things that make their army distinctly worse but I don't see that as common). So an RPG is by nature often a patchwork of rules based on what the GM & players find functional...so if you play your wargames like you play RPGs then it works fine. However, since wargames don't have the same requirements as RPGs (I suppose one could run "pick up" RPGs...basically what is done at conventions...but again not something I see as the norm) then the rules need to address that fact.

*As I read through this before posting I note that I am coming from a competitive mindset (not that that is my nature)...that is, I approach it as a game rather than a "narrative event", but again I think this is a much from GW's presentation of things. I've read other wargames that have no points system, that are purely scenario based (which IMHO is far more "narrative-oriented" than GW's setup) so the fact that GW makes use of this "standard battle" format ironically makes it less "friendly" for storytelling IMHO. That is, if I'm only in it for the "narrative" than my opponent having some "game advantage" over me wouldn't be a big issue...but then we get to point where I start wondering then why anyone is overly concerned with "balance" and "fair play" if the story is meant to be the driving force and not the game.

Chivs
18-07-2012, 21:45
Now if Timmy was up against Timothy and both were Power Gamers extraordinaire then their lists would both be of the same level and then the randomness of the game could play a bigger factor because the army lists would not be a factor (they are both twinked).

I think it comes down to that modifier right there. Army list. If the army lists are the same in power, then you start seeing the random terrain and random elements playing a bigger part and the player skill becomes more important. However, in a game with a strong list vs a weak list or an average powered list, the random elements play less a role because the strong list has larger % of success in its actions so that its actions are more often than not successful, whereas the average or weak list will have a larger % of failure in its actions. This is why optimizers optimize. To get their power quotient to a point where most of their actions are successes and to reduce the impact of the dice by stacking the math on their side.

Some will strongly disagree but army lists to me are the key to winning. A strong army list vs a weak army list will undoubtedly produce a win for the strong army list. A weak player with a strong army list up against a strong player with an average army list would be a good game because the strong player will have to overcome being mathematically more difficult in his odds of success, whereas the weak player would be crutching his poor ability at tactics and strategy with a strong mathematical probability of success in his actions.

A newb with a strong list vs a strong player with a strong list... it is possible but rare for the newb to win. The random elements are not *that* random.


Isn't this the purpose of points values? So that the lists are roughly the same power? This shouldn't (and doesn't) mean that if you take any random collection of units you get a game winning army, but if you take stuff to counter every type of foe (i.e. you have some anti infantry capability, some anti vehicle capability, anti flyer capability etc) you've got a competitive army? How does this not happening get defended by some people (not neccessarily the poster I'm quoting btw) as not being needed in a game?

ihavetoomuchminis
18-07-2012, 21:49
snip.

What a pedantic post. We get it, you like competitive playing. All my respects to you.

Caitsidhe
18-07-2012, 22:33
What a pedantic post. We get it, you like competitive playing. All my respects to you.

I actually like both types of play. I'm just being direct about the "whining" that goes on. We will get six months of one type of player complaining about the new edition, followed by six years or so of another type of player complaining about the other players they see as being unfair. It doesn't matter whether or not Games Workshop intends for the game to be "competitive" or not, because they have designed it for multiple players to sit across from each other and try to win a battle. A narrative story will come out of that battle NO MATTER WHAT. The thing I find hilarious is that self-proclaimed competitive and non-competitive players alike all seem to want a certain outcome to that story. In short, I don't believe in the "non-competitive" player because I've yet to meet real one. :) If you want proof of this, I would point out that non-competitive players should be the LAST people to care whether or not they win or lose and thus shouldn't care whether or not other people build better, meaner lists than them. The endless droning/whining about other people whom they have subjectively decided to label as WAAC (which means anyone that beats them regularly) demonstrates conclusively that they do indeed care about the outcome of the game and that they want to win.

Thoth62
18-07-2012, 23:33
Anyway apologies for the TL: DR.

Au contrair, mes amis!

I found this to be a rather accurate description of what I've experienced, expressed in words way better than I ever could...

I see myself as a wargamer, first and foremost. I've tried my hand at tournaments in the past, but for personal reasons, they really aren't my cup of tea. For what it's worth though, I'd maybe like to insert another category in here. And that is, Hobbyist. To me, GW is a business that produces some particularly fine looking models for me to assemble and paint. I may only play two different armies, but I've got models from more than a dozen.

