PDA

View Full Version : Gav's thoughts on the lustria lists



therisnosaurus
11-05-2005, 12:09
from the GW rules dev forum, the loremaster speaks out

quote: Gav>>
Hi,

I've recently been fielding thoughts and questions regarding the army lists in Lustria, the use of special characters for variant lists, and some of the thinking behind Lustria itself. Since these are the GW forums, I should probably post this here too!

Remember, by the letter of the rules, anyone can use special characters unless 'banned' by an event organiser. However, most groups will have an agreement about whether they use special characters or not. The whole point of attaching the lists to special characters was to include these variant lists within that same context. There is nothing that prevents a gaming group (or event organiser) from allowing the list to be taken out of context and used without the special character. In the future, we'll make this even clearer by suggesting what a player can do instead.

We can't keep simply adding in variant list after variant list into the game without some kind of limiting measures. At the end of the day, there are over a dozen army books that we expect players to face in pick-up-and play scenarios and if we keep adding lists at the rate we are (even excepting the ten extra ones in SoC!) then soon there'll be twenty, thirty lists, which is a complete minefield for players. And this isn't just about new players, how many of you genuinely know how all the current lists work? How would you know if your opponent was making a genuine mistake if you had to know even the vague details of thirty different lists, attendant magic items, and so on?

So, the idea is that a lot of these variant lists will be context-specific (a campaign, a special character, a scenario, &tc), meaning they'll require some agreement and discussion by the players, if only to make sure your opponent is aware that the type of list you are using exists! It's not really on to turn up at a club, store or tournament and find that the army you are facing appeared in a discontinued supplement, or old WD, and is now available only on some part of the website. Think how many lists there are now, and then think even just two years on with new campaign supplements, WD articles and the like. In hindsight variant lists were a very useful mechanic for getting players to look at armies they haven't considered before. However, the sheer weight of information regarding armies is becoming downright unwieldy.

and

Going forward we'll hopefully end up in a place that is a lot clearer for existing and new players alike, and is essentially going to boil down to:

Rule book + Army book = 'Official', use without prejudice.

Everything else = 'Unofficial', we think it's great, but not for pick-up-and-play games without warning.

To use an example from the past, you wouldn't expect to suddenly spring a siege game on an opponent, would you? Similarly, we'd like to get to a place where players won't surprise their opponent because they've turned up with a list, troop type or character they may not have seen before. This means the players will have to communicate with each other – "Hey, Bob, I found this old WD with this variant Dark Elf list, shall I try it next week?", rather than, "Sorry, Bob, but yes I can have eight repeater bolt throwers, it's not my fault you didn't know that…"

As for tournaments, like I keep saying, it's up to tournament organisers what sort of event they can run. I think we can do better with suggesting alternatives for organisers to think about, but ultimately if we create something for one context, players will have to decide for themselves if they are happy with it being used outside of that context. As another example, certain scandanavian tournaments have been using some of the Bugman's Lament troops (or so I read, anyway). Those units are obviously tied to that campaign, are done as some colour and fun, but the players attending those tournaments are made aware that they'll be used, and forewarned is forearmed (as opposed to four-armed, which is a Keeper of Secrets ).

We (as the games developers) can't be at every event and every gaming table, so it is important that we explain ourselves a bit better in these products and articles, and include appropriate editorial comment that explains the intent of a new list, new special character and so on. This has been a growing factor over the past year or two, but we're getting to grips with it now.



Quote:
" I might just be a sour tournament player who never has fun playing but when I have to choose between spending 100's of dollars on an army that I'm sure I can always use in both private and tournament play or a list I might be allowed to use then I guess I will choose the safe option. "

You're not a sour tournament player, you're a player making an informed decision about the army you want to collect, and you have every right to. If the players you game with, or the events you attend, are unlikely to allow you to use one of these lists, then you would be crazy to collect one. On the other hand, there are lots of players and events that will be happy using these lists (with or without special characters, as they decide) and we have to cater to them as well. Would you rather you collected this army and then your tournament opponents and organisers thought it was cheesy and decided to ban it? Better to be cautious and clear up front, than regret it later. I'd rather players were making positive decisions (let's allow this) than negative ones (let's ban this).

Cheers,

GAV

Delicious Soy
17-05-2005, 13:47
So basically Gav's big solution to everything is for each player considering a variant list to conduct a census in his region to make sure an acceptable number of people will allow his list before putting it together? Riiiiight. If GW aren't willing to make variant list official full-stop, why bother making them at all?

ATM, i can say I have at least a passing familiarity with each of the lists (besides the Lustria ones, because I don't plan on purchasing it). I've played games (of 40k) where I've had to explain, to relatively experienced players, that a Seer Council has a 4+ invulnerable save. In WFB the problem is excarebated by the magic items system. Basically I think that most people are going to have the same difficulty with army lists irrespective of how many there are. THis is especially true of those lists being published of ARMY books. Don't bother if you are simply going to make them dependent on special characters and usuable only occasionally.

Riddy
17-05-2005, 14:50
As it is currently why cant they just make the varient army lists official, i see no reason why anyone would refuse to play against a plague monk army or a skink army, both are dooable through their respective army books anyway. As with Delicious Soy i have a passing familiarity with most lists in WFB (Other than OK and Lustria, as i haven't played since before OK came out) and if you are playing a game you should ALWAYS have your army book handy so that even if i dont know about something you have the material there to show me that you aren't making it up this means even if it is a 'pick up and play' game against an army i have never seen before, i have a chance to look at some of the rules.

Sgt John Keel
17-05-2005, 15:26
Actually, this bit is also pretty important to read before making any hasty desicions.



Thanks to everyone that has posted so far, for keeping it civil and bringing up some interesting points. I'll jump in and address some of those issues.

Official/ Unofficial debate
There used be a time when such terms as official and unofficial didn't exist. Most players happily went their way in small groups, a few attended clubs, but there certainly was no sense of a wider community beyound the stores you visited and your mates. These days we have global events, tournaments, battle bunkers and all sorts of other goodness (which, incidentally, I would have given a limb for when I was a callow youth looking for people to play this new-fangled Rogue Trader game I'd discovered). We have been slow in recognising the full implications this has on a games system and the way it can be promoted and supported with new material. Perhaps it was rose-tinted spectacles, perhaps simply good intent, but we were confident in our ability to release rules and people would be 'nice' about the whole thing, talk this over with their opponents, agree what they used and try things out in a spirit of adventure.

Of course, the reality is that players come together from very different places, looking for different gaming experiences. Some game in stores, some in clubs, others go to tournaments, while more still just play with their mates in the olde stylee. What has been consistent for a while now is the question, 'Is this official?'. This is not something we've taken upon ourselves to instil upon the gaming system because it suits out purposes, far from it. It is a response to the growing number of calls for greater clarification as to what is official and what's not. Why would people want to know? That's up to them, it's not for us to say.

The short version is that players have asked us the official/ unofficial question a lot recently and we have to start addressing the answer.

Amount of rules
Lets not forget something important: we produce a lot of rules. Masses, in fact. When we were compiling the Annuals it was clear that every year we added a large amount of rules to every games system.

We also want to keep producing more rules! They enable us to explore the universes of our games, and the hobby of gaming itself in different ways.

Take a moment to consider just how much of that massive rules set you yourself know about, or are even aware of. Most of us only look at part of this at a time – your own army, the armies you play against perhaps, the tournament rules of the events you attend, maybe even just one of the scenarios. Now step back and think about all of those army books, the other supplements, the WD and web articles, the skirmish rules, sieges, campaigns. At the moment we're asking people to view almost all of that material in the same way, all equally important and equally official. It can be overhelming, even for experienced players. For this reason the divide will allow us to say, "This is the stuff you need to be aware of, and this stuff over here you can think about if you want to."

Time frame
There's two ways we can solve this: the quick, easy way or the long, proper way.

We could apply the divide I mentioned at the start in an instant – wave some magic wand and make a statement that only the rulebook and army books are official, and nothing else. That doesn't leave a lot of players in a very good position, though. They've invested money, time and effort into their armies, and they want to use them, and within many circles as soon as we say 'it's unofficial' then those armies will be instantly tainted, for right or wrong. That's not really doing best by them, no matter the greater good that is served.

So we have to do this the proper way, to extricate ourselves from the decisions of the past and not repeat them, and find ways to move forward that accomodates the needs of the players themselves, all of them. This is going to take time, quite a long time indeed, probably years. There isn't one solution. Some of these things may be accomodated as we revise army books, for instance. Others may require us to bite the bullet and move things over to the 'unofficial' side of the line, but to do so in a way that leaves players with as much opportunity as possible to use the armies that they have collected.

This also means that there isn't going to necessarily be a defining moment of when this happens. We might wake up one monday and realise with a warm sense of achievement that we've actually got there. This isn't going to get fixed next week, next month, or even perhap next year, because miniatures last a long time.

What it absolutely requires is that we don't add to the phenomenon, and that players understand what we are trying to achieve, and why.

Errata
Someone mentioned there being no official errata in this approach. This isn't the case, because any errata will be corrections made to those official sources – the corrections don't exist in some little area of their own, they are simply an extension of the rulebook and armies books. In fact, errata like this is incorporated into a reprint policy that means the books themselves are physically updated with the latest corrections.

Happy Gaming!

GAV

/Adrian

amagi
05-06-2005, 08:56
Gav says:
So, the idea is that a lot of these variant lists will be context-specific (a campaign, a special character, a scenario, &tc), meaning they'll require some agreement and discussion by the players, if only to make sure your opponent is aware that the type of list you are using exists!

This is a fundamentally horrible idea.
Stripped of Gavin's lengthy explanations, he is essentially declaring the following:

It is now GW policy to spend large amounts of resources--money, time, shelf space, etc.--designing, producing, and selling Warhammer products that are inherently designed to have limited appeal, limited playability, limited flexibility, limited application, limited variety, limited sales.

This is absurd, and it does not bode well for the future of Warhammer.

When I heard that the army lists in the Lustria book required the inclusion of a special character in some fashion (and that none of the new units had any relevance outside these special character armies), I thought it an unfortunate lapse in judgement on the part of GW--I thought they had failed to take into account the effect such rules would have on the general appeal and usefulness of their armies.

Now that I know it was GW's conscious intent to limit the use of their product, I am aghast and appalled.

There are many reasons why this policy is irrational.
The most glaring reason is probably the fact that because GW must devote considerable resources to the development and production of their products, to intentionally minimize their return on those resources is inane.

But the most upsetting reason to me personally is the fact that the armies created under such a policy will be of very little or no interest to me or any of my gaming group. We might use them once or twice, but they will inevitably go the way of all such "special scenario" or "special character" or "special context" armies--to oblivion (where they will join Albion, the War of the Beard, countless "unofficial" White Dwarf lists, Chronicles lists, etc.). We will certainly invest no money in such armies, beyond perhaps buying an occasional book. Just one reason for this is that we almost never use special characters, even though we do appreciate the value of including them (as optional choices) with army lists. I won't be buying the Lustria book, incidentally, because GW's plan to limit the interest of those armies has succeeded brilliantly in my case.

I reject entirely the idea that the existing army books plus the SoC lists are approaching any sort of upper limit of army list capacity. I reject the idea that more official, general-use lists will create a problem of complexity for Warhammer players.
Gavin's arguments to this effect are mistaken.

I will address his arguments in a future post.

Briefly, the fundamental point is that a new army list creates no problem of complexity at all if its rules are easily available to be shown to opponents and its official/unofficial status is made clear. As long as it adheres to the basic rules of Warhammer, in broad terms, and is not overly complicated itself, there is no problem.

In reality, what Warhammer needs is precisely more variety in army lists, more variety in playing styles, more variety in troop choices.
The last thing Warhammer needs is for GW to start wasting time and money on irrelevant, marginally useful "special" armies that are designed to not appeal to a significant portion of their players.

Bruen
05-06-2005, 10:29
Its typical that I read this the day after I buy £100 worth of zombie pirates.

As far as I am concerned this policy makes anything not in an army book into an unplayable curiosity, and certainly not something that I would invest time or money in.

WLBjork
05-06-2005, 11:00
This has been the situation ever since WHFB and 40K started.

Why are people complaining about it all of a sudden?

These lists that Gav is referring to are lists that are considered to be unbalanced for normal gaming purposes. If they were official, I think that we'd see even more people complaining - I can remember all the furor over the SoC lists, which were all official.

It seems that the view is "if it isn't official, it's not worthwhile".

I think the opposite - the unofficial stuff is there more to add background and allow you to field the force in certain circumstances. After all, I can see some complaints if I opted to field a War of the Beard Dwarf force against a modern Empire Army.

Bruen - you've bought those ZPs. Stick the Zombies up and distribute Blackpowder weapons. Later on if you wish, you can add some skeletons with Crossbows and form the basis of an Army of Sylvania force - that's exactly what I'm planning on doing. That gives me the basis of two armies for little more than the cost of one.

Angelripper
05-06-2005, 11:41
I personally think it's not so bad as everyone thinks. OK you can't use your stylish Zombie Pirate, or Plague Monk or what ever list else in a grand tournament. Well thats sad if you just have this army. But what is so terrible if you take that army of yours and after finishing it expand it to a regular Armybook Troop.
It's no biggy to ask around if your friends have no problem with a list. I bet if it's stylish and not that overpowerd no one would complain. On the other Hand it's just annoying to fight the same Nuln Gunline everytime. so I think to make fights more fun you should always use the wohle variety of every army. I for example got a nice Empirearmy and use them sometimes as plain Armybook Empire, as SOC list, as Artillery Train of Nuln, or Marienburger Mercenary Army. Same with my Dark Elves. You might face an Armybook army one time next time a Slaaneshi Cult and the next time a Citygarrisonlist. In tournaments, even in "All-Goes" by our Gaming Assosiation I take the Armybook armies because it opens more possibilities to hurt your opponent.
Fungames between friends are one thing, official games against someone you don't know are another thing.

just my 2 cents

Delicious Soy
05-06-2005, 11:59
For me the main issue isn't the usability of lists in tournaments, its the fact that these armies deny you the ability to personalise your army. I'd love to collect a Zombie Pirate army, but the inability to make my own lord choice and arm him in a way that I find characterful means that I won't. Why should the tournament viability of these lists affect the ability of people to make their army their own?

Bruen
05-06-2005, 14:31
This has been the situation ever since WHFB and 40K started.

Why are people complaining about it all of a sudden?

That is simply untrue. Up until now all lists printed in WD, on the GW website or in a Codex have been official unless they said that they required your opponents consent.

Sure you couldn't take them all to tournaments but I don't go to tournamets so that doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is pickup games in store.

The problem with this new position is that these lists will now be in the same position as DIY special characters and special scenarios that you make up to play with your friends and Forgeworld beasties - they will effectivly be banished to playing at home only. Its just going to be impossible to get a pickup game with any of these armies because they are "not tournament legal".

Well its certainly like that where I play, basicaly if its not tournament legal then it might as well not exist.

And yes I could switch and play Vampire Counts, except that I don't want to. It was the Vampire Pirate army list that inspired me, not any run of the mill undead army.


These lists that Gav is referring to are lists that are considered to be unbalanced for normal gaming purposes. If they were official, I think that we'd see even more people complaining - I can remember all the furor over the SoC lists, which were all official.

Yep, the Zombie Pirate list is clearly open to abuse.

Lady Bastet
05-06-2005, 14:51
It is difficult for me to determine if the Senior Staff of Games Workshop are on drugs or if they are in need of them.

To enforce such foolish restrictions upon the lists only serves to restrict the sales of the armies in question and harm themselves.

Surely a tournament legal, Clan Pestilence army would be encourage sales of the Plague Monk boxed set?

*sigh* what can I say? other than Monkey brains and Monkey minds...

Inquis. Jaeger
05-06-2005, 15:23
Personally I feel this is a wrong position for GW to take. The Lustria lists then become (and especially the Plague Monk one) are essentialy unplayable. Why would a person invest time, effort and money into an army which is unofficial and can only be used with your mates? Pick-up games in store and Tournies are a large part of my gaming. If I cannot do this, why would I want to use that army?

Likewise, Gav's position that there are 'too-many' lists is, I feel, belittling. I have not played WHFB (primarily 40k player) since Albion, but I know pretty much what all lists, even in WHFB, do, and whether they exist or not, despite not playing all that regularly. If I can be aware of this, what is to stop others doing the same? So what if there is 30 army lists? 40k has far more than this, or far more possible lists once you factor in Traits, Doctrines, Chaos Legions, Mutuable Nids etc. I do not have a problem keeping up with these, and I am sure the vast majority of WHFB players would not have a problem keeping up with 30+ army lists, particularly when the majority are varients of a select few.

And lastly, I view the 'special-character tie-in' nature of the newest varient lists as a curse. I would like to create, design, cater and model my general as I see fit, both to fit in with my army and style of play, as well what I wish it to look like in model terms. Remember this model is supposed to represent you, the player, on the tabletop. The lack of choice here is criminal. ESPECIALLY when one is forced to take that special character's not inconsiderable points cost as well. Currently, The Skaven Plague Monk army is unplayable below 2000 points, and at a severe disadvantage, I feel, below 3000 points, because it is forced to spend 575 points on Nurglitch. Whilst he is a powerful character, I for one would never take a near-600 point character in any battle below 4000 points. He is simply an unbalancing element.

taer
05-06-2005, 16:04
I don't mind the Special character tie-ins so much. What I do mind is telling everyone a list is official (the article to the zombie pirates for example explicitly states that the list is, for all intents and purposes, official), and then a month or so later, when a lot of people have started making a go at them, telling us "Oh wait, we lied, there aren't really official." What's worse, they do it on a rather obscure area of the website, which most gamers never even want to look in. Being a tournament player until Texas got the shaft for GT's, I will only spend money and build a list that I can use in any situation. Sure, I might build one or two eccentric models for a campaign or something, but I'm not going to be spending time building a list that I can use occasionally. This wasn't a particular problem with unofficial things like War of the Beard(y), because if you already owned a High elf or dwarf army it was an easy matter to make a list up, and because they told you it was unofficial from the get-go.

And as for Gav's concern for opponents at tournaments not knowing a list, or whatever, I've played people at the GT who didn't have either an army list or an army book with them, let alone a painted army. Before the SOC lists came out I was playing a daemon army, and at the time nearly none of my opponents had any notion of the special rules of the army, so it isn't like tournament players or casual players take the time to memorize every list as is. Hell, most don't memorize or study lists unless they play that army, or have played that army at some point in time. That's why there is something called trust and common courtesy when you spend a couple minutes before a game to describe any rules that may seem wonky in an army list, and answering any questions your opponent asks of you with your rules to back yourself up with.

RandomZombie
05-06-2005, 17:03
I for one am outraged at G.W for doing this. I was about to invest in Zombie pirates also. and im not converting to vampire counts. I sent an angry email to custimer service of G.W. I hope they get it.

night2501
05-06-2005, 17:34
wel I see this more of the sportmanship side...knowing that huge amount of sublist is almost imposible, and giving completly free choice makes people not know wath tey are going to face, and that can be frustrating sometymes ...
they not say the list are not oficial, but make clear that they want people to be aware of wath they will face...
on the other hand I find that ok for people that tailor list to play specific oponents, but I do not do that, and many people I know dosn´t do that either, so we don´t really worry about the list the oponent is plaing, as long as he can explain you the rules and let you check them...
and in tourneys he organizer should revise list before accepting entries, and definign witch list can be used especial characters etc...tought I agree list that come with especial characters must be used with it...
in the end...for me is just a clarification, the list are as oficial as in your area make them, and everithing is fine as long as you don´t take it them of context...ho and please be a good sportman and let the oponent know the rules before the game be polite, wath gav say is that for me :P

Bruen
05-06-2005, 18:42
...ho and please be a good sportman and let the oponent know the rules before the game be polite, wath gav say is that for me :P

And how do you do that with pickup games?