Am I competitive? Sure. By nature, we all are. I like to win as much as the next guy/gal. But for me, whether I win or lose, it's always (and I can't stress this enough) been about the process. If I enjoyed myself (and hopefully my opponent did too), then its a win for me. Whether it's at my local GW store, or over cold beers with some buddies, it's all about the process.

IcedCrow
19-07-2012, 00:22
Isn't this the purpose of points values? So that the lists are roughly the same power? This shouldn't (and doesn't) mean that if you take any random collection of units you get a game winning army, but if you take stuff to counter every type of foe (i.e. you have some anti infantry capability, some anti vehicle capability, anti flyer capability etc) you've got a competitive army? How does this not happening get defended by some people (not neccessarily the poster I'm quoting btw) as not being needed in a game?

Yes the point of a points system is that if you take 2000 points of X it will be roughly equal in power to 2000 points of Y.

However with GW games that has never been the case.

Case in point 2000 points of a competitive Grey Knights army is worth about 6000 points of a tyranid army lol.

althathir
19-07-2012, 02:48
Is this a bad time to mention, Codex: Tournaments? It seems like no better time than now to come out with some alternate guidelines for such events, sicne tournies seem to want to void significant parts of the rulebook, Forgeworld stuff, and some army lists.

Since most casual players still play using "tournament" rules, will this make Allies, Fortifications, and Wierd Terrain something that is in the rulebook but will never actually be seen on the table?

GW won't make a tournament codex, pretty much ever but large tourneis like adepticon and nova seem to have an effect on local tournies.

I expect to see allies, fortifications, and mysterious terrain in tournaments at some point, mysterious terrain may only be in effect some missions, and fortifications will be probably be restricted in some manner, but they'll be there. Allies will be in for sure (that rule will drive sales).

Forgeworld really depends on the location, but in the US I doubt it will be common place until stores can carry it.

Commissar Davis
19-07-2012, 06:49
I think part of the problem is that GW still tries to present itself as an RPG writ as a wargame...instead of playing a single character you're playing a whole army. But then you don't have a Game Master, you just have another player, and as a nominally competitive game (as your armies are fighting one another) you both want to win. So there's a level at which changing the rules implies that someone is gaining an advantage from those changes and so one has more trepidation about altering things because they don't want to give their opponent an unfair advantage* (again, there might be people who are willing to house rule things that make their army distinctly worse but I don't see that as common). So an RPG is by nature often a patchwork of rules based on what the GM & players find functional...so if you play your wargames like you play RPGs then it works fine. However, since wargames don't have the same requirements as RPGs (I suppose one could run "pick up" RPGs...basically what is done at conventions...but again not something I see as the norm) then the rules need to address that fact.


The fact that the missions are written by GW and the company encourages campaigns, shows the Game Master is still there in a narrative sense, the rules now follow that even more. Now you could argue that tourneys are a find of campaign, but they do not set them selves up that way nor vocalise that view, and often come out against that way of thinking as all they do is encourage people to take the best from the codices even if the lists are boring to play with/against.

From an RPG perspective you've encountered something hostile and just rolled just rolled the initiative, the outcome of the battle is done in that single initiative phase.

Egaeus
19-07-2012, 07:29
The fact that the missions are written by GW and the company encourages campaigns, shows the Game Master is still there in a narrative sense, the rules now follow that even more. Now you could argue that tourneys are a find of campaign, but they do not set them selves up that way nor vocalise that view, and often come out against that way of thinking as all they do is encourage people to take the best from the codices even if the lists are boring to play with/against.

From an RPG perspective you've encountered something hostile and just rolled just rolled the initiative, the outcome of the battle is done in that single initiative phase.

Hmm...perhaps that's an interesting thought to run with for a bit...again, since the game is essentially "player versus player" then there is no Game Master...alternatively, one could argue that in a way each player is GM for the other. But one of the important tasks of a GM is to create appropriate challenges for the party. However, this becomes tricky if you look at each player and their army in the same vein as an RPG "party", because unless both players have the same opinion of the game they are probably both going to be disappointed by the outcome. So the player who is the "powergamer" party (optimized list to crush all opposition) isn't a proper challenge to the "narrative" (theme list designed to tell a story) and vice versa.

So in this case does one or the other have a stronger case? Is the "fluff" player more correct because the game is meant to be about narrative and not merely about winning? I think there could be an argument to be made that if this is the view one takes of the game then tournament players are simply "playing the game wrong". I would perhaps liken this to powergamers in RPGs, where, again, the goal isn't necessarily strictly to win the game but again this depends heavily on how a campaign is run...if the GM expects his players to be particularly heroic and competent in combat then there may need to be some min/maxing or the like to ensure the PC's survival. So in a sense this gets writ large as the game meta, since there isn't any one GM running the show, it is dependent on how individuals and groups choose to play.

rickie8437
19-07-2012, 08:01
I dont play in tounaments, im a pure fluff army campaign type of player, so i guess this would put me into the "amateur" gamer section.

that been said ive beaten 5 out of 7 tounament players at my LGC, and they used there comptitive lists to boot, 3 of them i tabled on more than on occashion.

so yeah you enjoy your internet lists and let us real 40k players enjoy the game and its lush background.

PANZERBUNNY
19-07-2012, 08:23
On that note, when the last price hike hit in May or whenever, a few vocal locals stressed how they were done with GW forever (a typical response to price hikes) and that everyone they knew were also doing the same. I saw a lot of forum posts, blog posts, facebook posts, from these people stating GW was done and would go bankrupt and fail.

This has been said since the early 2000s.

London stock exchange has GW stock as having gone up since then despite assurance that this was the final straw and that GW was now going to fail.

Go figure.

The internet is indeed a hyper focused subset of gamers. THe vocal people on the internet may be very vocal, but they often tend to be very much the minority. Its important to take anything you read on the internet with a grain of salt.

And they have been falling apart since 2000. They've been chopping up their company for the last few years so they are able to report profits.

They are only earning those profits because they have gutted staff and stores across the world.

That doesn't seem very healthy. It may be the right move to stay alive, but so is cutting a leg off trapped under a boulder or ugly girl from the bar the previous night.

Lots of games out there these days that are better than GW, amazing models and better rules.

The company is led without passion. It's decline is fairly predicted.

Such is life.

Commissar Davis
19-07-2012, 08:49
Hmm...perhaps that's an interesting thought to run with for a bit...again, since the game is essentially "player versus player" then there is no Game Master...alternatively, one could argue that in a way each player is GM for the other. But one of the important tasks of a GM is to create appropriate challenges for the party. However, this becomes tricky if you look at each player and their army in the same vein as an RPG "party", because unless both players have the same opinion of the game they are probably both going to be disappointed by the outcome. So the player who is the "powergamer" party (optimized list to crush all opposition) isn't a proper challenge to the "narrative" (theme list designed to tell a story) and vice versa.

So in this case does one or the other have a stronger case? Is the "fluff" player more correct because the game is meant to be about narrative and not merely about winning? I think there could be an argument to be made that if this is the view one takes of the game then tournament players are simply "playing the game wrong". I would perhaps liken this to powergamers in RPGs, where, again, the goal isn't necessarily strictly to win the game but again this depends heavily on how a campaign is run...if the GM expects his players to be particularly heroic and competent in combat then there may need to be some min/maxing or the like to ensure the PC's survival. So in a sense this gets writ large as the game meta, since there isn't any one GM running the show, it is dependent on how individuals and groups choose to play.

GW has said they rules are not designed for tourneys, so doing so goes against the design of the game. As for the RPG mode, one only has to look at all the effort GW go to in designing the background, which is better than any GM could manage on their own. GW encourages its customers to delve into the fluff, not take the rules and create the hardest lists possible to bang each other over the head with.

If you are playing at tourneys and using the rules to create the biggest and hardest club to pound the opposition possible, you are not playing the rules as they were intended which GW have vocalised themselves.

Cheeslord
19-07-2012, 09:00
And they have been falling apart since 2000. They've been chopping up their company for the last few years so they are able to report profits.

They are only earning those profits because they have gutted staff and stores across the world.

That doesn't seem very healthy. It may be the right move to stay alive, but so is cutting a leg off trapped under a boulder or ugly girl from the bar the previous night.

Lots of games out there these days that are better than GW, amazing models and better rules.

The company is led without passion. It's decline is fairly predicted.

Such is life.

You know, thats the best kind of sarcasm as I genuinely can't tell if you are being sarcastic. Or Ironic for that matter...

Mark.

yabbadabba
19-07-2012, 09:38
GW won't make a tournament codex, pretty much ever but large tourneis like adepticon and nova seem to have an effect on local tournies. We talked about it back in the day but I think GW would point to their GT/ToS system and say "there is your codex tournaments". People might find it hard to believe but GW used to think that the community is far better off doing some stuff than they can ever do. The GT/ToS is the best GW want to do but they acknowledged others will do better.