I play in a local club and a GW store and I never know from week to week who I am going to play, how am I going to get their consent in advance?

samw
05-06-2005, 18:46
Well thankfully this won't effect me due to the fact the store-manager at my local GW (where I play all my games) implemented a house rule some time ago. Anything that requires opponents permission can take it as given. Special characters from the website, Back of the Book lists etc are all allowed. We all thought it a great idea. I've played against Skarsnik, seen Korhill in action and played several of the sub-armies. People can write lists like this knowing they'll be able to play them every week, and that gives an incomparable variety, as well as enouraging them to spend money on specific models. At least not all GW employees are insane!

amagi
05-06-2005, 18:55
Some of these replies miss the point entirely.
Let's go though a couple:

WLBjork says:
It seems that the view is "if it isn't official, it's not worthwhile".The official/unofficial issue is a closely related matter, and GW is taking and has taken a similarly asinine approach to this issue--but this is not the point.
The issue at hand is that GW is even making official armies that are supposed to have severely restricted use and appeal!
(That they would also make similarly limited unofficial lists, which are already inherently limited in relevance, is an even worse waste of money and of the time of their employees. Such armies fit even more Bruen's designation as "unplayable curiosities")

Angelripper says:
OK you can't use your stylish Zombie Pirate, or Plague Monk or what ever list else in a grand tournament. Well thats sad if you just have this army. But what is so terrible if you take that army of yours and after finishing it expand it to a regular Armybook Troop.If a marginally useful, deliberately restricted list can inspire a few people to buy models that they could use in the standard armybook lists as well--how many more people would be inspired by an actually useful, general-use list that is not restricted but versatile and playable?
How many more people would buy undead models if they knew they could use them in the standard list as well as in a hypothetical general-use Zombie Pirate list not crippled by restrictions that make it less effective in the game and far less likely to even be played in the first place?
How many people will NOT be enticed in the slightest to buy more undead models simply because they might be able to occasionally use the actual, restricted, less playable, less flexible, less effective, less interesting Zombie Pirate list?
(It's zero extra enticement for me to know that the models I buy might be of use in some spinoff list that requires me to take the same special character every time, can only be used over 2000 points, only after 2:00 PM on Tuesdays, and only while wearing a green shirt.)
Angelripper is staring at one leaf of one tree and missing completely the forest in front of him.
He says that it's "sad" that someone spent 100 pounds on an army he now realizes has little or no use. It is sad--sad for all of us, and sad for GW, because many of us won't make that mistake now--we won't spend the money at all.

RandomZombie
05-06-2005, 23:37
Some of these replies miss the point entirely.
Let's go though a couple:

WLBjork says:The official/unofficial issue is a related matter, and GW is taking and has taken a similarly asinine approach to this issue--but this is not the point.
The issue at hand is that GW is making official armies that are supposed to have severely restricted use and appeal!
(That they would also make similarly limited unofficial lists, which are already inherently limited in relevance, is an even worse waste of money and of the time of their employees. Such armies fit even more Bruen's designation as "unplayable curiosities")

Angelripper says:If a marginally useful, deliberately restricted list can inspire a few people to buy models that they could use in the standard armybook lists as well--how many more people would be inspired by an actually useful, general-use list that is not restricted but versatile and playable?
How many more people would buy undead models if they knew they could use them in the standard list as well as in a hypothetical general-use Zombie Pirate list not crippled by restrictions that make it less effective in the game and far less likely to even be played in the first place?
How many people will NOT be enticed in the slightest to buy more undead models simply because they might be able to occasionally use the actual, restricted, less playable, less flexible, less effective, less interesting Zombie Pirate list?
(It's zero extra enticement for me to know that the models I buy might be of use in some spinoff list that requires me to take the same special character every time, can only be used over 2000 points, only after 2:00 PM on Tuesdays, and only while wearing a green shirt.)
Angelripper is staring at one leaf of one tree and missing completely the forest in front of him.
He says that it's "sad" that someone spent 100 pounds on an army he now realizes has little or no use. It is sad--sad for all of us, and sad for GW, because many of us won't make that mistake now--we won't spend the money at all.

Alright, i agree with some of your post. However, in his post he said that he hopes to get to the official, unofficial set sometime in teh future so if we heaqd Gav and his insane ways off at the pass we can narowly dodge this bullet.

night2501
06-06-2005, 02:57
And how do you do that with pickup games?

I play in a local club and a GW store and I never know from week to week who I am going to play, how am I going to get their consent in advance?

before the game refer to the 5 minuts before the actual game take place or while puting the minis on the table...is not that hard...

neXus6
06-06-2005, 03:15
LoL that is all brilliantly bad.
In my opinion creating more armylists is better, it adds more variation which is always a good thing, nerfing them is just stupid.
I have no problem knowing most of the rules for all the fantasy armies (yet I only own 3 or 4 army books)...but I know nothing about the new marine traits(yet I own 5+ codexs). :eyebrows:

Plus all of the "sub lists" and campaign specific lists that I've seen...ie all of them except the Zombie Pirates...are beatable by regular armies. I've beaten variations of the Tzeentch daemon army a few times and it's probably the hardest list in Fantasy with both bog standard Skaven and Greenskins so even it has it's weakness'.

All in all this is totaly rubbish. I was thinking about starting to play in tourneys, but seeing as now there will only be a hand full of different armies to play against I don't really see the point.

taer
06-06-2005, 03:51
You know the funniest part of all this? Technically Chaos Dwarves can't be played in most events or as pick up according to Gav's rather arbitrary guidlines of what is official.

Bruen
06-06-2005, 07:18
before the game refer to the 5 minuts before the actual game take place or while puting the minis on the table...is not that hard...

And what do I do if my opponent says no?

I have driven for 30 mins to get to the club and have no other Fantasy army. Basicaly my evening would be wasted.

Why would I buy an army that runs this risk?
Since Zombie Pirates is the only Fantasy army that I fancy why would I play Fantasy at all?

amagi
06-06-2005, 09:54
Gavin says his plan (which GW is clearly already implementing with the Lustria lists and the Zombie Pirates) is to make many or most future army lists (including all the "realms" books presumably) "context specific"--limited to use in a particular campaign, with a particular special character, at a certain points value, etc. The explicit goal of this policy is to make the lists less useful, more subject to the arbitrary approval of your opponent, less playable and much less often played at all--in other words to deliberately marginalize the appeal, profitability, and enjoyment of their product.

Now I'll examine Gav's irrational arguments for this disastrous policy.

First, the most glaringly absurd of his fallacies:
To use an example from the past, you wouldn't expect to suddenly spring a siege game on an opponent, would you? Similarly, we'd like to get to a place where players won't surprise their opponent because they've turned up with a list, troop type or character they may not have seen before.Siege is not standard Warhammer Fantasy! It's basically an entirely different rule set. You need a whole different army composition and points allotment and pieces to play it. Gav might as well have said, "well you wouldn't show up to play Warhammer and then suddenly announce you're playing Monopoly instead, so therefore we're not making any new Warhammer armies."
This is the same argument (the difference is only of degree), and it's no more or less irrational than Gav's statement.
There is a fundamental difference between springing a totally different game, like seige or skirmish, on an opponent and using a valid, standard Warhammer army that the oppenent simply might not be entirely familiar with.
As long as the new army follows the basic Warhammer rules and is not overly complicated, a few new special rules, new stat lines, or new troop types is not even remotely a problem (assuming the rules are easily available to show to the opponent)--rather, it's a vital source of variety and challenge.

Next, in responding to someone who says they'd rather invest money in an army they know can be used in tournament as well as private play, Gavin first admits he's right, then declares:
On the other hand, there are lots of players and events that will be happy using these lists (with or without special characters, as they decide) and we have to cater to them as well.If the list was simply made official and of general use, then BOTH parties would be happy, and furthermore GW would have the guy's money.
The ones who, as Gavin says, are so interested in the lists they would be "happy using these lists" even though they might be unofficial or as good as unofficial, even though they might have to make up rules to let them take normal characters, would be just as happy or happier using the lists if they had an official stamp on them (or if they allowed normal characters).
More importantly, the other group, those who want the lists to be official or not "context-specific" will now be happy as well and will actually purchase the product.

Gavin is here saying, essentially, yes we know full well our plan will alienate many players and make us far less money on these products, but some fraction of our fans will still use them in spite of our efforts, so we'll go ahead and take the losses and upset the others. We want these lists to be used less--we want to make less money on them.
We could simply and effortlessly satisfy both parties and maybe even actually profit, but we don't want to confuse our simple-minded customers with new rules. We don't want to subject any of them to the nightmare of being faced with an army they don't know every detail and rule for ahead of time.

This is outrageous.

In a future post I'll deal more with what is apparently the crux of Gav's whole rationalizing argument--the ridiculous idea he's basing this rubbish policy on:
the idea that the potential for a player in a pick-up game or tournament to be suddenly faced with an unfamiliar army list represents a serious problem in Warhammer--one that justifies severely limiting the appeal, usefulness, and profitability of many future GW products.

EvilIncarnate
07-06-2005, 18:53
Well Gav's thoughts are just wrong about most things.


This means the players will have to communicate with each other – "Hey, Bob, I found this old WD with this variant Dark Elf list, shall I try it next week?", rather than, "Sorry, Bob, but yes I can have eight repeater bolt throwers, it's not my fault you didn't know that…"

Well it is Bob's fault for not knowing. Every good general should what other armies or different lists types are out there (This is the idea of modern day armies anyways). There is new stuff coming out every month in White Dwarf, this is just part of the hobby. In Gav's view it is infair to bring something that the other person doesn't know. Wouldn't it be unfair for me NOT to tell my oppenant what magic weapons my gerenal has? Or even bringing troops that my oppanant hasn't seen or played agaisnt before?

This entire idea about not knowing what the other person is just plain dumb.

If gav wants to get rid of this unknowingness then there sould be a premade army for every army book out there and just play these because it would be "unfair" to bring something that the other person hasn't seen before.

2. About the official and unofficial thing. This is what Gav said in the first post by therisnosaurus which is newer of the two posts by gav.


Rule book + Army book = 'Official', use without prejudice.
Everything else = 'Unofficial', we think it's great, but not for pick-up-and-play games without warning

And now this what he said in the second post by Sgt John Keel which is a older post by good'ol gav.


There's two ways we can solve this: the quick, easy way or the long, proper way.

We could apply the divide I mentioned at the start in an instant – wave some magic wand and make a statement that only the rulebook and army books are official, and nothing else.

Well it seems that he took the easy way out didn't he?

Gazak Blacktoof
07-06-2005, 20:04
I think the idea of these new lists is really to spark interest in the game in general as well as in specific lists. Here's what I think, if you're interested ...

GW/ the design team/ Gav, who ever makes these choices have decided that large scale campaigns, at least for the moment, are unworkable. Either due to the chance of wrecking the balance of the story line, in the warhammer world or due to the problems of setting up the campaign and implementing it. I'm sure we all realise how much work must go into global campaigns.

With almost all of the lists done, there needs to be continued realeases to create interest in existing lines and the game in general in order that people keep purchasing older miniatures as well as the newer armies. The cheap way of doing this is to create armies for specific settings and campaigns. These naturally wont receive the same amount of support/ development time as "main" lists as they can't generate the same level of income due to an overlap in the models used and so aren't worth the same level of investment.

What the varient lists do generate is interest in armies and a talking point for the game in general. Some people with existing armies will think the lists are great ideas and invest money in a new book, a few units and characters, other people might not see it that way but then the initial investment wasn't huge (few if any extra models).

Most games aren't part of a tournament, generally people play with friends and have a god time doing so. These new lists are created for that environment, for gamers like me who don't intend, at least in the short term, to visit a tournament. My mates couldn't care how official a model/ unit is, we just like playing games.

I think context specific lists are a good thing as you get to play a different game to the one you are used to, what ever the quirks in it you can still have a good time. It is I agree, a pitty that the lists aren't fully tested and balanced like the "main" lists, but as I said that's probably a business decision.

neXus6
07-06-2005, 20:50
Right so the Daemon army, an army which is very cool, and used to have rules, now will not have official rules as the SoC book is not an "Army book" ... okay it is fair to say that Archaons horde and the brettonians errantry army is "campaign only" but Daemon Armies, Sea Guard armys, the Cult of Slannesh and the Eshin list are all "always existed just didn't have rules" armies.

:wtf:

Kjell
07-06-2005, 21:13
Right so the Daemon army, an army which is very cool, and used to have rules, now will not have official rules as the SoC book is not an "Army book" ... okay it is fair to say that Archaons horde and the brettonians errantry army is "campaign only" but Daemon Armies, Sea Guard armys, the Cult of Slannesh and the Eshin list are all "always existed just didn't have rules" armies.

:wtf:
Well, technically Daemon armies have rules already. The Hordes of Chaos book, anyone? This approach to which lists are official and unofficial is a bit half-assed, though. An unofficial list is generlaly a lot easier to squeeze out, yes, but that's no excuse for disvalidating (is that a word?) lists like the SoC one. They got a bit more than just a WD article devoted to them, after all. :p

neXus6
07-06-2005, 21:18
Oh yes I agree you can have daemon armies using the Hordes of Chaos list, but it is so horribly underpowered that it should be taken out to the barn and shot.
:p

RandomZombie
07-06-2005, 21:32
Well i sent an anrgy letter to G.W and they said that i took the article to seriously. What gav said was were "They wanted to be" and hasnt happend yet and wont happen for the near and (Hopefully) far future. Everyone take a deep breath. We just doged a bullet.

neXus6
07-06-2005, 21:52
In all honesty anything could happen, so make sure (everyone :D) that if you ever meet Gav tell him how you feel to make damn sure he never, ever, carries out this stupid plan.

EvilIncarnate
07-06-2005, 21:54
Something I just thought of which is wierd. Why doesn't gav post these idea and crazy thoughts that he has in White Dwarf, where it will reach the most people instead of only online?

He only posts on UK website too. I know my friends and I had to go to that website to get some of his articles that he posted. These articles never were never posted on the US website.

Inquis. Jaeger
08-06-2005, 01:22
Something I just thought of which is wierd. Why doesn't gav post these idea and crazy thoughts that he has in White Dwarf, where it will reach the most people instead of only online?

He only posts on UK website too. I know my friends and I had to go to that website to get some of his articles that he posted. These articles never were never posted on the US website.

Well, to be fair, and seeing as you post your location as 'E-Town', it's really not that much hassle to visit the UK website instead of your own. I know I visit the US website instead of the UK one all the time. There's no difference in effort for you.

neXus6
08-06-2005, 01:32
Because WD is to busy printing letters about, and pictures of, female gamers and soul caliber 2 ads.
:rolleyes:

Go WD.

amagi
08-06-2005, 03:02
Again some of these responses entirely miss the point of this discussion. They are literally arguing against positions that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

"Gazak Blacktoof," for example, says:
GW/ the design team/ Gav, who ever makes these choices have decided that large scale campaigns, at least for the moment, are unworkable.
...
The cheap way of doing this is to create armies for specific settings and campaigns.
...
I think context specific lists are a good thing as you get to play a different game to the one you are used to, what ever the quirks in it you can still have a good time.The issue is not "large scale campaigns" versus specific-context armies.
The problem is official, general use armies versus pseudo-unofficial (or fully unofficial) specific-context armies.
Large-scale campaigns have nothing to do with anything.
If this is understood, then obviously it makes zero sense to claim that specific-context armies are somehow cheaper to make than armies that don't, for example, require special characters. You just write in the book, "Lord, X points."
Problem solved.

Furthermore, he again misses the point of those who are against the policy of making lots of special-context armies when he says that such armies "generate interest" and let you "play a different game to the one you are used to."
The whole problem with such armies is that they would generate much more interest if they were general-use, fully official, customizable (not special character-requiring). They would still be new and interesting and just as different to what you're used to, only they'd be more flexible in composition, tactics, and customizability--and because more (probably many more) people, for a great many reasons, would want to actually play them, they'd also be more profitable!!

The reality is, as I repeatedly point out, these special-context lists are deliberately designed to be LESS interesting than they could be. Gav doesn't want them to appeal to too many people or to be too widely used and enjoyed. He says as much explicitly, in his quotes at the start of this thread (e.g. he says he knows the lists won't appeal to tournament/pick-up players), and the fact that he doesn't show any sign of understanding the illogic of such a plan is very dismaying, given his influence on the future of Warhammer.

I used to defend him against the usual angry mob of Gavin-bashers, but this crosses the line. The policy he's championing will significantly diminish the quality of (apparently more than a few) future Warhammer products. I've lost most of my enthusiasm for the "realms" books, for instance. The concept is great, but now it seems they actually intend to intentionally marginalize their appeal and severely restrict their use. The damage has already been done with Lustria and the Zombie Pirates. Ridiculous.

(To repeat and clarify--the point is not whether you personally like, to some extent, the way Lustria turned out--the point is that it easily could have appealed to far more people, had much greater use in private and tournament play, and generated more money, if they'd simply made it general-use and not pointlessly restricted. They KNEW this, and chose to restrict.)

Delicious Soy
09-06-2005, 01:32
Because WD is to busy printing letters about, and pictures of, female gamers and soul caliber 2 ads.
:rolleyes:

Go WD.Which WD is this?

neXus6
09-06-2005, 02:08
This months UK WD.

The SoulCaliber "ad" was just a picture tacked onto a little news message about namco and the fantasy game. As for the letter about female gamers, I was to amazed at this sudden drop into the realms of uber geek to read it but it was at the end of the mag in some general letters section or something.
:p

Delicious Soy
09-06-2005, 06:10
Oh. We don't have a letters section of WD down here. Ours is basically a cut and paste job from the US and UK with a few (usually poor) local articles.


Everyone take a deep breath. We just doged a bullet.Well considering the Zombie Pirates and Lustria lists are out, I'd say we're already watching them storm the gate to put indivduality to the torch.

amagi
09-06-2005, 06:39
Precisely.
We dodged nothing, and the damage is already being done.

Lustria/Zombies is "historical," "campaign-specific," "special character-specific," "points-specific," "location-specific," etc.
Limited, restricted, marginalized--both in game terms and in sales terms.

Gav has anounced their intention to continue this policy with future releases.

If anyone is upset over this trend, I'd suggest speaking up on the GW site Warhammer forum.
The first sticky thread there (started by Gav) is on this same topic.
Others have already voiced their discontent.
Maybe someone will actually listen.
http://us.games-workshop.com/community/forums/warforum.htm

EDIT: It's gone now. According to a moderator, Gavin said he'd gotten all the information he needed from the thread.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
09-06-2005, 12:58
Gav states what has been the case in both 40k and fantasy since as far back as I remember, and suddenly its controversial?

Avian
09-06-2005, 13:43
Lustria/Zombies is "historical," "campaign-specific," "special character-specific," "points-specific," "location-specific," etc.
Limited, restricted, marginalized--both in game terms and in sales terms.
Yup, and for a list that looks like it was clobbered together during a night of heavy drinking in Bugman's Bar, I'm very happy about this. :)

I don't want insufficiently tested lists to be official.

Bruen
09-06-2005, 14:48
Gav states what has been the case in both 40k and fantasy since as far back as I remember, and suddenly its controversial?

Stuff that appeared in WD used to be official unless the article said diferent. The Zombie Pirate article specificaly says that it is an official list.

A week later Gav changes all that.

Avian
09-06-2005, 14:54
A week later Gav changes all that.
??? Where? How?

EvilIncarnate
09-06-2005, 15:10
I don't want insufficiently tested lists to be official

But the Zombie list is official. It doesn't say you can only use it with the Lustria book.

Avian
09-06-2005, 15:14
But the Zombie list is official. It doesn't say you can only use it with the Lustria book.
Yeah, but if Special characters are not allowed (they rarely are at tournaments and most gaming groups expect you to give notice beforehand) then they can't be used. Pretty much the same thing.

thecuckoo
09-06-2005, 15:16
Well, stuff what Gav said on a message board! (Gav, if you're reading mate, nothing personal)

I have in my hands a freshly printed copy of WD306 and it says my ZP's are an official list. Now, until they print a retraction in WD, then offical is what it stays.