Besides when you look at how over excited people get about "canon" in the background can you imagine what they would get like with Codex Tournaments :evilgrin:

I'm very tempted to quote this in my signature...would you have an issue with that? Help yourself mate. Always an honour to get asked.


I do think this is one of the main issues, and I said as much (although I don't recall if was in this thread or another)...basically the idea that "casual" gamers seem to think of the idea of "competitive" rules as something overly restrictive or arcane...although as I mentioned if you truly are a casual gamer who is willing to house rule stuff having more/more complex rules shouldn't be an issue. Most RPGs contain a clause about changing whatever suits your game, so the rules can contain a massive amount of rules that will simply never get used because they simply aren't relevant to the players...I think some of the irony here is that part of the complaining is that since things like random terrain and fortifications are in the rules they have to be used, even if they are distinctly optional (as I understand it terrain is, not sure about fortifications as I haven't yet decided whether I am willing to commit myself to 6th edition). For me it is all about the language used. Its also a little bit about ownership.

I think part of the problem is that GW still tries to present itself as an RPG writ as a wargame...instead of playing a single character you're playing a whole army. But then you don't have a Game Master, you just have another player, and as a nominally competitive game (as your armies are fighting one another) you both want to win. So there's a level at which changing the rules implies that someone is gaining an advantage from those changes and so one has more trepidation about altering things because they don't want to give their opponent an unfair advantage* (again, there might be people who are willing to house rule things that make their army distinctly worse but I don't see that as common). So an RPG is by nature often a patchwork of rules based on what the GM & players find functional...so if you play your wargames like you play RPGs then it works fine. However, since wargames don't have the same requirements as RPGs (I suppose one could run "pick up" RPGs...basically what is done at conventions...but again not something I see as the norm) then the rules need to address that fact. They call it a narrative wargame, so it fits a little into both categories.

As I read through this before posting I note that I am coming from a competitive mindset (not that that is my nature)...that is, I approach it as a game rather than a "narrative event", but again I think this is a much from GW's presentation of things. I've read other wargames that have no points system, that are purely scenario based (which IMHO is far more "narrative-oriented" than GW's setup) so the fact that GW makes use of this "standard battle" format ironically makes it less "friendly" for storytelling IMHO. That is, if I'm only in it for the "narrative" than my opponent having some "game advantage" over me wouldn't be a big issue...but then we get to point where I start wondering then why anyone is overly concerned with "balance" and "fair play" if the story is meant to be the driving force and not the game. Over the 25 years of playing GWs games they have fluctuated wildly on the presentation of what they are suggesting you do; but in the end they have always acknowledged its down to you and your opponent. Looking at it in perspective, points are good for 11-18 year olds (JJ wanted to do a campaign pack/rules pack without points), as are scenarios. Up until I left, we as staff were encouraged to not use the scenarios provided but to adapt films, books etc and create our own victory conditions. You don't always get it right but the more you try the better you get. Again I believe this is about language and ownership - GW talks about this in a little voice and in abstract words. It might be to do with IP, I don't know, but GW see the ideal gaming situation is a few mates in a club or round a house where the game is the minimum, and they have taken it onto the next level for their own needs and desires.

xxRavenxx
19-07-2012, 10:04
My FLGS tournament last week banned:

- Mysterious terrain
- Warlord powers (not sure why)
- Fortifications

I'm seeing a lot of this unfortunately. They basically should just stick wiht 5th edition.

They have removed the broken items (Fortifications), and the random scenery which requires a lot of bookkeeping, and leads to lopsided games. This seems entirely fair, and I don't see your issue with it. Noone wants to go to a tournament, move into a piece of cover and be told: "Surprise! It devours your men. You've lost." Its fine for the odd casual game, but when you paid 5 in, and are trying to bag a prize, its not good form.

And as for why fortifications are broken, look at the skyshield. An unassaultable, indestructable piece of terrain which grants a superb saving throw. Its rules just don't work, so it shouldn't be allowed in a tournament setting.


Allies may get added back in once the waac players figure out how to break it.

Allies don't need breaking, they already are broken. Its all to easy to sling a farseer into a marine list for some free doom, or the stormlord for a game of nightfighting, or epidimius into CSM for 3+/3++ save wound on 2+, ignore save bolter antics. Allies do not work out well.


I disagree, most people whine that randomness is "Non-competitive". M:tG is also a randomized game, but the best players manage separate themselves from the rest despite of the randomness.


Don't forget that the key to MTG play is to mitigate the randomness. If you're running a deck which wins off 1 card in 15, you try and put in ways of finding it quicker. If you're winning via creatures, you make sure you put plenty in, so that you draw them.

In 40k, to mitigate randomness, you have to gut it out by removing random scenery, and other "wackyer" items. Remember: If you're playing seriously, you don't want the wacky rules, because they often just make one player win when they randomly devour all of someone elses army. (I remember a piece of scenery causing a "cascade" of goblins in WHFB and taking out about 60% of my guys on turn 1, for example. In a tournament, that wouldn't fly.)

borithan
19-07-2012, 11:04
And as for why fortifications are broken, look at the skyshield. An unassaultable, indestructable piece of terrain which grants a superb saving throw. Its rules just don't work, so it shouldn't be allowed in a tournament setting.While I cannot comment on the balance of the item or not, it is assaultable.



Allies don't need breaking, they already are broken. Its all to easy to sling a farseer into a marine list for some free doom, or the stormlord for a game of nightfighting, or epidimius into CSM for 3+/3++ save wound on 2+, ignore save bolter antics. Allies do not work out well.
I have to say, the allies table does confuse me, as if you are doing a friendly game, and you want to have allies, you don't need rules explaining who can ally with who (no problem having a reference in the rulebook, going "Why not have allies? Here are some rules that can be used to represent different levels of trust), especially as the table has various things that make no sense from a background perspective. If it is meant as a hard and fast rule ("Now all armies can do this, it is part of the core rules!"), then, as you say, it is massively unbalancing.

xxRavenxx
19-07-2012, 11:13
While I cannot comment on the balance of the item or not, it is assaultable.

By the interperation of every customer I have, plus most who have discussed it online, it is not. Maybe we're "wrong", but if so many can get it wrong, it's a problem in itself. I shall elaborate on what many people see though:

It has 4 erm... Access points? (I can't remember the official term right now) up which you can attempt an assault, but with men stood on it no room to do so, as they are stood on open terrain at the top but you cannot get up there. It uses half the rules of a building style fortfication (eg. bastion), but is not a destroyable item. It leads to messy problems, wherein about 15 spaced out models stood on it can prevent jump infantry from landing on it, and so thwarting all attempts to actually assault the unit.

IJW
19-07-2012, 11:18
Every discussion I've seen online has ended with people saying to treat it like a ruin that you can only enter via the access points - roll high enough to get up and you're in assault, whether or not there's room to put the models there.

Anything else sounds too much like you're trying to make it not work. ;)

Rick Blaine
19-07-2012, 11:46
The only problem is: The logic doesn't pan out.

So, okay, the super-dude prepared for the unknown, so he prepared for everything a bit. Let's call him an "all-comers dude". The other guys prepared for the exact opponent he knew he was going to face, so let's call him "list-tailored counter dude".

I think it becomes pretty clear why the second dude has a clear advantage in a game of 40K, but I believe he would also have an advantage ifthis was an actual fight. Unless the first dude id freaking Bruce Lee, he'll be a regular Karate-ka or Boxer who trained to fight all kinds of styles that are out there, while the second dude pretty much specialized in beating a boxer or a karate-ka...

You misunderstand, maybe the analogy was a bit tenuous but in our case the tourney guy isn't so much tailoring vs. that one specific casual guy, he's tailoring vs. the metagame. He has counters to the standard powerlists, his build takes into account the standard tourney table level of standard terrain, etc. Then he comes to play a "casual" game (using actual full 6th edition rules) and doesn't know how to deal with mysterious terrain/objectives, he gets thrown off when razorwings rend apart his Termies in a wood, he panics when an objective is booby trapped... while the casual gamer is much better at improvising his tactics around the vagaries of 6th on the spot.

IcedCrow
19-07-2012, 13:09
By the interperation of every customer I have, plus most who have discussed it online, it is not. Maybe we're "wrong", but if so many can get it wrong, it's a problem in itself. I shall elaborate on what many people see though:

It has 4 erm... Access points? (I can't remember the official term right now) up which you can attempt an assault, but with men stood on it no room to do so, as they are stood on open terrain at the top but you cannot get up there. It uses half the rules of a building style fortfication (eg. bastion), but is not a destroyable item. It leads to messy problems, wherein about 15 spaced out models stood on it can prevent jump infantry from landing on it, and so thwarting all attempts to actually assault the unit.

I've seen several debates on this, and the rulebook also states to treat it in two different ways which is where the confusion comes. It's also as easy as the TO saying "you can assault units on it" and the problem is solved.