I am not gonna take what Gav did/didnt say in a posting as gospel until it appears in print somewhere. Or are we now required to own a PC and an internet connection to play Warhammer ?

Warning: Warhammer is not a complete game. You will need a 233Mhz Pentium PC and an internet connection to fully utilise the contents of this box.

I don't remember seeing that printed on the back of the box.

Are they gonna put huge banner adverts up in the window of your local GW store "Zombie Pirates NOT official!" ? Nope, I dont think so either.

And no, I don't give a monkeys about FAQ's or PDF's or whatever. This isnt a question of rules clarification, or what unit strength is a Ogre.

Fact: Zombie Pirate list is official. It says so in print.

Fact: It stays official until GW prints a retraction.

I don't care about heresay, rumour, gossip, what your-brother-who-works-in-mail-order says, or indeed anything you downloaded from www.whyyourarmyisunofficial.com

Zombie Pirates: Official Army List.

Read it and weep.

p.s. And might I also add "Har har me shivering mateys a-heave-ho"

thankyou.

Avian
09-06-2005, 15:19
Well, stuff what Gav said on a message board! (Gav, if you're reading mate, nothing personal)

I have in my hands a freshly printed copy of WD306 and it says my ZP's are an official list. Now, until they print a retraction in WD, then offical is what it stays.

I am not gonna take what Gav did/didnt say in a posting as gospel until it appears in print somewhere.
Again: What are you people talking about?

amagi
09-06-2005, 15:21
Gav states what has been the case in both 40k and fantasy since as far back as I remember, and suddenly its controversial?...Somebody said almost exactly the same thing on page 1...
Are you people actually reading Gav's quote? Or the rest of the posts?

As should be very clear by now, this is not simply the old official/unofficial issue!

I guess I'll repeat it:
This is Gav describing (and us seeing in action) a whole new systematic approach to many future Warhammer releases, not just White Dwarf material but entire supplement books, namely the strategy of deliberately limiting and restricting the uses of any new armies. Gav thinks that because we have a lot of armies, any or all new ones must be made unofficial, or official but subject to opponents permission (whatever that means), by confining them to "special-context" or "special character-specific." He says he wants them to be allowed in pick-up games or tournaments only by opponent or organizer permission.
Obviously this is not just the old policy. Read Gav's quote again:
So, the idea is that a lot of these variant lists will be context-specific (a campaign, a special character, a scenario, &tc), meaning they'll require some agreement and discussion by the players

And Avian, I don't know quite what Bruen's refering to, but maybe he means that Zombie Pirates was supposedly going to be official, but now we find out that it's "official" but limited to a certain character, a certain points value, and subject to permission in certain contexts.
EDIT: In response to thecuckoo's comment right below:
I read your post, and I'm still not sure......No, I don't think you did....

thecuckoo
09-06-2005, 15:22
Yeah. That.

I said that, right ?

Avian
09-06-2005, 15:29
He says he wants them to be allowed in pick-up games or tournaments only by opponent or organizer permission.
Yeah. And?

I'm not sure I see the problem here. Would you rather have the list stamped "UNOFFICIAL"?

Isn't it better to know right from the start that the army is not completely official than to buy a hundred metal Slayer models, only to find that a lot of organizers won't allow the army at tournaments?

amagi
09-06-2005, 15:36
Isn't it better to know right from the start that the army is not completely official than to buy a hundred metal Slayer models, only to find that a lot of organizers won't allow the army at tournaments?Yes. Know what'd be even better though? If the army WAS completely official!!!
If it was just as general use as every other army!!
If you actually could collect these interesting new armies.

That's the whole point. Some of us don't want all new armies to be psuedo-unofficial, limited, restricted, and made less useful.
It's bad for the players and it's bad for business.

I'm not sure I see the problem here.Well, since the last several pages of this thread provide detailed arguments by myself and others for why this is in fact quite a serious problem, I'd suggest starting there for answers.

Avian
09-06-2005, 15:41
Yes. Know what'd be even better though? If the army WAS completely official!!!
But you can't have that, there isn't the time and resources to do the proper play-testing (there isn't even enough time to check that all magic weapons actually do something :p).
That leaves you with the alternatives:
1) Not get the list at all
2) Get a list that is not 100% official


Now, they gave you option 2 and actually clearly stated that this is what they were doing. Considering that they are not forcing you to buy any models you don't want or invalidate any models you already own, I don't understand why you consider this to be a serious problem.

taer
09-06-2005, 15:46
Except it isn't right from the start. The Zombie Pirate list says specifially it is official for all intents and purposes. The only restriction is if an event organizer decides that special characters are not allowed, then the list may not be used. However, keep in mind, that in 6th edition fantasy, special characters do not require opponent permission, unless stated in the characters description. That little "requires opponent permission" is absent from both the Lustria book, and from the Zombie Pirates list, therefore with both of them being official (well, the zombie list stated it was official, and everyone pretty much assumed the new realms books were meant to be as well. Afterall, the army books make no mention that they are official) However, over a month after the release of the realms book, and up to a month after the release of the zombie pirates list, depending on where you live and how long it took to get your WD, Gav is stating that no, in fact neither of these lists are actually official since they do not fit into his criteria of BRB and Army Book=official. (The Lustria book is a realms book, not an Army book). Plus he did it on an obscure part of the website. The reason there is such an uproar about this is that initially things that were official, things that quite a few gents have already started collecting thinking they were official, may not in fact be official. The worst part is that this article could see print in a few months, and by then there will be a great number of people who have collected armies for these lists, ignorant to the post made by Gav (remember, it is asinine to think the gaming public should inspect every rules question on the web, but it is fully expected that they keep up with printed FAQ's and Errata either through White Dwarf or the Chronicles). It is a grave dis-service to Games Workshop's consumers to, in effect, pull the wool over their eyes and rape their wallets.


Edit: it may be an undertested and not a well balanced list, but that is not the point. The point is they said it was a fully official list, with the only slightly limiting factor of a required special character, which is not a terribly big deal since pick up and play does not require permission to use special characters, nor do any big GW event, and other event organizers will likely not have a restriction anyways. But with the switch in the official status of the lists, they now require opponent permission every time you use them, and are exempt from the great majority of events, which as far as I can tell is a genuinely great shift in the playability and desireability of the list. Hell, the Ravening hordes lists were not well playtested or balanced, and no-one had a big problem over their opponent using them 'till a rules update came out. Hell, untill this post, the Chaos Dwarves were still fully legal, and not particularly playtested well before their release.

Avian
09-06-2005, 15:52
However, over a month after the release of the realms book, and up to a month after the release of the zombie pirates list, depending on where you live and how long it took to get your WD, Gav is stating that no, in fact neither of these lists are actually official since they do not fit into his criteria of BRB and Army Book=official.
Uh, no, he doesn't. He said:
"Going forward we'll hopefully end up in a place that is a lot clearer for existing and new players alike, and is essentially going to boil down to:"

I don't know about you, but to me "going forward" and "hopefully end up" does not mean "This applies immediately to all material released in the past and future."

He talks about what he eventually hopes the situation will become.

amagi
09-06-2005, 15:55
Avian said:
But you can't have that, there isn't the time and resources to do the proper play-testingThat's completely and utterly false.

Why is there no time? We're talking about a long-term policy applying to many new Warhammer releases into the indefinite future.
You're telling me there will be no time for any of those to make a decent army?

What about Lustria. This is a book, not some two-bit White Dwarf list that deserves to be thrown out as unofficial.
This was a top priority of the development team. They had time, and they damn well should have made time if they didn't.
The suggestion that the top, key releases of Warhammer simply have to be second-rate is absurd and obscene.
This is the point of their business--to release products that many people will use.
Not to deliberately ensure that their products are unusable or less usable by a large portion of their customers.

Besides, you're ignoring Gavin's stated reasons for the policy. It is not because they think the lists aren't good enough that they're restricting them.
It's because they don't want them used very often at all--they don't want new armies to be widely used or to appeal to too many people. Their justification is NOT lack of playtesting time but the belief that there are too many armies already.
Again, I suggest reading this thread.

(In case you still think my view is simply some ignorant failure to understand
that not all new lists can be sufficiently tested to be official, let me make this clear. There is still a place for unofficial test lists, in White Dwarf for instance. But there is definitely no call to relegate all or almost all major new Warhammer releases to limited, marginalized, pseudo-unofficial status.)

taer
09-06-2005, 15:56
Edit: This is directed towards Avian's post above, not amagi's.


Wow, selective quoting. You must have missed the part where I said "The worst part is that this article could see print in a few months, and by then there will be a great number of people who have collected armies for these lists, ignorant to the post made by Gav (remember, it is asinine to think the gaming public should inspect every rules question on the web, but it is fully expected that they keep up with printed FAQ's and Errata either through White Dwarf or the Chronicles). "

You must have missed the point where I covered the eventually aspect, and how much worse that is. Or you didn't want to acknowledge it.

Avian
09-06-2005, 15:57
But there is definitely no call to relegate all or almost all major new Warhammer releases to limited, marginalized, pseudo-unofficial status.)
No, and he didn't say that this is what was going to happen either. Calm down, Paranoia Boy.

Avian
09-06-2005, 16:00
You must have missed the point where I covered the eventually aspect, and how much worse that is. Or you didn't want to acknowledge it.
What "article" are you talking about then? :confused:
This is Gav musing on what direction he wants the game to take, stating a vague goal of what he wants the end result to be so time in the future.

Did he ever say anything about changing the status of already released material? No?

amagi
09-06-2005, 16:02
It's all very well to simply assert that you're right and I'm wrong, in defiance of Gavin's own quote and the detailed posts in this thread showing that Gav means exactly what you claim he doesn't

It's another thing to provide any helpful content or argument for your point. Kindly stop filling this thread with superfluous one-or-two sentence posts that entirely fail to address the issue at hand.

taer
09-06-2005, 16:05
Not an article, but the BRB+Army book=official doctrine. This is what I fear to see in print, and this is why we are having this discussion. If our paranoia and bitching can avoid this then we have done our job by letting Gav and the community know we do not support his idea. If we sit back and keep our yaps shut he won't know that the community has a problem with it, and then there would be no reason not to think he would print this doctrine in a future issue of WD or in a chronicles. That would not be a good thing.



Did he ever say anything about changing the status of already released material? No?

Yes, because the only official lists if this doctrine was in place are Army book lists, and things in the BRB. Therefore Chaos Dwarves, Dogs of War, Lustria lists, and Zombie pirates would no longer be official, which is a shift in already released material.

Avian
09-06-2005, 16:12
Issues at hand, then:

1) Some people are worried that all or almost all new Warhammer releases will be semi-official.
2) Some people are worried that released lists will become semi-official.

Am I right? Because that is how it seems to me.

I can imagine that if you want to bend words, then it's possible to get that impression from Gav's musings on the subject, but to be honest:

1) These are his musings and are not written in any definite form
2) It doesn't talk about altering the status of any released lists at all

If you can prove that these to statements are in fac erronous then I will certainly be convinced. So far this has not happened. He talks about releasing alternative lists in a semi-official way. If you have been following the trends in the army books you will see that the original trend was a handful of definitely unofficial lists in each army book. As far as I can tell, these didn't get played much, due to their unofficial status.
Then followed a period of official alternative lists, many of whom should probably not have been made official (City Guard, Slayers).
It seems the trend nowadays is semi-official lists (ie. official under certain conditions).

Now, since the release of official alternative lists did not make the unofficial alternative lists official, I don't see why the release of semi-official lists should make either the official or unofficial lists semi-official.



Yes, because the only official lists if this doctrine was in place are Army book lists, and things in the BRB. Therefore Chaos Dwarves, Dogs of War, Lustria lists, and Zombie pirates would no longer be official, which is a shift in already released material.
But he doesn't say anything about applying this to already published material.
Official 'Ard Boyz did not make my Mountain Waaagh list official, so why should semi-official Zombie Pirates make my 'Ard Boyz semi-official?

taer
09-06-2005, 16:20
But he doesn't say anything about applying this to already published material.
Official 'Ard Boyz did not make my Mountain Waaagh list official, so why should semi-official Zombie Pirates make my 'Ard Boyz semi-official?
__________________

Erm, this isn't about upgrading official status from unofficial to semi-official, but official down to non-official. I think this bit of what he says means he wishes it to be backwards applicable.

"To use an example from the past, you wouldn't expect to suddenly spring a siege game on an opponent, would you? Similarly, we'd like to get to a place where players won't surprise their opponent because they've turned up with a list, troop type or character they may not have seen before. This means the players will have to communicate with each other – "Hey, Bob, I found this old WD with this variant Dark Elf list, shall I try it next week?", rather than, "Sorry, Bob, but yes I can have eight repeater bolt throwers, it's not my fault you didn't know that…"

Sai-Lauren
09-06-2005, 16:21
"Going forward we'll hopefully end up in a place that is a lot clearer for existing and new players alike, and is essentially going to boil down to:"
Every played buzzword bingo? :p

I'm basically of the feeling that GW has enough development staff that any army lists they produce should be official, legal and available for anyone to play, unless it's a 100% beta release done as a "this is where we are, we're looking for feedback - it's totally unofficial for the purposes of tournaments etc".

These lists aren't created over hours or days, they're done over weeks and months, even years in some cases. They're sent out to the playtesters for feedback months ahead of release, plus the developers test it themselves (IMO, by the time it's ready for release, they should be utterly sick of it). Things will get missed, sure, but they can be fixed in FAQs, all collated together annually so you're not carrying around tons of loose paper.

One of the worries is that someone may not know the list, and so may therefore be surprised by some new ability.
Firstly, how many of us actually know every single army list off by heart, can quote it's special rules verbatim, and can reel off all the unit costs from memory? I own all the army books so far, play most of the armies and I certainly can't

Secondly, is it really that difficult for someone to say "Hmm, I've never played against that army before, mind if I have a quick look through your army book just to get a feel for it before we start? Here's mine if you would like to do the same."

Or would that mean people would have to talk to each other? :rolleyes:

Avian
09-06-2005, 16:25
Erm, this isn't about upgrading official status from unofficial to semi-official, but official down to non-official. I think this bit of what he says means he wishes it to be backwards applicable.
Well, he doesn't mention anything about backward-applicability, thus I think you are getting worked up for very little reason.

As I read it, when they actually get around to doing more work on the Night Goblin list*, for example, it will probably be tied to a special character, possibly linked to a campaign and not 100% official in all cases.

That's how I read it. He doesn't say anything at all about doing anything to any released army lists, so I don't assume that this is what he means.



I'm basically of the feeling that GW has enough development staff that any army lists they produce should be official, legal and available for anyone to play, unless it's a 100% beta release done as a "this is where we are, we're looking for feedback - it's totally unofficial for the purposes of tournaments etc".
Tough luck, it doesn't seem as if that's what they intend to do.

And the ZP lists probably WAS created over a number of hours. :p


*not that there is much reason to, it could have been made official just the way it is

amagi
09-06-2005, 16:30
Yes, thank you--you're exactly right that these are the two issues:
1) Some people are worried that all or almost all new Warhammer releases will be semi-official.
2) Some people are worried that released lists will become semi-official.
The second one is Gav's projection for a long-range, future plan that seems likely to occur, but which probably won't affect anything definite in the near future. Certain people are confused about this point, and are overreacting.
I've posted several posts in this thread to the effect that the real point here is not whether certain previously-existing official lists will suddenly be thrown out as unofficial (that might happen in the future, but it's not at all my main concern right now).

The point is the first of your categories.
This is not a hypothetical plan. We are seeing it in action now, with Lustria/Zombies, and Gav has effectively declared, in his quote, that this will be a major new policy affecting a significant amount of major Warhammer releases. For example, the Lustria book and, we can assume, all the future realms books (which are major, top-tier projects) will be subject to this very real restricting and marginalizing. They are, as I continually point out, basically "pseudo-unofficial." Gav says very clearly that his overall intention is to make them subject to opponent approval in most contexts.

This plan also obviously means that there is far, far less chance we'll ever see any significant new fully-official armies. Most (official) sources of new variety will be stifled.
Contrary to Gav's assertions, variety is something that Warhammer needs more of, not less (variety in armies, in tactics, in troop-types, in playing styles). But Gav has declared war on variety.
Avian, this is not "paranoia," it's what Gav said he wants (and is already carrying out).

It seems the trend nowadays is semi-official listsYes, and this is precisely the problem!! This is what many of us are upset about. As should be clear, this is not simply going to affect the sort of peripheral, pointless novelty lists that may have appeared in White Dwarf in the past. It is a major shift affecting major future releases.

amagi
09-06-2005, 16:41
Sai-Lauren, please refer to my post above, labelled # 56.
This is NOT about play-testing time.
That is not in any way Gav's basis or justification for his policy.

Avian
09-06-2005, 16:42
This plan also obviously means that there is far, far less chance we'll ever see any significant new fully-official armies. Most sources of new variety will be stifled. Avian, this is not "paranoia," it's what Gav said he wants (and is already carrying out).
No, that last point is where you are wrong. I can agree with you on a lot, but not that one.

New armies will bring with them new miniatures and as GW deals in miniatures primarily they will need to make sure that these lists are official.

There three lists made to go along the Lustria campaign have a grand total of TWO new minis to go along with them.


Furthermore, the Lustria (ie. Red Host and Bubonic Court) lists are very easy to adapt for officialness. Remove the SCs and they are quite varied and can be used to make a good ammount of different styles of list.
The ZP list is not, requires a large ammount of conversions and comes with a warning label in front.


As I see it, he would wish for each army to have one official list, which is the one you'd end up facing at tournaments and so on. In addition to this there will be a number of variant lists which are official, but under certain conditions only.

Where I think people go astray is when they read into this a desire or plan to alter any released lists to make this so. This is not stated and is probably not a possible thing to do.


Personally I think Gav's view is a good one and should have been implemented from the start. That way I would not have to devote a considerable ammount of space in tournament announcement brochures listing what can and can not be used at the tournie (I think currently 26 or so lists are allowed).

Warlord Queek
09-06-2005, 16:53
Its typical that I read this the day after I buy £100 worth of zombie pirates.
That is kinda misfortune, now isn't it ;)

amagi
09-06-2005, 17:09
We will probably see only one more actual army book (Chaos Dwarfs, eventually...).
I actually would be OK with this as the limit in standard army books, (though I'd prefer one more).

Other than that, as you say, Gav "would wish for each army to have one official list, which is the one you'd end up facing at tournaments and so on. In addition to this there will be a number of variant lists which are official, but under certain conditions only."

I strongly disagree that this is desirable in any way.
SoC and the Lustria lists show that there is far, far more potential for interesting official lists--beyond the army books--that basically use the same models or only a few new ones.
This is exactly what GW should be doing--releasing new, general-use lists and supplements that expand the uses of the existing range of army books and models.
Such steps would greatly increase the appeal and profitability of the current standard armies. Lustria was a great opportunity to do exactly that, but instead they're actually trying to deliberately marginalize it (trying and succeeding).

Avian, think about what you're suggesting (!!)---that all or almost all official material should stop now, with one list for every major army--and that now GW should confine themselves to making peripheral pseudo-official variant lists that are designed to be used only by a fraction of players. (!!!!!) Such a policy of enforced stagnation would be horrible for Warhammer.

As I discussed in Gav's post on the GW forums (the first sticky one), I even believe that there should be (at least) one fully-official back-of-the-book list for each army book, as with the Southlands Lizardmen.
http://us.games-workshop.com/community/forums/warforum.htm

At any rate, even if that is not adopted (it really should be), GW's policy should be to continue to release fully-official expansions and variant lists that utilize the existing core of army books and models. (SoC is, for the most part, a good example of this.) The benefits of such a plan should be obvious. Players will get far more value for the money spent on such models if they could be applied to multiple lists. More importantly, we will have the enormous benefits of continued variety--in new and interesting products (that can actually be used)--in Warhammer. Contrary to Gavin, this will certainly not result in some kind of overload of information, as I've already shown.

EvilIncarnate
09-06-2005, 17:11
Personally I think Gav's view is a good one and should have been implemented from the start. That way I would not have to devote a considerable ammount of space in tournament announcement brochures listing what can and can not be used at the tournie (I think currently 26 or so lists are allowed).

True this is what should have been done from the start but it wasn't and now we are going to pay the price.

Quotes by Gav


Lets not forget something important: we produce a lot of rules. Masses, in fact.

At the moment we're asking people to view almost all of that material in the same way, all equally important and equally official. It can be overhelming, even for experienced players.

So the only way to reduce the amount of rules is by making only the BRB and the army books official and every other thing unofficial. Does that make sense?
I take this to be a slap in the face by gav "You gamers are too slow and dumb to remenber all the rules so we are going to help you by making only the BRB and the army books official"

Another point I would like to make is that all the new sub-lists are ALL based off a main Army book list. So, in theory you sould know how the army should work.
"Oh I get it. The ZP list is just a undead list witha few twists in it. I can handle this."

Bruen
09-06-2005, 17:59
Again: What are you people talking about?

OK for me its like this:

1) I get my new copy of WD , open it and read about the Zombie Pirates list. "Wow! thats so cool! I want to play that army, its got an awesome concept" I think. I must have an ex-parrot, pieces of eight AND lots of rum!

2) I calm down a bit and realise that I do not play Fantasy and do not have any of the rulebooks so I am going to be careful. I know that I mostly play pickup games so I talk to the people that I play with and my local store manager and they say that as long as its an official list I can use it without restriction. I am reassured when I read the following in the ZP article:


So, the army list is 'official', but that may or may not be usable in any given tournament

I don't go to tournaments so thats all cool with me, its an official list that I can use freely at club and store.

3) I know that the limited edition zombie pirates packs are a good deal and are likely to run out fast so I go down to my local store and buy 5 packs, the Fantasy rulebook and Generals Compendium. Total cost about £100.

4) I get home and go online to see what people are saying about the list and I find this:

http://uk.games-workshop.com/apps/eshare.pl?do=ReadThread&BoardID=16&ID=3945764&template=uk

Yes, I'm Shaso Bruen from the UK GW forums.

5) I read this part:


Going forward we'll hopefully end up in a place that is a lot clearer for existing and new players alike, and is essentially going to boil down to:

Rule book + Army book = 'Official', use without prejudice.

Everything else = 'Unofficial', we think it's great, but not for pick-up-and-play games without warning.

So that means that the "Official" ZP army that I have just bought is now or soon will be "Unofficial', we think it's great, but not for pick-up-and-play games without warning.".

6) I know that the people that I play with usualy refuse to play anything that isn't official. I know this because I have some Forgeworld stuff got my 40k armies like Tau Tetras and Heavy Gun Drones and I rarely get to use them.

I also know that there are no other playing venues near me that I can go to.

7) Bummer, what do I do now? I effectivly have £100 worth of army that I will probably be unable to use because GW changed the rules.

Thats what I am talking about.

thecuckoo
09-06-2005, 18:18
Bruen, take a step back and think for a second.

Nobody has said, in print that the ZP are unofficial. Quite the opposite in fact.

You have an army waiting to be built, so build it! You have an official list, so use it. Hell, I plan to use mine.

Once upon a time I played 5th Edt undead. Bought a shed load of stuff. Then along came VC and most of my favourite troop choices went straight out the window. Most of my unpainted stuff is sitting in my loft right now.

Moral: Sometimes you get dumped on.

Don't sit around with a pile of unpainted dudes feeling greatly miffed. Paint your minis, play your game. If anyone questions you, show them the WD "Official" line.

What they gonna do ? Whinge about some posting on a website ?

From time to time GW bring stuff out that they later regret and it just kinda fades away (Squats anybody?), so they are not gonna give you a cast iron guarantee that all that you bought isnt gonna go up in a puff of smoke in a couple of years.

But I bet they don't print a retraction in WD 307 saying "We Wuz Wrong" either.

Stop getting upset, calm down, go play pirates.

I am...

amagi
09-06-2005, 18:22
Bruen said:
So that means that the "Official" ZP army that I have just bought is now or soon will be "Unofficial', we think it's great, but not for pick-up-and-play games without warning."As I said in post # 66, the issue is not that there is any danger *yet* that currently official non-army-book lists are now unofficial. Zombie Pirates are still "officially" official.

However, Bruen is still fundamentally correct. Zombie Pirates are marginalized and restricted. They are something less than actually official.
They will be disallowed or irrelevant in many contexts--and that was GW's intention.
This is the problem, and it will only get worse if Gav has his way.

(Incidentally, "thecuckoo" still does not see what this discussion is about. Refer to post # 66.)

thecuckoo
09-06-2005, 18:38
Slightly unfair - I do see what the discussion is about;I see your point - but I don't think you see mine. The point I am attempting to make (very badly, it seems) is that whilst you might be worried about the future, the here and now says play the list, so why worry about the future. It hasn't happened yet, right ? And you, me, Gav, God, or The Prophet Zarquon can say what they like, 'cos nothing has actually happened yet.

But your point that new lists are effectively not official because of where Gav wants to take the system is largley moot. For instance, RoR units are 'official', but nobody allows them. DoW, yes, RoR, no. Why should they ? They muck up the game and everyone hates them. Fine, so nobody uses them.

But that is an 'official' product thats been around for yonks and yet it isnt 'officially official' because some tourneys don't allow it. So what you're trying to stop is already happening. It happens a lot. Think of King Canute or bolting horses and stable doors.

Chill. It's only a game.

amagi
09-06-2005, 18:56
If you simply mean that these new restricted lists can still be played in some contexts and still be enjoyed in the "here and now," then I agree with you.

However, it's exactly because you say things like "so why worry about the future" that I concluded you don't see the bigger picture.
First of all, it is happening, it's not hypothetical, they're doing the damage already with Lustria and the Zombie Pirates.

(Again: the fact that some enjoyment can still be gotten from these lists in spite of the restrictions is not proof that they wouldn't be much better, more widely appealing, and more profitable without the restrictions.)

Second, it's ridiculous to say that what Gavin Thorpe says about the future of Warhammer is "moot" because "'nothing has actually happened yet."
Not only does Gav have great influence himself, we don't have to speculate as to whether his plan will be put to action or not because it's already happening!
And it will continue to do so.
Failure to see this is totally out-of-context thinking. It is staring at one tree and missing the forest in front of you.

EDIT: In response to the cuckoo's post directly below this one:
It doesn't HAVE to be that way. Gavin is not simply "being honest" about "the way things are," like it's some unalterable fact of nature that new lists have to be marginalized. Instead, he and those staffers who agree with him are the ones creating the problem in the first place. We have every reason to complain about this, and the fact that Gavin posted a thread on the GW forum on this subject shows that someone might actually listen.
http://us.games-workshop.com/community/forums/warforum.htm

thecuckoo
09-06-2005, 19:07
No, you don't see what I mean. It's my fault - I am explaining myself badly.

If you are claiming that Gav is saying that ZP and Lustria is just another couple of examples of lists that are going to go the same way, then you should probably thank him for his honesty. It would have been better if this honesty was shared by WD and then they wouldnt have mentioned the 'O' word in the ZP article... hey ho!

What I mean is the point is moot because 'official' army lists that come and go, get downgraded or disappear already exist. Getting upset about it now isn't gonna do you any good. Accept it - You and I don't run GW, they don't care what average Joe Gamer thinks about these things. If they did, I would still be playing Undead (not VC nor TK), Squats would still be here and the WE army book would have come out about 3 years ago.

Face it. Listening to us lot is something they are not good at. Yeah, they make a few mumbly noises every now and again, but it's mostly lip-service to shut us up. It's unfortunate, but thats the way it goes.

doktorziplok
09-06-2005, 20:15
has anyone else noticed how gav posted his comments 2 weeks ago and hasn't responded in any way (at least none i can find)? 100+ responces at the gw forum, 8+ pages here, probably countless more scattered around the interweb...and still 2 weeks go by and not so much as a *peep* from the man in his ivory tower.

and on topic, but still a bit off: why are we asked to accept anything less that the best (or even good)? the zombie pirates list is a perfect example. we all know the flaws, we all found them when we read the list once. they are glaring. how long before we get army books full of photocopied handwritten half thoughts? i can see it now:


WHFB 8th edditin, us desided that weed just give you guys these blanck pages an you can rite in you're own roils. ok? oh and chek out these knew miny's (the black & white photo shows a handful of 25mm bases with a lump of greenstuff next to them). all this for the low low price of $85.99.

i know i'm going into the land of hyperbole, but still...

Bruen
09-06-2005, 21:09
Nobody has said, in print that the ZP are unofficial. Quite the opposite in fact.

Thats true, but the writing is clearly on the wall. I know from many years of GW that things said by developers, like this, usualy come to pass.


You have an army waiting to be built, so build it! You have an official list, so use it. Hell, I plan to use mine.

I could, but if I want to return the stuff for a refund I have very little time. I need to find out what GW is really planning fast.

Plus I find it really annoying that GW is going to relegate such a great idea to the wastland of armies that noone plays and rules that noone uses, joining things like RoR and Cityfight.


What they gonna do ? Whinge about some posting on a website ?

Or take them back for a refund as the packs are still unopened.


From time to time GW bring stuff out that they later regret and it just kinda fades away (Squats anybody?), so they are not gonna give you a cast iron guarantee that all that you bought isnt gonna go up in a puff of smoke in a couple of years.

You don't think that a week is a bit fast for this to happen?

thecuckoo
10-06-2005, 07:57
Yeah, it was pretty quick to turn round and say "oops!", but as I said earlier, GW are prone to this kind of thing.

I suppose what you should do, as clearly you are not happy with the current situation, is to cut your losses and go get a refund (if you can)

If they clarify the situation later (ZP is really, really, really official kinda thing - or whatever reassurance you need) you can always buy the stuff again, albeit not as cheap.

Avian
10-06-2005, 09:57
So that means that the "Official" ZP army that I have just bought is now or soon will be "Unofficial', we think it's great, but not for pick-up-and-play games without warning.".
You are simply taking this out of thin air. :rolleyes:
What he's saying is that in the future, alternative lists published will be rather similar to the ZP list as it is now.



I strongly disagree that this is desirable in any way.
SoC and the Lustria lists show that there is far, far more potential for interesting official lists--beyond the army books--that basically use the same models or only a few new ones.
This is exactly what GW should be doing--releasing new, general-use lists and supplements that expand the uses of the existing range of army books and models.
I do not agree. I think that new alternative lists should be "conditionally official" and any good, decent parts derived from them (as shown by proper testing by players) should be incorporated into the army book once it gets a revision. There is nothing like a wealth of hastily clobbered together lists to ruin a decent game.

Bruen
10-06-2005, 10:37
You are simply taking this out of thin air. :rolleyes:
What he's saying is that in the future, alternative lists published will be rather similar to the ZP list as it is now.

What is unclear about this?


Going forward we'll hopefully end up in a place that is a lot clearer for existing and new players alike, and is essentially going to boil down to:

Rule book + Army book = 'Official', use without prejudice.

Everything else = 'Unofficial', we think it's great, but not for pick-up-and-play games without warning.

To use an example from the past, you wouldn't expect to suddenly spring a siege game on an opponent, would you? Similarly, we'd like to get to a place where players won't surprise their opponent because they've turned up with a list, troop type or character they may not have seen before. This means the players will have to communicate with each other – "Hey, Bob, I found this old WD with this variant Dark Elf list, shall I try it next week?", rather than, "Sorry, Bob, but yes I can have eight repeater bolt throwers, it's not my fault you didn't know that…"

In future, if this plan goes ahead, anything that is not in an army book or in the rule book will be unofficial and require opponents consent.

The ZP list is not in an army book or in the rule book thus it will require opponents consent.

I fail to see that there is any room for doubt here as Gav says this in black and white.

Gazak Blacktoof
10-06-2005, 10:39
To be honest I'm not sure any more what the terms, official, unofficial, semi-official etc actually mean.

Any game is an agreement between two players to sit down and move minis around for a couple of hours. Within a tournament, club or store environment often there will be restrictions put upon the players by the tournament organisers/ store owners as to what might, or might not, be acceptable to use regardless of what the Studio thinks. Having an official/ unofficial/ semi official stamp on your army doesn't guarantee you'll get a game because of these added restrictions. The cuckoo mentions RoR as a case in point. The steam tank and army book special characters are also official yet are often frowned upon or banned altogether in tourneys.

People have their own house rules and conventions as to what is acceptable as well. Our small gaming group generally frowns upon taking vast amounts of magic (more than 6 levels) without a good reason for doing so, just because we know that it can unbalance that phase and wreck a part of the game.


I'm not sure I can see exactly what the problem is, the studio in the end might say one thing or it might say another. All we have currently are Gav's current thoughts on the matter. But in the end its the people you play with, who will determine what is and isn't acceptable.

Avian
10-06-2005, 10:41
In future, if this plan goes ahead, anything that is not in an army book or in the rule book will be unofficial and require opponents consent.
At some vague point in the future, when they release something that is not an army book it will not be as official as something released in an army book. He never talks about going back and making official stuff semi- or unofficial.

Bruen
10-06-2005, 10:53
At some vague point in the future, when they release something that is not an army book it will not be as official as something released in an army book. He never talks about going back and making official stuff semi- or unofficial.

He says "everything else" will be unofficial. Everything means just that; both past and future lists are affected. EVERYTHING.

As I have said before the ZP army list specificaly states that it is an official list, and now Gav turns round and says that everything not in an army book will become unofficial.

If you read Gavs reply to my post on the GW forums he specificaly confirms that ZP will be affected. If they were not affected he could have just said "dont worry, the ZP list will not be affected".

amagi
10-06-2005, 10:59
Bruen continues to repeat the same error.
I'll say it again:
The real point here is not whether certain previously-existing official lists will suddenly be labelled as unofficial.
Yes, Gavin said that all non-army-book material may become labelled as unofficial--but that is his general, long-term plan and is almost certainly not going to affect pre-existing armies in the near future. The Zombie Pirates are still "officially" official.

The REAL problem is that new releases are, right now, in the present, being severely restricted and marginalized even though they're still labelled as OFFICIAL, and that Gav says this policy will continue for major Warhammer releases.

There are two seperate issues here. Bruen is fixated on the one that is only a hypothetical, vague prediction for the distant future and ignoring the one that has enormous and very negative real impact on the present as well as the near future (and the far future).

Hopefully the fact that both Avian and I have pointed out the error there several times now should settle the matter.
Bruen: you're simply wrong, and there are plenty of explanations showing that in this thread already, so perhaps we can focus on the real issue now.
Please refer to post # 66 for further explanation--and to Gavin's own quotes, where he clearly describes the army-book/non-army-book issue as a long term plan that has no bearing on the present (e.g. "Going forward we'll hopefully end up in a place..." [where army book=official, all else=unofficial]).

All that being said, as I pointed out in post #74, Bruen is still, despite his confusion, essentially correct to complain about the list being severely restricted (but still technically official!!!!).
---------------------------
Avian said:
I think that new alternative lists should be "conditionally official" and any good, decent parts derived from them (as shown by proper testing by players) should be incorporated into the army book once it gets a revision. There is nothing like a wealth of hastily clobbered together lists to ruin a decent game.Am I to understand that you would accept new fully-official lists provided they were well-play-tested!?!
When you say "incorporated into the army book" do you mean that you'd accept a balanced fully-official, back-of-the-book list in every army book??
Are we back to the mere issue of play-testing time?

Because if so, you've conceded my primary point that new official lists above the current number pose no problem of complexity for gamers--rather, they are vitally necessary sources of variety and new opportunities for gaming.

If so, then perhaps you reflected on the extreme damage that would result from the policy you suggested earlier--ONE list for each army book, and nothing else as official, presumably into the indefinite future. (Yes, you say there'd be some variant lists which would be "official," but only in certain contexts, or only subject to opponent permission--which in the real world means they're unofficial with a fake "official" label stamped on.)

If you truly have accepted my main point--that, contrary to Gav, new variety in actually-official lists is and will continue to be a vital part of Warhammer--then I'd be glad to talk about ways of sufficiently play-testing the new lists.

For starters, I never remotely suggested that GW should just suddenly announce that the existing back-of-the-book lists are official--many of them are unbalanced.
One way to play-test them would be to look at each one as its parent army book is being revised. Since the main army list won't change drastically in future revisions (e.g. 7th ed. revisions), there will be plenty of time to test the variant lists: one-by-one, per army book.

As for new supplements like Lustria--as I said before, these types of releases are major, top-tier projects and the development team should therefore be given all the necessary time and resources to test them and ensure balanced lists. If this is done there is no problem.

There are many other aspects of this topic to discuss, but the point is its a secondary technical issue until the main problem--Gavin's plan--is rejected.

Bruen
10-06-2005, 13:13
Bruen continues to repeat the same error.

What error? You have yet to say where I am wrong to worry that my ZP army will become unofficial in the future.


I'll say it again:
The real point here is not whether certain previously-existing official lists will suddenly be labelled as unofficial.

In your opinion. I disagree, I am specificaly worried that the ZP list will be reclassified as unofficial.

I respect that fact that you have other worries, but I am worried about ZP only because it is the only Fantasy army that I want to play.


Yes, Gavin said that all non-army-book material may become labelled as unofficial--but that is his general, long-term plan and is almost certainly not going to affect pre-existing armies in the near future. The Zombie Pirates are still "officially" official.

You are absolutly right, at this very moment ZP are still official as it states in the army list.

However if I am going to start a ZP army its a long term committment for me. It will probably take me a couple of years to get them all converted and painted up (I am a slow painter) and I expect to be playing them for 4-5 years or at least using the models in a similar army (not VC, I don't like the theme of the army).

If this is not the case then I will return the army for a refund because some army that is only going to be good for a year or so is of no interest to me.

I have been using some of the same genestealer models since first edition Space Hulk. I expect my games to last.


The REAL problem is that new releases are, right now, in the present, being severely restricted and marginalized even though they're still labelled as OFFICIAL, and that Gav says this policy will continue for major Warhammer releases.

I don't understand this comment.

This applies to ZP as much as any other army. The ZP list was released in this months White Dwarf and the list specificaly states that it is an official army list. How is it not covered by your comment above?

Because of this policy change I feel that the ZP list will be "severely restricted and marginalized ", which is what I am complaining about.


There are two seperate issues here. Bruen is fixated on the one that is only a hypothetical, vague prediction for the distant future and ignoring the one that has enormous and very negative real impact on the present as well as the near future (and the far future).

We have covered the problem of lists that are marked as official suddenly being "severely restricted and marginalized". What is the second issue that you are talking about?


Hopefully the fact that both Avian and I have pointed out the error there several times now should settle the matter.

What error? I am compalining about an army that I bought based on it being an official list that I want to play for years to come only to have GW change the rules so that the list will be "severely restricted and marginalized".


Bruen: you're simply wrong, and there are plenty of explanations showing that in this thread already, so perhaps we can focus on the real issue now.
Please refer to post # 66 for further explanation--and to Gavin's own quotes, where he clearly describes the army-book/non-army-book issue as a long term plan that has no bearing on the present (e.g. "Going forward we'll hopefully end up in a place..." [where army book=official, all else=unofficial]).

Wrong in what sense? Post 66 says nothing about me being wrong.

All it tells me is that you are not as concerned as I am by this problem. Thats fair enough.

Your point about "all or almost all new Warhammer releases will be semi-official" is simply an extension of the problem that I am concerned about. You worry about future lists in general, I am worried about one specific list that I want to play.


All that being said, as I pointed out in post #74, Bruen is still, despite his confusion, essentially correct to complain about the list being severely restricted (but still technically official!!!!).