The company is led without passion. It's decline is fairly predicted.

People have been saying that for over a decade and yet there they still are. I think if you want to believe they will fail you will convince yourself they will. Unless one is an actual financial manager at Games Workshop, anything one says on the subject is complete opinion without any correlating facts as one lacks the financial data to make those assertations. In the world of the internet, everyone is a financial stock exchange guru with access to secret financial data that "knows".


Noone wants to go to a tournament, move into a piece of cover and be told: "Surprise! It devours your men. You've lost." Its fine for the odd casual game, but when you paid 5 in, and are trying to bag a prize, its not good form.

You are quite incorrect in that "no one wants to go to a tournament and have this happen". There are those that don't mind the risk pieces of the game that were added. In fact, it is the risk pieces that have been added that excite many people regardless of if they are there to get their ESPN sponsorship and giant trophy or if they are "amateurs and casual hacks". There is another camp such as yourself that wants it more like chess. I'm not saying you're wrong in how you like to play, but don't try and stress that the world's tournament players hate risk. Being able to evaluate risk and use it or mitigate it is an exciting part of a wargame since that is an actual skill of conducting real war.

Nurgling Chieftain
19-07-2012, 17:59
Unless one is an actual financial manager at Games Workshop, anything one says on the subject is complete opinion without any correlating facts as one lacks the financial data to make those assertations.Or you could go to their website, click on investor relations (http://investor.games-workshop.com/), and browse their financial reports directly. :p Silly people. This is a publicly traded company. There's probably way more information out there than most of us are interested in reading.

Anyway, per their financials, they're recovering from a slight dip in 2010, and are otherwise in generally solid, if not exceptional, footing. They're bigger than they were five years ago. There's certainly no evidence of a tailspin.

145801

IcedCrow
19-07-2012, 18:06
There ya go thanks for posting that.

PANZERBUNNY
19-07-2012, 18:08
And the above chart doesn't take any of the massive cuts into effect or am I missing something?

I wouldn't interpret recovering from bleeding out cash, closing stores across two continents and slashing their divisions as a solid footing.

Again, it's survival. They had to scramble to fix things before they got stupid and are going "hey look we're standing tall now".

For how long?

I mean, so many things play into where a chunk of this stable revenue is coming from. Price increases play into that.

I'm sure they'll report "record profits" once 6th edition sales factor into future numbers.

For better insight into how they're doing I'd want to see # of books sold, # of new codexes sold etc. compared to previous editions. I doubt they'd release that information though.(Who knows.)

murgel2006
19-07-2012, 18:17
amateur = men/women playing with no/very little financial gain from that.
professional = men/women playing as a profession. They earn a significant amount of money from that activity.

Does that mean you can earn a living by playing 40k? (besides working for GW/FW or a retailer)

Because if so, I would like to know where and might move there.

IJW
19-07-2012, 18:26
I wouldn't interpret recovering from bleeding out cash, closing stores across two continents and slashing their divisions as a solid footing.

As far as I remember, they've gone from owing money to the banks to having little or no loans at all and seen no downward trend in the overall number of stores.

IcedCrow
19-07-2012, 18:42
As I said, if you want them to fail, you will interpret anything as failure or masking failure. Their financials indicate the opposite. They are in the black and have been for a long time. As a shareholder, that is a success.

Nurgling Chieftain
19-07-2012, 18:46
...am I missing something?I think you've got some weird preconceptions that don't entirely match reality. For example, things like making profits by cutting spending are clearly visible in financial reports as increasing profit despite declining revenue. But their revenue isn't declining anymore (although it did last year - slightly), but increasing, and indeed it appears to be on track to be higher than any time I can see (I'd prefer a longer chart, but didn't see one). There was a little decline in spending, about what you'd expect, no "slash and burn" level. They're still a good 10% larger (revenue) than they were five years ago. That's not stellar growth, but it is growth, not a tailspin.

Caitsidhe
19-07-2012, 19:15
Actually, the most dangerous time for a Corporation is when they no longer owe money to banks. :) When debt is low, that when the most profit can be made off buying off a company and selling off the most profitable parts. I, personally, don't care one way or the other about the solvency of Games Workshop. I'm merely stating a fact. As competition, i.e. additional companies move into the same niche, increases the viability of the old business plan becomes questionable. Certain assets used to produce certain properties and types of product become more valuable when sold off corporate raider style. It is a risk all companies take when they go public, and the risk of said situation increases as debt drops.

yabbadabba
19-07-2012, 19:31
This is getting off topic.