What confusion? I know exactly what I am worried about.

There is nothing technical about it. The army lists states that it is an official army list. If it had not said this I would not have bought the army.

I don't understand why you are arguing against me when you have said that I am right to be concerned about ZP becoming unofficial.

Perhaps you should set out the problem as you see it as I did in post 72. Just state how you see the problem.

Bruen
10-06-2005, 13:34
After rereading all your posts am I right in thinking that you are worried that GW is intending to design future lists to be reliant on special characters and thus cannot be used in Tournaments?

If thats the issue that you have well I can respect that, however I do not go to tournaments so I do not share that worry.

I see no reason why our two concerns are incompatable. You can be worried about your bit and I can be worried about mine.

amagi
10-06-2005, 14:14
Alright, I suppose you're right. [EDIT: Right about us both wanting Gav's plan to stop, whatever the reasons.]
I do think it's important to clarify that there are two separate issues involved here, but as long as we agree that Gav is not saying: "effective now (or any time in the near future) all non-army-book lists are unofficial," then you're right that we have similar concerns.
I simply want to avoid any future confusion over that point filling up this already substantial thread.

But to clarify something:
am I right in thinking that you are worried that GW is intending to design future lists to be reliant on special characters and thus cannot be used in Tournaments?Yes, except about the tournaments part.
Not just tournaments--pick-up games as well, for starters.
These are two very important contexts--but even more than that, I think that a significant portion of players will be less interested in these lists even if they only intend to use them in private, casual play.
My whole gaming group fits this last category.
We never do "pick-up games" and we very rarely do tournaments--yet we are upset about these arbitrary restrictions (forced special characters, forced points values) just the same.

And this despite the fact that we are perfectly willing to try out, from time to time, unofficial or trial lists.
We regularly play with an army we invented from scratch.
But for many reasons, which I'll gladly explain, we still are far less interested in these new restricted "special-context" lists, and will probably not use them at all even in private games.

Bruen
10-06-2005, 14:50
Alright, I suppose you're right.
I do think it's important to clarify that there are two separate issues involved here, but as long as we agree that Gav is not saying: "effective now (or any time in the near future) all non-army-book lists are unofficial," then you're right that we have similar concerns.

Its not going to happen this year, but I wouldn't be suprised to see this starting to filter in next few years. I will probably still be painting my pirates at that point.

Whether this is the near future or not depends on your perspective I guess. To me a year or two is pretty short term.


But to clarify something:Yes, except about the tournaments part.
Not just tournaments--pick-up games as well, for starters.
These are two very important contexts--but even more than that, I think that a significant portion of players will be less interested in these lists even if they only intend to use them in private, casual play.
My whole gaming group fits this last category.
We never do "pick-up games" and we very rarely do tournaments--yet we are upset about these arbitrary restrictions (forced special characters, forced points values) just the same.

I don't disagree with you that the lists will be much less attractive with these constraints.

Its not too much of a problem for me because the people that I play with are pretty easy on special characters (as long as they are official) and points levels. I rarely see games under 2000 points. I can see how it might be a problem for others though.

The difference in our concerns is that the people that I play with will not play unofficial stuff, while for you it seems that points values and special characters are the issue.

I see no reason why these issues are incompatable, lets hope GW decides that both of our concerns are valid and drops the policy.

Lady Bastet
10-06-2005, 18:18
As long as nothing changes any time soon I will be happy, I really do not care if my army is allowed or not. I play Goa'uld in 40k ffs :D

I fear this and other ideas may lead Games Workshop to disaster but I am not going to worry about it.

The worst that can happen is that something bad happens to Games Workshop and the other Wargame companies on their path wise up and treat their customers better in an attempt to fill the void in the market.

p.s. May be wise if you click here if your only posting to vent your anger at Gav (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3648)

Note that thread is not serious.

amagi
11-06-2005, 12:22
I fear this and other ideas may lead Games Workshop to disaster but I am not going to worry about it.

The worst that can happen is that something bad happens to Games Workshop...Hah!! Is that all? Well then, no cause for worry guys, it's just "disaster" we're headed for...

Hey Avian, I thought I'd point out something you might have missed:

I said
In case you still think my view is simply some ignorant failure to understand
that not all new lists can be sufficiently tested to be official, let me make this clear. There is still a place for unofficial test lists, in White Dwarf for instance. But there is definitely no call to relegate all or almost all major new Warhammer releases to limited, marginalized, pseudo-unofficial status.Then Avian called me "Paranoia Boy" and said
No, and he [Gavin] didn't say that this is what was going to happenBut several posts later the same Avian said
As I see it, he [Gavin] would wish for each army to have one official list, which is the one you'd end up facing at tournaments and so on. In addition to this there will be a number of variant lists which are official, but under certain conditions only.
Personally I think Gav's view is a good one...So, since we already have "one official list" for each army (except WE and CD), that means that according to Avian, Gav wants all new Warhammer releases (after WE and CD) to be "official, but under certain conditions only"!!!


Which is, of course, exactly what I said. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eyebrows:
"Official but under certain conditions only" MEANS "limited, marginalized, pseudo-unofficial."

Apparently, I should be paranoid about Avian and Gavin both. :D

Lady Bastet
12-06-2005, 02:44
Hah!! Is that all? Well then, no cause for worry guys, it's just "disaster" we're headed for...

The World will not end if Games Workshop goes under. Quite frankly the Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 communities would no doubt find a way to continue functioning for some time without new official material.

Bruen
12-06-2005, 09:46
The World will not end if Games Workshop goes under. Quite frankly the Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 communities would no doubt find a way to continue functioning for some time without new official material.

Agreed, I think we could keep going for quite a while using the existing rules and miniatures or by getting miniatures from other companies. We would have to because as far as I know there are no other game systems out there that we could use with our existing armies.

The biggest problem would come from the loss of GW-sponsored playing areas (like in shops) and events.

amagi
12-06-2005, 10:44
That's all very comforting people, but perhaps in the meantime we might, oh, I don't know, try and avoid the total destruction of Games Workshop.

We can start by opposing Gavin's plan.

I've said more than enough in this thread to show how profoundly damaging that plan will be, so I'm about done.

It's true that the existing Warhammer material is more than enough to let us enjoy the game for a long time to come.
It's also true that there's tremendous room for improvement, for new armies, for new official variant lists based on existing armies, new playing styles, new troop types, new variety in general.

Gavin's plan represents a major step towards choking off that variety and innovation at it's source. He openly states that that is precisely his goal, that he wants to relegate almost all new material to pseudo-unofficial special-context obscurity--all on the totally false idea that gamers can't handle the "minefield" of the existing number of armies.

Somehow, the mere chance that someone, somewhere, might make a mistake with a new army and get away with it justifies the idea that the Games Workshop company should ignore the concept of profit and stop trying to market new products to as many customers as possible--instead they should confine themselves to putting out second-rate "optional" lists that appeal only to a fractional subset of gamers--those content with rigid, restricted, non-customizable armies that can't even be used in public most of the time.

If this is allowed to happen we, the players, will suffer along with Games Workshop.

One final point before I sign off, in case anyone still believes there's a shred of truth in Gavin's reasoning for this master plan:

amagi
12-06-2005, 11:09
Is there any truth to the idea that spawned this whole sad plan--the idea that players face a "minefield" of information due to the existing number of armies, and that this is a serious and dangerous enough problem to justify severely crippling most future Warhammer releases.

Notice the example Gavin chooses to support his theory.
It reveals his basic failure to identify the real issue of importance.


It's not really on to turn up at a club, store or tournament and find that the army you are facing appeared in a discontinued supplement, or old WD, and is now available only on some part of the website.What should be obvious is that the problem in this example is NOT the number of existing armies.
The problem is the fact that Games Workshop made the rules obscure and hard to find. They made it unclear what was official or not and where to find it.

The solution to this REAL problem is:
Make the rules clear and easily accesible.
Make a clear presentation of what is official or not, and compile them in a way that is easy to show to opponents during games.

Gavin is right to suggest that in the future, official lists should be compiled, perhaps even so that all official lists are in army books and supplement books, and all White Dwarf-type material is unofficial until included in a book--BUT this does not have to inolve any cutting or limiting of the number of armies, not for a very long time. So any current White Dwarf official armies should--if they're sufficiently balanced and play-tested-- be compiled in a future book, and should remain official. Other than that, unofficial trial lists can continue to be published in White Dwarf. If they're worthy they can eventually be upgraded to official.

If this solution is used, then Gavin's "minefield" disappears. If a player is faced with an unfamiliar army, his opponent simply shows him the relevant rules in the readily-available list, and the problem is solved. Most players would then welcome the new and interesting challenge.

So in conclusion, to the extent that there's a problem at all with the current number of armies, it's almost entirely due to GW's mishandling of the rules. Gavin admits GW's record on this matter has been haphazard and poor. But instead of fixing the problem by simply improving the presentation of rules, he wants to sabotage and marginalize future armies. His plan has already started.
(He also implied that he will, probably, throw out certain existing armies as unofficial, at some vague point in the future).
This plan must stop.

I'm done. Hopefully enough people will realize the illogic of this plan, and complain loud enough to make a difference.

doktorziplok
13-06-2005, 00:02
has everyone noticed that gav's post in question has disappeared from gw's website?

amagi
13-06-2005, 02:32
Taken down on Gavin's orders a couple days ago. According to a mod, Gav said he had gotten all the information he needed out of it. Whatever that means...

GavT
14-06-2005, 10:21
To be honest I'm not sure any more what the terms, official, unofficial, semi-official etc actually mean.

Any game is an agreement between two players to sit down and move minis around for a couple of hours. Within a tournament, club or store environment often there will be restrictions put upon the players by the tournament organisers/ store owners as to what might, or might not, be acceptable to use regardless of what the Studio thinks. Having an official/ unofficial/ semi official stamp on your army doesn't guarantee you'll get a game because of these added restrictions. The cuckoo mentions RoR as a case in point. The steam tank and army book special characters are also official yet are often frowned upon or banned altogether in tourneys.

People have their own house rules and conventions as to what is acceptable as well. Our small gaming group generally frowns upon taking vast amounts of magic (more than 6 levels) without a good reason for doing so, just because we know that it can unbalance that phase and wreck a part of the game.


I'm not sure I can see exactly what the problem is, the studio in the end might say one thing or it might say another. All we have currently are Gav's current thoughts on the matter. But in the end its the people you play with, who will determine what is and isn't acceptable.

Thankyou! People are (some might think deliberately!) misreading our intentions. Forget army lists being official/ unofficial, they're a complete distraction. Think more like the junglefighting rules in Lustria, or playing Siege, or the scenario generator we published a while back. All of these are 'unofficial' in that they are not the game of Warhammer as presented in the BRB and Armies books. However, few people have a problem playing Siege or Lustria do they? It's why I've always found 'opponent's permission' to be such a bad phrase. For a start, you need your opponent's permission to play him/her – they can just walk away, after all. It's this idea of consensus, and knowing what you are agreeing to, that is at the heart of this new policy. The example I gave (Bob and his repeater bolt throwers) hits the nail on the head – it's just a matter of saying to your opponent let's play a Siege game, let's use Special Characters, or whatever.

Whoever said that it's Bob's fault has to think carefully about what they're saying. You, the gamer, want me, the games developer, to force you to buy WD every month and to look at every single GW web page regularly. If it's all 100% official, can be inflicted on anyone at any time, without prior arrangement, that's what we would be doing. You have to buy WD to stay up to date. Now, on the other hand, being the tree-hugging hippies that we are :angel: , we'd prefer it if you bought WD because you enjoy it, think it adds to your hobby and (of course) because it contains all the great latest releases. Call us naive shmucks if you like, but we prefer not to bully our customers or force them into this sort of behaviour.

As for the zombies, nothing's going to change. If you play with a group or at an event that allows special characters, they're going to let you play with your pirates. just like they let you play with Karl Franz or Grimgor. If they don't allow special characters, they won't. Not a single word has been or will be changed in that regard, because it doesn't need to be.

GAV

Zeb
14-06-2005, 11:06
And some groups/tournaments/stores just remove the the Special Character necesary for the list and let you play with the list anyway. So you have to make up your own lord which might have less items to choose from...
How often have you had a "No I won't play that list, it contains something that is unofficial/not legal/a special character etc." thrown in your face? It has never happened in my 13 years of gaming. Not even when I feilded the "Boltthrower Party of Death"...
As long as I have the option of asking during the games for rule clarifications/references I'm as happy as I can be to get play a game.

Bruen
14-06-2005, 12:23
Hi Gav - its good to see you on Warseer/Portent :)

I'm Shaso Bruen from the official forums, but don't worry I'm not going to rehash all that again. I do however have a quick point:


Forget army lists being official/ unofficial, they're a complete distraction. Think more like the junglefighting rules in Lustria, or playing Siege, or the scenario generator we published a while back. All of these are 'unofficial' in that they are not the game of Warhammer as presented in the BRB and Armies books. However, few people have a problem playing Siege or Lustria do they?

In my experience there are four levels of "officialness" and they really matter:

Official and tournament legal - you will always be able to play.

Official - you will be able to play pickup games, and friendly play but rarely in tournaments. This is the bottom of my comfort zone, anything below this is so hard to get a game with that its a waste of money IMHO.

Official but opponents consent - you can sometimes play with these but its hit and miss. I would never take an "opponents consent" thing to a club without also bringing along an "official" alternative in case I am turned down.

Unofficial - I have virtualy never seen anything like this played outside friendly play and even that is just for a laugh. This category includes things like home-made special characters and house rules.

In my experience pickup opponents automaticaly refuse to play anything that is not official, and rarely even consent to "opponents consent" items like Forgeworld rules.

I have never seen siege or jungle fighting or cityfight played except in GW demonstration games and I have been playing 2-3 times per week since first edition Space Hulk (on and off).

In the environment that I play in if you mark something as Unofficial then its effectivly dead.


Whoever said that it's Bob's fault has to think carefully about what they're saying. You, the gamer, want me, the games developer, to force you to buy WD every month and to look at every single GW web page regularly. If it's all 100% official, can be inflicted on anyone at any time, without prior arrangement, that's what we would be doing. You have to buy WD to stay up to date.

Not at all; all you need to do is to mark the article in WD as official or unofficial, which you already do. Then when someone asks you to play something you are not familiar with you just ask them to show you the rules which they have brought with them, which is what already happens.


As long as people bring their army list/army book and any WD or other rules with them then I really don't see how unfamiliar armies is a problem. Playing against new things is one of the things that I enjoy most about gaming.

-----

OK thats a bit longer than I had planned but I hope you understand the point that I am making. GW designating things as official/unofficial means everything, its possibly the most important attribute that an army list can have for me because it determins if I am going to be able to use it or not.

I won't harrangue you any more but I really hope you reconsider this change.

Briareos
14-06-2005, 12:42
I still think this is a desperate measure to avoid putting the house in order. The army lists published outside of the core books have become too unruly to handle and test ? Let's just scrap the lot and call them "unofficial" - that way criticism is deflected and in the end made irrelevant.

This news, and a few others which have trinkled down in the last couple of years, conforts me in my opinion that while Games Workshop has a great treasure trove of intellectual property and concepts, they have yet to produce a truly productive in-house "business flow" which would enable their products to be all they can be.
Of course, Games Workshop isn't the only company with this problem - Rackham, amongst others, is obviously faced with the same difficulties...

amagi
14-06-2005, 13:17
GavT puts forth two main arguments in defense of the New Plan.

1) The New Plan is necessary because gamer's can't be expected to buy every WD and check every GW webpage.

2) The unofficial/official issue is an unimportant distraction.

This first argument is completely false on the face of it, because it implies that to oppose Gavin's Plan you must necessarily support the idea that White Dwarf material must be official. This is an elementary logical fallacy, and a very obvious one at that--it's a straw man argument. It's attacking a position that the opponent does not hold, while evading the real issue.

In reality, this issue of White Dwarf material being official or not has nothing at all to do with why Gavin's plan is so bad.
(It's an important issue in itself, but it's a distraction from the real and serious flaw in Gav's Plan.)

In fact, just six posts up (# 96) I specifically stated that Gavin was right to suggest that GW should eventually compile all official material, probably in books, and that most or all White Dwarf material could be unofficial--BUT, and this is the key to my whole argument, this does not have to involve in any way the limiting of future army lists, as the Lustria/Zombie lists have been limited. It does not remotely justify relegating many new armies to marginalized "special-context" status.

GavT's use of this White Dwarf issue is especially unpersuasive given that in that same post (# 96) I already showed that it's an enormous mistake of logic to say, essentially,
"Having official army lists scattered around WD or some webpage makes it difficult for players to know what's official"
(which is true)
and then to conclude
"Therefore we must make new army lists limited and restricted"
(e.g. by forcing special characters on them, forcing points values on them, forcing them to be only historical camgaign armies--in total, deliberately forcing players to not use them as often.)
That the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise is absurdly obvious.

The REAL solution to this REAL problem is as I already stated:
Make the rules clear and easily accesible.
Make a clear presentation of what is official or not, and compile them in a way that is easy to show to opponents during games.
If this means making all White Dwarf material unofficial, fine!!

But please, please stop putting arbitrary restrictions on new army lists. This is not a solution to the problem of inaccesible rules. As should be evident by now from the controversy over this issue--many people are disappointed in the completely uneccesary restrictions put on these lists. There was never any justification for them.

(Incidentally, some people are worried that currently official White Dwarf lists will eventually become unofficial because of this New Plan. This is far less important to me than the separate issue of "special-context" restrictions on new lists, but I do think that any currently official WD lists should be, eventually, analyzed for balance, and if worthy should be compiled in some future book. This solves the problem of inaccesible WD material, without the needless loss of good official armies, which would upset many players.)
-----------------------------
As for the second of GavT's arguments:
Forget army lists being official/ unofficial, they're a complete distraction. Think more like the junglefighting rules in Lustria, or playing Siege, or the scenario generator we published a while back. All of these are 'unofficial' in that they are not the game of Warhammer as presented in the BRB and Armies books.As I just suggested, I've been saying all along that the official/unofficial issue is a distraction (though in quite a different sense than GavT means--it DOES matter a great deal what is official or not, despite Gavin's apparent disdain for gamers who care about this--but it is not important in this context whether future WD material is official or not, as long as new fully-official lists are still published somewhere).
The real issue of importance is the limiting of armies by forcing them to be "special context."
I fully agree that the sort of "scenario" rules in supplement books like Lustria should be "unofficial" (e.g. junglefighting, warbands rules, campaign rules). HOWEVER, on the issue of the army lists I could not disagree more. There is no reason to make these marginalized and optional!! It cripples sales and makes the lists unusable or much less usable by many gamers in many contexts--and it does this for no reason. There is simply no problem with making new, fully-official armies--in fact it's a vitally necessary source of variety and enjoyment for gamers (and profit for GW!!).

What I disagree with is the false idea that the current number of armies is excessive and that this justifies the systematic limiting and marginalizing of many new armies.

Given that I am the one who has, in this thread, argued the most extensively against this New Plan (i.e. the large majority of anti-Gav's-plan posting in this thread is by me) it is perhaps a bit peculiar that GavT's defense of that plan literally does not address a single issue I raised--not even the most important issue--the idea that because there are too many official lists, from now on new ones either have to be unofficial, or "official" but "special-context" or "subject to opponent permission."

I can only assume that GavT either did not read much of this thread at all--or is deliberately ignoring any genuine arguments of substance (mine as well as many others') against the New Plan. Instead he chooses two easily-refutable, obviously wrong arguments and then knocks them down, as if somehow the sight of his victory will convince onlookers that all other conceivable arguments against him must be wrong as well. This bait-and-switch might fool the gullible, but unfortunately all the very real problems with the New Plan remain unaddressed.

(The ideas he chooses to attack are "White Dwarf material must be official" and "All things unofficial are bad."
Because of this second choice, he thinks that by showing that some things are fine as unofficial, e.g. junglefighting, he has somehow shown that it's okay for most or all future army lists to be less than official, or semi-official.)

I greatly applaud GavT's willingness to respond to criticism (even if only in this evasive manner), but I am disappointed that the real issues have been ignored.

thecuckoo
14-06-2005, 14:41
Spot the difference (1):

"Do you want a game?"
"Maybe. What army have you got?"
"Zombie Pirates"
"No thanks"

or

"Do you want a game?"
"Maybe. What army have you got?"
"Dwarfs"
"No thanks"

Have a think before you answer.

Spot the difference (2):

"Do you want a game?"
"Maybe. What army have you got?"
"It's a special context Lustrian Fishmen of The Red Spawning Pool of Doom"
"OK, sounds like a laugh"

"Do you want a game?"
"Maybe. What army have you got?"
"One legged Dwarfs with Dogs of War Banana-weilding Gibbon Cavalry"
"OK, sounds like a laugh"

Only when you have the answer will you truly find peace.

Also bear in mind that I don't want you to post your answer on the board. I don't think they can afford the disk space.

amagi
14-06-2005, 14:53
Gavin wants to have his cake and eat it too.

First he tells us, very explicitly (in the quote at start of thread) that

--the deliberate intention of this New Plan is to make new lists less useful, and less widely used, because there are too many armies now.
(Which means he obviously admits that making these new lists "semi-official" makes a big difference in how widely they can be used.)

Then when he responds he does a complete reversal and tells us, essentially

---Guys it doesn't matter what's official or unofficial or semi-official!!! You're making a big deal out of nothing. You should just realize that everyone can choose to play with whatever they want anyway. It's foolish to care about what's official.

You can't have it both ways Gav.
Either you're deliberately marginalizing these new lists, which is what you said originally, or it doesn't matter what you call them and we're all just confused to care about whether the lists are "semi-official" or "special-context" or "subject to opponent's permission."
Of course, reality, and GW sales, will reflect the fact that it DOES matter what's official or not.

EvilIncarnate
14-06-2005, 14:55
Thankyou! People are (some might think deliberately!) misreading our intentions. Forget army lists being official/ unofficial, they're a complete distraction

Well that would be me. So you don't want to limit army lists to a special time period. Well "Billy are we playing in the past today or the future? and How many points? It needs to be 2000pts and we must allow special characters and It must be a full moon outside for me to use my army" Because this is what GAV wants to happen. If you don't want me to misread your intentions then why are you doing this then????????????????


Think more like the junglefighting rules in Lustria, or playing Siege, or the scenario generator we published a while back. All of these are 'unofficial' in that they are not the game of Warhammer as presented in the BRB and Armies books. However, few people have a problem playing Siege or Lustria do they?

no NO NO . That is like bringing a MORDHIEM warband to a 2,000 pts Warhammer game OR bringing a warhammer army to a game of WAR MACHINE. You don't make sense GAV! YES because you need to make sure what game system you are playing before you can start to make up a army.........it just makes sense.


It's why I've always found 'opponent's permission' to be such a bad phrase. For a start, you need your opponent's permission to play him/her – they can just walk away, after all. It's this idea of consensus, and knowing what you are agreeing to, that is at the heart of this new policy.

Yes, because you need to talk before you can play a game so you know what is going on.

"Why did you bring your warhammer over? We are playing HALO today."
"You're right. I should have ask you before I came over."


The example I gave (Bob and his repeater bolt throwers) hits the nail on the head – it's just a matter of saying to your opponent let's play a Siege game, let's use Special Characters, or whatever.

How??? God Bob you are soooo dumb because you found an OFFICAL army you liked to play in white dwarf and now you need to tell everyone first that you play this army and make sure it is "OK" because they can say "NO".


You, the gamer, want me, the games developer, to force you to buy WD every month and to look at every single GW web page regularly. If it's all 100% official, can be inflicted on anyone at any time, without prior arrangement, that's what we would be doing. You have to buy WD to stay up to date.

Then why not have the stuff in white dwarf as a download from the GW websites. Would that be hard? Is it? I will asnwer for you and it is ....wait for it....... NO . "inflicted"? Once again bob you are wrong you should have told your enemy about your army before hand and all your magic items because those are going to be inflicted on him too.


As for the zombies, nothing's going to change. If you play with a group or at an event that allows special characters, they're going to let you play with your pirates. just like they let you play with Karl Franz or Grimgor. If they don't allow special characters, they won't. Not a single word has been or will be changed in that regard, because it doesn't need to be.

Nope your wrong again Gav 0 for 10,521. If the gaming group wants to play a game under 2,000 pts then the army list can't be taken. You said it yourself if you don't allow special characters then the person can never play the list ALL because you mandate that special characters. Now that person is left out in the rain.

neXus6
14-06-2005, 22:29
I believe the technical term to describe Gav at this point is "owned."
Evil and Amagi have quite simply destroyed his points systematically and sensibly, I already knew what my stand point was on the matter but for those who arn't that is one hell of a compelling "argument." That is if a lamb being slaughtered like that can be described as something as even as an argument.

therisnosaurus
15-06-2005, 04:08
good god this has taken off...., well, got some catching up to do



--- EH? Gav posted in a thread I started? I feel so loved :P

oh well, sillyness aside, this looks like a great debate (albeit more than slightly heated at times)

personaly, I side with Gav. I can undestand frustration here and I will agree with the players here that if a list begins as official it should STAY official and official means both opponents consent AND normal restrictions are waived. therefore, say a tournament bans special characters, these lists are excepted. the special character is just as much a part of the list as the minimum core and maximum characters restrictions and as a comulsory choice, it cannot and should not be banned. I don't think many people would complain about this as general consensus is both harkon and tenehauin are balanced and nurglitch is a bit of a waste of points. If you want to play with the list, you suffer the restricitions, this is UTTERLY fair. As Gav said, if you want to play to win, pick a beardy army and do so. If you want to go for a good time, with a great list that is nicely themed and a challenge to play, well, you know what to pick, don't yah?. of course this is all a suggestion, and I doubt it will come into effect.

secondly, I laugh at people who say 'my army is unofficial therefore I cannot use it' BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *wipes away a tear* fine, you can't use your beloved carronades or engine of the gods. but that doesn't mean your army is useless. take the zombie pirates for instance

Lords:
harkon- vampire lord

heroes:
fleet captain- whight lord
syreen- banshee

core
zombie pirates, pirate gunners- zombies
bloated corpses- can't use
scurvy dogs: dire wolves

special:
razortooth rats: bat swarms (very fast rats ;). anyhow, they're skirmishers so they always move 10" anyway, the same as bats)
carronades, deck gunners: can't use
animated hulks: spirit hosts
deck droppers: fell bats
rare:
rotting leviathan: can't use. you can go out on a limb and count these as a black coach which should hold up nicely, but most people would consider this a little bit too far
queen bess: oh well, can't use her, but c'est la vie

you can also represent carronades, cannons, the actual zombie pirates unit and so forth using dogs of war units.
all of this is completely official and not only can you use it in any NTS tournament you want, you'll get some seriously nice marks for theme and conversions into the bargain. so WHAT if you can't use the list EXACTLY as if it presented. GW is all about getting inspired, and if you can't figure out a way of getting a cool theme around some restrictions, you just aren't trying hard enough. Sorry, but complaining that you can't use your models in context because of ONE problematic rule is just being lazy.

the same applies to the bubonic court AND the red host. both can be easily represented by standard lists, sans special character and the models can be easily configured to 'count as'- the arcadon can become a stegadon, with the bzapper being represented by the somewhat less powerful but still fluffy giant bow, a nurglesque grey seer type wizard could be represented by a dark emisary, allowing you to take ratspawn fenbeasts. a little bit of creativity will see you past ANY obstacles.

more to come

Thanks for your input guys, keep the debate rolling and we may see some change yet

Delicious Soy
15-06-2005, 04:16
I find it interesting the while he seems to address the primary point, he completely misses the implications for the future. Whay do you say to about the lack of flexibility in madatory special characters Gav? Personally I want my own charactrs to lead an army, not being railroaded into taking a character because you, the Games Developer, decide to force us to take one. Nor do I appreciate the fact that this is being inflicted on players because you don't belive people can at least have a passing familiarity with each army. To use the oft used example here of Zombie Pirates, if you know the VC list or hell, even the TK list, You can quickly get the gist of the ZP list by looking at it for 30 seconds. The same goes for the Red Host and Clan Pestilens. Yet you insist on making these lists take mandatory characters. What ever happpened to us being able to create our own army, rather than everyone having the carbon copy of everyone else's? I can put character and background into my army's thank you, I don't need the GD team to do it for me.

amagi
15-06-2005, 04:18
thereisnosaurus declares:
secondly, I laugh at people who say 'my army is unofficial therefore I cannot use it' Again with this snide contempt for people who care about what is or is not official. This attitude represents total failure to acknowldge the obvious fact that the official/unofficial/"subject to opponent's permission" status of an army is a real and enormously important factor in deciding what armies to play and BUY. (There are many other reasons the new restrictions are bad, as I've already detailed, but this is one very important reason.) Gavin has already admitted that it's perfectly logical for many people to only invest their hard-earned cash in armies they can reasonably expect to play with in public--in fact he's counting on it, since he said the point of his Plan is to make the new lists used less often.
Therefore the contradictory message that we are all fools to care about what is official or not is absurd.

DeathWish
15-06-2005, 04:19
Take it easy there fellas before someone bursts an artery ;)

Fact is you don't have to buy anything you don't want/need. If you're worried about not "officially" being allowed to use characters/units/lists don't buy them. If you don't care about how often you'll be allowed to use them but you think the models are cool go for it (if you're part of a gaming group that won't allow the use of anything that isn't officially sanctioned you may want to consider changing group).

Also try to remember that Gav doesn't need to come here and discuss things, frankly it's ace of him to do so but I can't see him continuing if all people are going to do is jump down his throat and tell him that he's wrong. You all seem to forget that this is his hobby too and he's pushing it forward in his vision, which won't necessarily be exactly as you want it though it will be in the vast majority of cases towards something you will play and enjoy.

Basically grow up a bit people. You are being given a chance to pick the brain of one of one GW's Games Developers. It doesn't matter how sensibly you think you're destroying somebody’s points, you are not achieving anything. Try asking some not quite so agresive questions or add some constructive criticism. Don't just shout "What were you thinking!?" at the top of your voices. On average they'll be thinking something along the lines of "This'll make the game better/smoother/more enjoyable.", though there will obviously be some decisions that will be made purely for marketing but so what? GW’s a company. They have to make money as well as produce enjoyable games and decent minis.

Also try to remember that Pete built up relations fairly decently with some of the studio staff and although this isn't Portent or even PortentII, WarSeer was built with the intension of keeping the comunity together and making it a site worthy of being Portents successor but that won't happen if you abuse what's left of Portent's reputation.


The chaps at the studio have all proved themselves to be total gents whenever we've spoken. Andy, it was always a pleasure to catch up with you at Games Days, I hope things are going well at Mongoose. Gav, many thanks for attending the tourney and posting on the forums. Paul, cheers for putting aside a foolish rumour from long ago and posting on the forums, I appreciate it. Robin, that studio tour was extremely cool and a much appreciated gesture, I hope to catch up again some time. And finally, I'll never forget Rick Priestly, immortal grand chief games designer supreme, catching me at the last minute before I left that studio tour to essentially say “Hi, and good work on Portent”.

*note* All gamers that I know can get there hands on rules published in White Dwarf fairly easily.

DW

PBGhost
15-06-2005, 04:36
I've always thought Opponent's Permission is a stupid term.

"Hey, dyou want to play against my Dwarves?"
"No thanks."
"Aha, but they're not opponent's permission! You are bound by mystical gaming law to play!"

amagi
15-06-2005, 04:45
Fact is you don't have to buy anything you don't want/need. If you're worried about not "officially" being allowed to use characters/units/lists don't buy them.I won't thanks, and neither will many other people. And that's the whole point. This was the stated goal of making them "special-context"--to make less people use (and therefore buy) them.
But there was no reason to make it this way. The justification for the policy was completely wrong.

Incidentally, I've already stated that I greatly admire Gav's willingness to engage his critics. However, to suggest that "telling him he's wrong" is rude and immature is wildly untrue. There's every reason to be civil about confronting him, but zero reason to suddenly back down and pretend he's right simply because he's Gavin Thorpe.
I certainly hope he'll continue to take into consideration the generally respectful but quite serious criticism offered in this thread, and I look forward to any response he's willing to give.

therisnosaurus
15-06-2005, 04:55
hmm, quick replies

@Amagi: I did not mean to be snide, apologies if it was taken so. I simply want to point out that just because a list is unofficial does not make the army worthless for tournament and official play, you can easily modify most of them to be compatible. I can guarantee you that no matter what army you make I can turn it into an officialy playable army (even cathay, the list I'm working on) with minimum effort. I just don't get people who don't buy things because they are not exactly compatible with tournament rules. You can always be creative, and GW rewards those people who are (in the form of fluff and conversion marks at tournaments and prizes in GD)

@Deathwish, couldn't have put it better myself. Gav ha an insanely difficult job and I really respect his ability to both make difficult decisions and defend them against their critics very eloquently (at most times). I have my own opinions on how the game could be improved, but heck, I'm only 17, only play 10-12 games a month, I don't know that much and many of those people who THINK they are experts aren't. while far from submitting to the loremasters word as law, I do respect his judgments and do my best to see all sides. naturaly, in this argument where most people seem to be criticising the list, I will defend it. if the opposite was the case, I would most likely attack it.

neXus6
15-06-2005, 05:01
However I do have to wonder why so many people openly attack Gav and not the majority of the other people who help/are in the same job they are all in the same difficult positions. It can't all be unfounded.


(Note this is the nicest thing I have ever said about Gav in open conversation, anywhere,ever)

DeathWish
15-06-2005, 05:04
Incidentally, I've already stated that I greatly admire Gav's willingness to engage his critics. However, to suggest that "telling him he's wrong" is rude and immature is wildly untrue. There's every reason to be civil about confronting him, but zero reason to suddenly back down and pretend he's right simply because he's Gavin Thorpe.
I certainly hope he'll continue to take into consideration the generally respectful but quite serious criticism offered in this thread, and I look forward to any response he's willing to give.

My point is that just because someone doesn't agree with him doesn't make him wrong. Sure it's not exactly as you would like it but they can't please everyone. There'll be plenty of aspects of the game that you will like but many others will hate. He'll most probably not see eye to eye with you. Does that make you wrong? Warhammer is currently his baby to work on because GW decided he was well suited to the job and take it forward not because all his decisions will be universally pleasing.

Besides even if Gav didn't agree with the marketing dept he sure as hell couldn't come out and say it on a message board, he's just one employee of a big company so try to cut him some slack. Sure criticise but try not to be so accusing, specially seeing that some of your grievances are probably nothing to do with him but GW as a company.

DW

EvilIncarnate
15-06-2005, 05:27
Also try to remember that Gav doesn't need to come here and discuss things, frankly it's ace of him to do so but I can't see him continuing if all people are going to do is jump down his throat and tell him that he's wrong.

I understand that very good. BUT when he doesn't even address any of the counter agreements by me, amagi and many others it makes you mad. This is what happen in simple terms.

Gav "The world is flat."
Us "The world is round because we have pictures from space, people have sailed around the world and even flew around the world."
Gav " Again the world is flat. (In a Elvis tone) Thank you very much." and leaves.


Basically grow up a bit people. You are being given a chance to pick the brain of one of one GW's Games Developers. It doesn't matter how sensibly you think you're destroying somebody’s points, you are not achieving anything. Try asking some not quite so agresive questions or add some constructive criticism

Onces again he did not do this. Reread the example above the quote. How can I pick his brain when he keeps saying the same then over and over agian.

He didn't even try to pick our brians. Did he?


You all seem to forget that this is his hobby too and he's pushing it forward in his vision, which won't necessarily be exactly as you want it though it will be in the vast majority of cases towards something you will play and enjoy.

Really, I want to play very limiting army lists? No I don't.

Everything was going good at GW in terms of new army lists like the SOC lists and then came the Lustria and the ZP lists. This is not the way Gw should go. I just want to make my voice known to Gav.


Also try to remember that Pete built up relations fairly decently with some of the studio staff and although this isn't Portent or even PortentII, WarSeer was built with the intension of keeping the comunity together and making it a site worthy of being Portents successor but that won't happen if you abuse what's left of Portent's reputation.

This does not mean he is given immunity and that does not mean I can't ask very basic questions to him or other people to asnwer.

amagi
15-06-2005, 06:21
My point is that just because someone doesn't agree with him doesn't make him wrong.
He'll most probably not see eye to eye with you. Does that make you wrong?

Gav "The world is flat."
Us "The world is round because we have pictures from space, people have sailed around the world and even flew around the world."
Gav " Again the world is flat. (In a Elvis tone) Thank you very much." and leaves.Hah!! Evil is exactly right.
It's not a matter of "who agrees with who" that makes an idea true or false.

DeathWish wants to know if the fact that Gavin doesn't agree with me makes him wrong. No, it's the fact that he's wrong that makes him wrong.
In other words, his idea is logically false and not based on the facts of reality, therefore it is wrong.
A detailed and thorough argument has been presented in this thread for why the plan he supports is profoundly wrong and damaging to Warhammer.
This, as opposed to us simply declaring that we don't agree with Gav therefore he sucks.
The way to address this issue is by reading our arguments and deciding for yourself whether they make logical sense, not by dismissing them because other people disagree with us or because "GW has decided" Gavin knows what he's doing. This does not make him infallible.

Delicious Soy
15-06-2005, 06:50
I think the problem is that while arguing the narrow (official vs less official vs get that crap off my board!), he fails to address the concerns of where this is going. Will we be allowed to continue creating our own generals, with their own magic item/steed/armour combos or will we be forced to take a mandatory general for anything outside the mainstream? Some people love to have a 'left of the middle' army, but now the variation in that realm is being hampered by this tournament based ideology that "we must know everything about the army we're about to play or it will suck!" I'll make a trade with Gav, he bans certain lists from tournaments so long as we get characters we can make our own.

Given the state of the playing population at the moment, I doubt character is on top of people priority lists, and could lead to Magic: now in 28mm scale!

Punk_in_Drublic
15-06-2005, 09:24
I think the pirate list was a fun, little tounge-in-cheeck list, and a good read. What I like about GW publishing lists like these, is that they present a theme that can inspire me to do something cool on my own. To me this is not such a big deal. I might get the pirate list together if I ever do a VC army, for a couple of fun games against my mates.

You've got tournament play and then you got gaming just for kicks. It doesn't bother me that there are publised lists that cannot be taken to certain tournaments. If you're a hardcore tourney gamer - don't use them. If you're just looking for some fun gaming action against your friends and you've all got normal communicaton skills - knock yourself out.

Later,

-Punk

amagi
15-06-2005, 10:13
This identical post pops up every 3 pages or so.
You like the list. You think it's fun. Awesome. That's great!

Now ask yourself this question:
Why would it be less fun if the special character was optional, instead of forced?

Why is it important to you that everyone be forced to use special characters that only some want to use?
Why does this army list have to be "just for kicks" instead of fully-official?
What justifies deliberately limiting the list to "optional" "special-context" status?

Not a single person in this thread has yet answered any of these questions.

Simply declaring that you personally don't mind the forced special-context status is not an argument. You must still be aware of the fact of reality that many other people (and NOT JUST tournament players) do mind a great deal, and that therefore the lists will be less useful for players and make less money for GW.
If you comprehend this obvious fact, then why still insist the army list must be limited to special-context?

To repeat again:
There is a place for "just for kicks" unofficial test lists (and BTW, that place should NOT be major book releases like Lustria. It should be in White Dwarf, and even then there's no valid reason to force a sp. char. on the lists.) But we are not talking about the occasional White Dwarf list.
We are talking about a long-term strategy applying to many armies and major WH releases into the indefinite future. Gav says there are too many armies already--hence this policy of limiting future lists would have to apply to most lists from now on. Gav says it will apply to "a lot of these" new armies. That is the problem--not whether you think Zombie Pirates are cool or not.

lorelorn
15-06-2005, 10:24
Personally, I think it's great what GW have done with Realms of Lustria, and the sttendant Zombie Pirate list. A great way for gamers who want to, to delve into a self-contained campaign sereis involving a specified area of the Warhammer world, with just a few armies involved.

To me, Realms of Lustria is just a better version of the old 'campaign packs' that were released in 5th edition. A more polished version. Plus a great excuse to release yet mroe regiment boxes that any player can use.

The whiners who seem to think that tournament play is the be all and end all of the game, or that they have somehow been 'tricked' into getting an army that must contain a special character need to get over themsevles.

Warhammer is a broad church, and there is plenty of room for tournament armies, and books such as Lustria and the General's Compendium, that have nothing to do with tournaments. Casual campaigns are probably a bigger part of the game than tournaments, it's just you never here about them as they are inherently private.

It's good to see GW not pandering to the noisy minority, and release more hobby products. The game has quite enough army books, and there is, if anything, too much variety in touraments. I think 13 army books, suitable for use in tournaments, gives the game a good core. That core can be surrounded by other material, such as sub army lists (Kislev), and other materials such as a General's Compendium or Warhammer Realms series. I don't see anything wrong with this.

I would much rather see more Warhammer Realms books than an endless cycle of army book updates following the release of Wood Elves.

Bruen
15-06-2005, 10:51
Take it easy there fellas before someone bursts an artery ;)

Fact is you don't have to buy anything you don't want/need. If you're worried about not "officially" being allowed to use characters/units/lists don't buy them. If you don't care about how often you'll be allowed to use them but you think the models are cool go for it (if you're part of a gaming group that won't allow the use of anything that isn't officially sanctioned you may want to consider changing group).

I spend £100 on an army on the basis that the army list says that it is "official but may not be usable at tournaments", then a few days later I read that GW is planning to make the army unofficial and you are telling me to take it easy?

If I had known from the start that the army was unofficial I would never have bought it. The problem that I have is that my money has been wasted because the people that I play with will not play against unoffical armies.

I don't play tournaments so the fact that special characters may not be tournament legal means nothing to me.

I don't care all that much that this is a dumb move for GW and WFB, because there are other games systems out there. What I care about is loosing money because GW changes its mind.

I accept that over time some armies become unplayable and disappear, I just think that a week is an unreasonably short time for this to happen to ZP (a week was the time between me buying £100 of ZP and me seeing the posting on the official forums).

IMHO this is very close to deceptive advertising. If I cannot get a refund from GW then I am going to have a talk with Trading Standards.

amagi
15-06-2005, 10:54
Unless the loremaster himself ever responds here, I'm signing off again. Petty insults are not worth my time, and recently every pro-Gav's-plan post has already been said--said and refuted.
Repeated posts, such as the one above [lorelorn's], are not even arguing against positions I or anyone else holds (e.g. no one ever opposed the campaign rules, this is not remotely about tournament play only, no one ever opposed the existence of "hobby" or test rules.)
It is pointless for me to keep defending against those who aren't even aware of why we oppose Gavin's plan (or, if you prefer, the plan he described and supports, whoever's responsible for it originally).
I suggest a read of this thread to those who are actually interested in why this plan is so opposed.

ad naseum, that list is still official and probably will be for some time. It is, however, "special-context" and therefore semi-official, subject to opponent's permission in certain contexts. Bruen is right to oppose this situation, but he shouldn't call it "unofficial," as this only creates confusion.]

The issue being discussed here will have an enormous and negative impact on the future of Warhammer, despite those who don't see the long term or the bigger picture.
Let's hope someone at GW realizes this before the damage that has already started is allowed to continue.

Punk_in_Drublic
15-06-2005, 11:02
This identical post pops up every 3 pages or so.
You like the list. You think it's fun. Awesome. That's great!

Dude, you'd better calm down right now and you can take your sarcasm somewhere else. I don't appreciate it.


Now ask yourself this question:
Why would it be less fun if the special character was optional, instead of forced?

No, it wouldn't but I don't get the big deal. But you are actually winding yourself up because the list comes with a special character? You are actually enraged because of the fact that they published a list that comes with a special character you don't want to use?


Why is it important to you that everyone be forced to use special characters that only some want to use?
Why does this army list have to be "just for kicks" instead of fully-official?
What justifies deliberately limiting the list to "optional" "special-context" status? .... (after this you go on with your needlessly agressiv tone about how I insist on a lot of matters. I don't. I just present my view on the list. Without trying to bite someones head off, I might add.)

Obviously, this is a way bigger deal for you than it's for me. Why should everything published by GW be fully official? My argument is that this would prevent cool ideas like this surfacing, thus not expand on the warhammer world but limit it to a couple of army books and a core game.

That I personally like the list makes for a valid argument indeed. Because there are a lot of gamers like me, that doesn't take this stuff too seriously, that have been into the hobby for more than 10 years, and are more into the modelling/painting/getting together for a few beers and laughs- part of the hobby. Obviously you can't keep everybody happy, but I don't see the problem in publishing the occational special setting-list.


....and that therefore the lists will be less useful for players and make less money for GW.

So you're upset because GW might not make much money on lists like these? You're a stock-holder or something?


Gav says there are too many armies already--hence this policy of limiting future lists would have to apply to most lists from now on. Gav says it will apply to "a lot of these" new armies.

I'm totally with Gav here. There are enough core armies. Now, they're giving something to spurn our fantasy and expand on the background, setting and happenings of the WFB universe. And that's ok with me.

For the record, I used to hate special characters with a passion, and I haven't used one since 40k 2nd ed (unless you count the occational regiment of reknown), and even though I prefer not to use them, lists like this (including a specialcharacter) makes for interesting reads and inspiration. And if you already have a core army, you can always expand on it to play the occational list like this.

Later,

-Punk

amagi
15-06-2005, 11:06
Actually, that wasn't sarcasm.

Bye people.

Bruen
15-06-2005, 11:09
Why should everything published by GW be fully official? My argument is that this would prevent cool ideas like this surfacing, thus not expand on the warhammer world but limit it to a couple of army books and a core game.

Agreed, however everything that they do publish that says it is official should stay official for at least a few years.

Punk_in_Drublic
15-06-2005, 11:34
that, my friend, I will agree completely on.

Later,

-Punk

EvilIncarnate
15-06-2005, 13:14
Quote by Delicious Soy


Will we be allowed to continue creating our own generals, with their own magic item/steed/armour combos or will we be forced to take a mandatory general for anything outside the mainstream?

That is the question isn't it? But it seems that no one really cares or even can see it "I like the lists so you shut up (in a whinning 5 year old voice)!"

Quote by amagi


Bye people.

I say the same thing.

glimli
15-06-2005, 15:30
i agree that opponents permission begins with whether ro not they want to play, think you smell etc. well before lists come into question.

i personally dont mind if some of the wd dwarf stuff is unofficialised, unless gamers had been told previously it was going to be 100% offcial and permanent (dont think this has ever been stated).

the only thing i would be cross about is if the lsutria lists have to include the speciual charcaters fullstop. ie to feild a legal list you msut have 2000 plus. this would be stupid as some people like smaller games or cant afford a big army. in bigger games with specailsied in "context" armies its not so far fetched that the main protagonists would be leading their armies.

Bruen
15-06-2005, 15:49
i personally dont mind if some of the wd dwarf stuff is unofficialised, unless gamers had been told previously it was going to be 100% offcial and permanent (dont think this has ever been stated).

The Zombie Pirate list specificaly states that it is an official list but that you might not be able to use it at some tournaments.

GavT
15-06-2005, 16:13
GavT puts forth two main arguments in defense of the New Plan.

1) The New Plan is necessary because gamer's can't be expected to buy every WD and check every GW webpage.

2) The unofficial/official issue is an unimportant distraction.

This first argument is completely false on the face of it, because it implies that to oppose Gavin's Plan you must necessarily support the idea that White Dwarf material must be official.



This was an argument put forward by some people on this thread… If it isn't all 'official' some of the content of WD must be 'unofficial', surely?


This is an elementary logical fallacy, and a very obvious one at that--it's a straw man argument. It's attacking a position that the opponent does not hold, while evading the real issue.

Simply saying something isn't an argument without offering proof or a counter-position isn't debate. Your entire first sentence here has no substance at all and is frequently used by people to try to make it sound like they have point to make without actually having one. Please point out where the fallacy in the logic is, rather than assume it's so blindingly obvious you do not need to state it.


In reality, this issue of White Dwarf material being official or not has nothing at all to do with why Gavin's plan is so bad.
(It's an important issue in itself, but it's a distraction from the real and serious flaw in Gav's Plan.)

Just to clear this up, it's not _my_ plan per se, but rather Studio policy going forward (if only I had tyhe kind of power to do this sort of thing on my own! Mwa ha ha ha…).


In fact, just six posts up (# 96) I specifically stated that Gavin was right to suggest that GW should eventually compile all official material, probably in books, and that most or all White Dwarf material could be unofficial--BUT, and this is the key to my whole argument, this does not have to involve in any way the limiting of future army lists, as the Lustria/Zombie lists have been limited. It does not remotely justify relegating many new armies to marginalized "special-context" status. [

GavT's use of this White Dwarf issue is especially unpersuasive given that in that same post (# 96) I already showed that it's an enormous mistake of logic to say, essentially,
"Having official army lists scattered around WD or some webpage makes it difficult for players to know what's official"
(which is true)
and then to conclude
"Therefore we must make new army lists limited and restricted"
(e.g. by forcing special characters on them, forcing points values on them, forcing them to be only historical camgaign armies--in total, deliberately forcing players to not use them as often.)
That the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise is absurdly obvious.

Once again your conclusion is not an argument it is a simple statement of opinion.


The REAL solution to this REAL problem is as I already stated:
Make the rules clear and easily accesible.
Make a clear presentation of what is official or not, and compile them in a way that is easy to show to opponents during games.
If this means making all White Dwarf material unofficial, fine!!

And that's what we're doing, but in a way that is better reflected on how people actually play games rather than some imagined official/ unofficial divide that some people have in their heads. Think of it another way: every special character in every 6tth ed army book is 'Official', it says as much in the books themselves. However, how often do you force your opponent to play with a special character because it is official?
"You're taking Dwarfs, then I'm taking Grimgor."
"Nah let's not use special characters."
"You can't stop me! Ha ha ha! I'm takign Grimgor and there's nothign you can do it about it! Hey, where are you going? Come back, you have to let me field Grimgor!"

And so forth. Only insert Zombie Pirates into the example, or the Dwarf Mountaineers from Bugman's Lament, or whatever. Gaming doesn't work that way, does it?

"Do you mind if I play Zombie Pirates?"
"Nah, I don't like special characters."
"Excuse me, who want sto play Zombie Pirates?"
"yeah I will, everyone on Portent says they suck anyway…"

[scuse that last one, I couldn't stop myself ;) ]


But please, please stop putting arbitrary restrictions on new army lists. This is not a solution to the problem of inaccesible rules. As should be evident by now from the controversy over this issue--many people are disappointed in the completely uneccesary restrictions put on these lists. There was never any justification for them.

I have no idea how this changes anything. By having non-context armies (such as the Cult of Ulric) we give no guidance to players or event organisers – they look like an army list, smell like and army list, but they're not a book on the shelf that you see when you walk into the store or click onto the webpage. What's the difference between some guy with e aperfectly legal, official Skaven army who can't find an opponent because everyone in his local area thinks they're broken and won't play against them (random example, plucked form the top of my head, of course ;) )


(Incidentally, some people are worried that currently official White Dwarf lists will eventually become unofficial because of this New Plan. This is far less important to me than the separate issue of "special-context" restrictions on new lists, but I do think that any currently official WD lists should be, eventually, analyzed for balance, and if worthy should be compiled in some future book. This solves the problem of inaccesible WD material, without the needless loss of good official armies, which would upset many players.)

This is the biggest issue we have – it's not new stuff coming out to the policy we now have, it is how we rationalise all of that existing material without necessarily telling people the playing pitch has shifted and the context in which they bought their army and miniatures no longer applies. This is really the headache, which is why it would be easier for us to carry on fingers in our ears and ignore the issue, but ultimately we can't.

GavT
15-06-2005, 16:19
As for the second of GavT's arguments:As I just suggested, I've been saying all along that the official/unofficial issue is a distraction (though in quite a different sense than GavT means--it DOES matter a great deal what is official or not, despite Gavin's apparent disdain for gamers who care about this--but it is not important in this context whether future WD material is official or not, as long as new fully-official lists are still published somewhere).

Are we getting mixed up with terminology here? What advantage does 'official' status gain anything, really? I think what we have to deal with is the perception of official= balanced, unofficial=unbalanced. The fear (dread even!) that some players have that somehow something that might have been written for a special character or scenario might be unbalanced without them. Well, there is no clearer definition than Army book = completely balanced, skin our hides if it's broken, anything else = well we gave you the context in which it was intended, on your heads be it (although really it is quite fun, honest). The reality is that most players hover inbetween. The simpest definition is the best one, for thosae that feel it is important.


The real issue of importance is the limiting of armies by forcing them to be "special context."
I fully agree that the sort of "scenario" rules in supplement books like Lustria should be "unofficial" (e.g. junglefighting, warbands rules, campaign rules). HOWEVER, on the issue of the army lists I could not disagree more. There is no reason to make these marginalized and optional!! It cripples sales and makes the lists unusable or much less usable by many gamers in many contexts--and it does this for no reason. There is simply no problem with making new, fully-official armies--in fact it's a vitally necessary source of variety and enjoyment for gamers (and profit for GW!!).

I'll go back to my earlier comment – players must know the context for which the army was created and how likely they are to be able to game with it. Anybody who has invested in Zombie Pirates thinking they'll be able to tae it to a tournament that doesn't allow special characters needs to read the army list more carefully. We couldn't get much more honest! As for sales, well it's nice of you to care :) Those fourteen army books and eight/nine Codexes seem to do just fine even without variant armies. Bear that in mind, there are still plenty of 'official' armies for players to collect, and much variety within each one, if they are worried that they need an official army. Not adding Zombie Pirates to that list in no way degrades the appeal of those armies, does it?


What I disagree with is the false idea that the current number of armies is excessive and that this justifies the systematic limiting and marginalizing of many new armies.

Putting it in bold is shouting, and as we all know, shouting louder does not always make it a better argument…


Given that I am the one who has, in this thread, argued the most extensively against this New Plan (i.e. the large majority of anti-Gav's-plan posting in this thread is by me) it is perhaps a bit peculiar that GavT's defense of that plan literally does not address a single issue I raised--not even the most important issue--the idea that because there are too many official lists, from now on new ones either have to be unofficial, or "official" but "special-context" or "subject to opponent permission."

We tried your system – Chapter Approved had Trial Rules, Warhammer Chroncicles had Get-you-by, Official marks and everything, and players were genuinely confused – ask our guys in the stores or on the phones when they had players asking them on games nights whether they had to use the new 40K assault rules (the ones that were clearly marked Trial and everything). I'll say it again, we're not making this up to bully people or screw them over, it is a policy that has been devised from growing feedback and questions from players. You are obviously one of the players that doesn't have an issue with the current way of doing things, but they do exist.


I can only assume that GavT either did not read much of this thread at all--or is deliberately ignoring any genuine arguments of substance (mine as well as many others') against the New Plan. Instead he chooses two easily-refutable, obviously wrong arguments and then knocks them down, as if somehow the sight of his victory will convince onlookers that all other conceivable arguments against him must be wrong as well. This bait-and-switch might fool the gullible, but unfortunately all the very real problems with the New Plan remain unaddressed.

I've yet to see an actual argument, merely rhetoric and personal opinion from a few people, and a bit of hysteria concerning Zombie Pirates. Please, in simple sentences (for a simple mind like me) bullet point the exact logical reasons against the new plan. I will then gladly address them. PM them to me if you like, to guarantee I'm not ignoring you.

[snips repetitive quote]


I greatly applaud GavT's willingness to respond to criticism (even if only in this evasive manner), but I am disappointed that the real issues have been ignored.

Ah, damning with faint praise, another favourite of mine :rolleyes: This policy has been thrashed out with myself, Alessio, Jervis Johnson, Rick Priestley and others. If there any genuine angles or problems that we haven't foreseen, I am more than happy to go back to this and review our plans, but so far the pros are beating the somewhat knee-jerk cons.

Please, feel free to continue to discuss, I'll be popping by again in a day or two

Please also bear in mind these are responses to the points that you make, or the opinions that you advocate, not to you yourself. Having replied to it, I appreciate how much goes into a post that long! :)

GAV

EvilIncarnate
15-06-2005, 17:25
"You can't stop me! Ha ha ha! I'm takign Grimgor and there's nothign you can do it about it! Hey, where are you going? Come back, you have to let me field Grimgor!"
"You're taking Dwarfs, then I'm taking Grimgor."
"Nah let's not use special characters."

Copying my format are we? :p ;)

I do thank you for replying and addressing points made by me, amagi and others.


simple statement of opinion

Isn't what you offer the same thing? An opinion?

Bruen
15-06-2005, 17:43
I've yet to see an actual argument, merely rhetoric and personal opinion from a few people, and a bit of hysteria concerning Zombie Pirates. Please, in simple sentences (for a simple mind like me) bullet point the exact logical reasons against the new plan. I will then gladly address them. PM them to me if you like, to guarantee I'm not ignoring you.

I buy an army whose brand new list states that it is official and then a few days later I find out that GW intends to make this list unofficial.

How can this not be wrong?

I can understand an army changing status after a couple of years, but days?

This is exactly the sort of thing that people slate Wizkids for doing.

Lordmonkey
15-06-2005, 17:53
I think the best way to look at all 3 lustria lists is not as an army, but as a published special character, with an army behind them. If you are the sort of gamer who likes to play without frilly bits like special characters (like me) then I wouldn't build a lustria list and expect to be able to play with it everywhere. Having said that, labelling something "special character" with the big, scary rubber stamp of d00m doesn't neccesarily make it all that different. The three special characters in the lustria lists don't scare me one iota, and even as one who detests the use of special characters in competitive contexts, I would never disallow them or the lists associated with them simply because they aren't going to unbalance the game.
As for feedback on release policies, I think it's alright as far a fantasy is concerned. If people concerntrated less on criticising new releases as unbalanced, using the official/unofficial label as an excuse to use or not use them, and focused more on learning how to fight so-called "unbalanced" armies such as Zombie Pirates, there would be less cause for all this fuss. Using something which isn't "official" doesn't mean the GW ninjas will come get you... except for the Grand Tournament, of course. ;)

I suppose while I'm at it I might as well mention one thing since it's sort of along similar lines...

The moment GW moves out of the imperium and into a more balanced perspective of all the 40k races is the moment I bother getting back into it - way too many marine players these day, and chapter approved can get a tad silly at times. 4th edition was nice, but we still saw another boxed set with marines as one of the two armies, and it can be a bit samey and repetitive. The 40k universe contains a lot of depth, way more than just an imperium soap opera, and i for one would love to see things done from the point of view of the other races (Tyranids? :D )

Bruen
15-06-2005, 18:26
At this stage its a moot point anyway because I have decided to take my zombies and WFB books back for a refund. Fortunatly I have not yet opened any of the packages.

emperor_hippo
15-06-2005, 18:43
Just my 2 yen:

To answer amagi's question "Why would it be less fun if the special character was optional, instead of forced?":

The army list seems to be written for fluffy purposes and exclusion of the special character upon whom the list was written around would be akin to a Skaven army with no clanrats. Nurglitch, Harkon add "character" :D to the army list. It could also be that the special character has special rules that make the list work.

Moreover, if you wanted to play list "X", you should have to abide by the rules of the list, not only the composition but the chocie of character. Your argument is similar to a complaining that you must choose a Doombull to lead an army of minotaurs.

Oh and thank you Gav (if that really is you...) for posting on this forum. It's nice to know that you are reading our concerns.

Jan Skarthen
15-06-2005, 19:54
Hello forum, first time poster, long time browser (old site different user name!), long time WHFB gamer.

I suppose that I felt moved to post now as in imho this thread has raised some fundamental issues regarding GW and this hobby in general which resulted in my feeling the need to express my views. This is no kneejerk reaction I have seen all the various developments in the ruleset and army lists since the mid-1980's. In summary these are my thoughts: (ps sorry about the length)

1. Gav firstly thank you for taking some of your valuable time in going to the bother of posting in this forum, I don't envy your job [though I would like it :)]and I reckon that whether we agree with you or not regarding this issue at least you are interested.

2. To begin WHFB seems to have an inherently cursed devlopment cycle each time a new ruleset comes out. The players demand a new rulebook,GW development staff work to produce the best in the time available and whilst servicing existing models/ranges the company still needs to make a £ or two by producing new models and armylists. It is in my opinion the timescale which the developers are forced to work to both no doubt due to internal and external forces which is the problem.

3. Would we the gamer rather have one excellent armybook p/a or 3 or 4 average books/ campaign packs. Market pressure will force more of an average product to be produced which is why the constant complaints/bitterness by players.

4. I am not in the business of producing problems I prefer solutions. As shown by the groundswell of opinion over the frankly below average Dark Elf book that had to be revised (credit to Gav + Druchii.net) there are a great number of very educated gamers on the web who across the globe have a better feel IMHO and love for the armies they are playing/collecting than some it appears who are 'placed/volunteer' on the projects at Lenton. Let the public have a bigger input in development, use the core fanbase better and with the development process managed properly it lets the gamers and company work in a more inclusive environment (A 360 degree development cycle if you like).

5. The debate over special characters is a moot one but long running nonetheless, and since we were meant to be with this latest version of WHFB diverging from herohammer I am shocked to see whole armies based around a single special character who cannot be used unless with prior arrangement or banned in tournaments. The problem is the core ruleset and the limitations imposed.

6. The solution to this one is simple don't reinvent the wheel take a 2 handed battleaxe and chop the blasted thing into small bits and then start afresh.

7. Would GW have it in them to admit mistakes have been made all along the lengthy development of their WHFB rules to their current state? WHFB by it's very nature has a rich, varied and incredibly detailed background which is fundamentally sound, it is more the mechanics around this environment which continue to disappoint and frustrate. I will not go into a lengthy piece now on this but will some time in the near future post my ideas for the future on this forum.

8. Almost done now, tournaments are probably the single biggest reason IMHO and speaking to others why WHFB has lost the way, this is a game which when it started out was a few friends gathered round an old table for a nights entertainment with some figures and a few light refreshments. It is (should be) a tactical/strategic extension of a role-playing game and it is quite sadly that which went coincidentally when tournament play started. You and your opponent should take on the persona of your army general and your army should be picked and play in your image (special character or not). Linked campaign games are the real way forward for this hobby for longevity not tournament players.

9. I conclude now with an apology I may have digressed from the original thread slightly but in my world you want to play Grimgors Ard Boyz I will respond ok and ask my opponent why he has invaded my realm, we quickly construct a short campaign/ reason for him to be on the table and I ask can Archaon seek his revenge in the last game for Grimgor cleaving him in Storm of Chaos. 100% my opponent will agree and 2 of the most powerful characters in the warhammer world will eventually clash in a climactic battle..now thats what I call fantasy battle. Not 2 bland 2000 point tournament armies facing off over a table night in night out.....:)

Delicious Soy
16-06-2005, 00:54
The army list seems to be written for fluffy purposes and exclusion of the special character upon whom the list was written around would be akin to a Skaven army with no clanrats. Nurglitch, Harkon add "character" :D to the army list. It could also be that the special character has special rules that make the list work.Yes they add character. So do the likes of Grimgor, Archaon and Tyrion, but the point is if you play HE, Orcs or Chaos, you don't HAVE to take them. In Harkon's case, its mentioned that he has vampiric underlings yet you can't take them. How many upper echelon Skaven are there in Clan Pestilens? More than Nurglitch I'd wager. Yet you can't have your own general in these armies. As far as I'm concerned this debate of official/unofficial obfuscates the real issue behind these lists, that creativity is being curtailed in the interests of tournaments, which is undermining the reason behind the creation of WFB and 40k. I would really like to hear Gav's thoughts on this, but it seems that the peasantry have holed him up over tourney issues.

Lady Bastet
16-06-2005, 02:00
I do not understand the army list issue myself.

I personally let my opponents use rules they wrote themselves yet I still oppose the notion of giving official army lists “opponents consent” status.

Simply put- it discourages people from collecting the list in the first place. The Zombie Pirates for example are a prime example of this in my opinion.

Several individuals looked at the list and said “this looks quite fun”. However when they realised that the list required a special character to work at all they were not impressed. The lack of effort that went into that list is simply mind blowing, seriously though did anyone proof read it and notice the Long Lost Cutlass was completely useless?

They were also put off by the fact that they may one day want to be in an official tournament and be unable to use their main list because of their manditory spacial character. How much more space/ink would it have been to add a generic vampire commander for battles without Luthor?

It would not be a problem if it were just tournaments who imposed such restrictions, I have known Games Workshop stores throw down a no special character restriction for games nights.

The final problem I have seen with this if your army list is unofficial or only semi official, its foolish to limit yourself to Games Workshop models only. I know so many players who use Lord of the Rings, Confrontation and Warmachine figures and would buy more if they did not attend official tournaments. I myself find myself using the occasional Wargods model here and there.

I realise my circle off friends does not represent all gamers- however there must be more like us who are gradually being turned from Games Workshop by high prices and a foolish tournament mentality that eats away at the very soul of this hobby.

therisnosaurus
16-06-2005, 03:27
tournaments are probably the single biggest reason IMHO and speaking to others why WHFB has lost the way, this is a game which when it started out was a few friends gathered round an old table for a nights entertainment with some figures and a few light refreshments. It is (should be) a tactical/strategic extension of a role-playing game and it is quite sadly that which went coincidentally when tournament play started. You and your opponent should take on the persona of your army general and your army should be picked and play in your image (special character or not). Linked campaign games are the real way forward for this hobby for longevity not tournament players.



personaly, and I'm actually thinking of doing this myself, I'd like to see a new variety of tournament that brings us back to the olden days when an army was not collected for its power, but because it had a reason to exist. Instead of a tournament, have a 'Themeament' in which the logic, reasoning and history behind your army is far more important than its playability. essentialy, the tournament would consist of, say, 4-5 rounds (3 on day one, 2 on day 2) and would follow the standard fantasy tournament rules, HOWEVER there is one key difference. You can take special characters, you can take unofficial rules and you can even (maybe) break a few (more than the usual 0-1 of flagellants or something). Why would this not create beard? because it has to have the background. You can't take a special character unless your background justifies absolutely his inclusion in the army, simple tournament mass produced lists will not be accepted into the tournament. Each and EVERY inclusion must be justified both in background and in the history of the army. Further more, the campaign will be based around a certain period/set of events (conquest of the new world, storm of chaos, the great war, the war of the beard etc) and you MUST justify the army's presence in that conflict. Once everyone has their army, their theme and their reasons for being in the conflict sorted out, the tournament organiser then creates teams, objectives and other such things to give the battles meaning. No more 'oh, not another capture scenario', the battle will be to recover the phoenix crown itself, or die in the attempt and its capture will have an influence on future games and so forth. maybe this example is a little extreme, but you get the idea. Feuds and grudges will arise, heroes will be made and ingnominious defeats remembered in great and often humorous detail instead of 'oh yeah, and my 4 repeater bolt throwers just munched his unit of 20 chosen chaos knights, and he said Sh*** coz he's a loser'
in essence, its taking the way GW are using tournaments one step further. when they started it was just about winning. now its about painting, converting, having a relatively coherent theme, and winning. the next step is dreaming, creating an army, not just a statisticaly nasty lump of plastic and metal, converting and painting it, figuring out why its in the tournament in the first place and oh, winning might come into it SOMEWHERE along the line :P. essentialy what you want is a maximum of 40% going towards personal victories, maybe 10% towards team victories 10% on sportsmanship, 20%on theme and 20% on painting/converting. this means that someone who hasn't won a single game can still beat someone who gets a massacre in all of them, so armies just created specificaly to win will not, and armies created for a reason but weaker in the actual game will find themselves on top of the heap.



*pants*


well, after all that logic I've been inspired. I'm gonna write up some draft rules for a themeament and if I can get enough support, I'm sure as hell going to run one. anyone interested in helping? this might just help get the hobby back to where it should be- all about people playing friendly games for a reason.

To Mr Gav, I'd love to hear your opinion on this, judging by your opinions so far, I'd assume you'd support this sort of idea, so any words of wisdom or experience you can offer would be greatly appreciated

Readamus
16-06-2005, 06:52
Games Workshop is going to regret it if they make all of the off-shoot army lists unofficial because it is the campaign idea that drives warhammer along. By introducing a new conflict and new ways to play your army, GW creates new points of interest. Making all of the new toys unofficial after a given expiration date makes that material about as long lasting as a quart of milk.

I personally like seeing varient lists - they add something new and interesting to the game. Whenever someone gets a new army, people want to play them because its a different challenge. It's a new way to experience the game. Generally, the person with the new army will win because they know what to expect and their opponent doesnt. However, this shock factor only lasts for a few games at most. Sure this is annoying in a tournament if you only have exposure to limited opponents, but warhammer is not all about tournaments - its about having a good time. Personally, I'd hate to see the special characters/variant armies go away because someone thinks that its unfair to play against an opponent who is using an army you havent faced a hundred times already.

amagi
16-06-2005, 07:32
Ah, damning with faint praise, another favourite of mine :rolleyes:Hah! Quite right there, but you'll find that in a later post my praise had no strings attached. I'll repeat it. I'm impressed with your willingness to address the criticism of anonymous and contentious forum-dwellers.

I will gladly present my argument.
It must be a comprehensive presentation however, not the listing of a few slogans, because my position has been consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented.
The essential points are underlined or bulleted. The rest is the necessary context of supporting argument.

Based on your quoted statements at the start of this thread, the idea you (meaning you personally as well as whoever else is behind this new policy) are basing this plan on is:

----There are too many army lists now, or there soon will be. This causes players to be confused about what is or is not official, and it means that players will sometimes be faced with armies they are not familiar with.

Your solution has two elements:

1) Many future army lists ("a lot of these variant lists") will now be context-specific, "meaning they'll require some agreement and discussion by the players."

2) Eventually you want to move toward a system wherein only rulebook and army book material is official.

Now, my objections.
I reject the basic assumption that the current number of armies is or soon will be too complex for players to handle. I will elaborate on this later, but first a point of clarification:

There are two separate issues involved when speaking of players' ability to handle the rules: first, the mere number of armies--second, the clarity of the way in which the rules are compiled and presented. The second is a real problem, the first is not.
There is currently a very real problem with the presentation of the army lists, namely:
----It is not always entirely clear what is or is not official (e.g. your example of the discontinued supplement).
----There is no consistency in which sources will contain official material, so official lists are scattered throughout many sources.

However, in both these cases, it is not the absolute number of lists as such that is the problem. It is the haphazard, inconsistent presentation of those lists.
You repeatedly and accurately describe this problem of the clarity of rules: ("It's not really on to turn up at a club, store or tournament and find that the army you are facing appeared in a discontinued supplement, or old WD, and is now available only on some part of the website")
But to conclude from this example that what’s needed is mandatory special-characters, for example, is blatantly wrong. The non sequitur is obvious.
[You suggest that forcing “special-context” on armies will somehow help players know what is official or not. This is a strained rationalization—simply compiling official material in a consistent manner and making a clear and comprehensive presentation of what is official or not will easily let players know all they need, without the pointless measure of restricting new armies to special-context. There is no conceivable reason why a mandatory special character makes it easier for a player to be familiar with a particular army. If anything, it should be clear that this restricting would make more confusing and unclear the issue of what is allowed in what context!!!]

So in reality, the solution to a lack of clarity in rules is precisely to improve the clarity of those rules--not to slash or cap the number of official armies, and not to impose restrictions on future armies. In other words, the solution is exactly what you're doing in part 2 of your plan.
I am in agreement with part 2 of your solution. With the following exceptions: I think a limited number of books in addition to army books could contain official material (e.g. major supplement books like Lustria, or books expressly designed to compile official material). Also, if there are any currently existing WD lists worthy of being official, they could be published in a future book.

Where I differ from you is that
I think part 2 is the only step that should be taken.

Part 1, the relegating of new lists to special-context status, does not address the issue of rules clarity. It is simply a measure designed to make these lists less widely used. This is the explicit goal of the policy according to you ("We can't keep simply adding in variant list after variant list into the game without some kind of limiting measures."
"So, the idea is that a lot of these variant lists will be context-specific."
i.e. in order to “limit” their use!)

Since part 1 does not address rules clarity, does it help with the number of armies?
Here there is at least the appearance of a sensible argument. If there were too many armies, marginalizing new ones to special-context obscurity might keep down the number of lists in regular use. [Even assuming there were too many, however, I don’t agree that mandatory special characters would be a good solution—simply be clear and make the lists unofficial, full-stop, without the limits on flexibility and in-game effectiveness.]

But this is moot, because the issue of the number of armies is not remotely the problem you claim.
Here’s why:
---------------------------------------------------
----All new variant lists are only modifications to the existing army-book lists. Once WE is out (and then Chaos Dwarfs!!) there will be a set number of core, primary armies. I agree that this should be the limit on core armies (or maybe one more new one in the distant future). Most players will be sufficiently familiar with these core armies. Therefore they will easily adapt to and quickly understand variant lists that simply change details of familiar armies. Changes in, for example, composition rules (special, core), equipment options, or one or two new troop types (horned ones, ranked skinks) are very easy to handle. The main troop types and army rules remain the same.

----If the rules clarity problem is fixed, then players faced with an unfamiliar army will simply be shown the army list, and they will know unambiguously that it is official. Any rules questions can be swiftly solved by reference to the list in front of them, or by explanation. This is how new players learn. This is how non-new players deal easily with the wonderful variety of Warhammer. Most players will then gladly welcome the opportunity for a new challenge or a chance to fight a novel and interestingly-themed army.

----Far from being terrorized by the “minefield” of army choices, most players have an insatiable appetite for new and different material. Note, for example, the online frenzy generated by the slightest rumour of new releases. What Warhammer needs is more variety, not less. More variety in army choices, in army playing styles, in troop types, in composition options (e.g. a Beasts general changes core, special, etc.). The expectation of and hope for new and generally usable material keeps interest in Warhammer strong. Confining yourself from now on to putting out either unofficial or marginalized special-context material does not satisfy that need.

----Producing variant lists based on the core armies is a tremendous and largely-untapped marketing strategy. If players can use the same pieces for two or more official armies they will be far more inclined to spend their hard-earned cash on those pieces and related books. And if they’re uninterested in one of those lists, they might like the other and still buy the pieces. So you would be giving gamers more value for their purchases while making those products far more profitable. Look at the SoC lists. It is very safe to say that the existence of these additional official armies made many more people want to buy the already-existing pieces—Daemons, Dark Elves, Orcs, Dwarfs, etc. Note that while these were in a specific campaign, most are widely regarded as general-use, fully-official lists. It would be tragic for all parties if GW were to ignore the opportunity to pursue this strategy over the mistaken idea that players are hopelessly lost in a minefield of confusion.
---------------------------------------------------

That explains why I think part 1 is unnecessary.
Restricting armies to special-context is pointless, because the supposed problem being used to justify it—too many armies—is no problem at all. And in regard to rules clarity, all these new “special-context” designations actually increase confusion over what is allowed in what context.

amagi
16-06-2005, 07:33
To conclude, a note about why I think part 1 is so damaging.

It is a necessary truth that because many people are obviously less interested in these restricted, special-context armies, the lists will make less money and fewer happy gamers than they easily could (by simply removing the restrictions).
If this situation were somehow required by a larger, more important context it might be justified. However, it is not, as I’ve shown.
Therefore, the arbitrary, deliberate marginalization of these lists represents the sacrifice of a tremendous value (the lists appealing to far more people) in return for nothing in exchange. Nothing is gained by this policy.

Finally, please note that I fully support the occasional release of unofficial trial lists or “hobby” lists—in White Dwarf.
My problem with this new policy is not that any one particular list is not fully-official.
The problem is that this new plan represents a wide-ranging policy affecting the general future of Warhammer—this is not about an isolated WD list but is about a systematic limiting of future variety in Warhammer by stifling the great potential for new official lists.

Thanks for listening.

amagi
16-06-2005, 07:34
In regard to a particular Gavin claim:

What advantage does 'official' status gain anything, really?

Forget army lists being official/ unofficial, they're a complete distraction.And then, in response to my statement that special-context restrictions are unnecessary:
I have no idea how this changes anything.Sorry, but you still can’t have your cake and eat it too.
A large part of your defense of The Plan consists in telling us that we are mistaken to believe that whether something is official or unofficial or “special-context” is even important at all. We are confused to believe that such things even make much difference, and we are getting hysterical over an irrelevant formality.

This is a totally disingenuous argument—it’s a gigantic contradiction to your original statements. This whole Plan is predicated on the idea that making these new lists special-context will make a significant difference to the way in which they are used, the contexts in which they will be played, and the frequency with which they will be allowed.
First you state that this plan will address what you see as a serious problem in Warhammer—that making these lists special-context will be a fundamental shift toward making new lists more subject to opponent permission—that this is a device to make these lists used less often because there are too many lists floating around.

Then you do a complete reversal and tell us:
What’s the big deal??!! This won’t even change a thing! You’re all just overreacting, and special-context is a meaningless technicality. Everyone could always refuse to play with anything they wanted, so what we’re doing isn’t restricting the usefulness of these lists.

Whether you actually don’t see the colossal contradiction in these two stands, or whether you simply expect us not to see it, I don’t know. But you can’t have it both ways.

You already admitted that it’s perfectly rational and proper for certain players to care a great deal about what is official or special-context or unofficial, and to spend their money accordingly. (“You're not a sour tournament player, you're a player making an informed decision about the army you want to collect, and you have every right to. If the players you game with, or the events you attend, are unlikely to allow you to use one of these lists, then you would be crazy to collect one.”)
So why try and pull the wool over our eyes now?

[For the record, neither I nor anyone in my gaming group plays in tournaments, or in store games—yet we all oppose this Plan. This is to deter the usual “only narrow-minded tournament players could care about this!!!” responses.]

You might think some players attach too much importance to official/special-context labels, but the fact is that they do, for many valid reasons, and GW as a company must therefore take into account the real effect this has on the appeal of their products.
Instead of trying to convince us we’re all delusional… :eyebrows: :eyebrows: :eyebrows: ;)

I'm done now.

Bruen
16-06-2005, 09:23
In regard to a particular Gavin claim:
And then, in response to my statement that special-context restrictions are unnecessary:Sorry, but you still can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Although my tongue may turn black ( :P ) I have to agree with Amagi here.

Making lists unofficial is either the solution to the perceved problem of there being too many lists or it makes no difference and we shoudn't get worked up about it. You can't have it both ways.

therisnosaurus
16-06-2005, 10:28
lol, whoever said amagi was determined kinda understated reality a little :P.
you're putting in some nice arguments here, quite eloquently too I might add, though there are a few rather forced points. I'm interested to see what Gav has to say, when and if he returns. Debates like these are great as you get to see the method behind the (what most people seem to think is) madness.

lorelorn
16-06-2005, 11:10
I buy an army whose brand new list states that it is official and then a few days later I find out that GW intends to make this list unofficial.

How can this not be wrong?

I can understand an army changing status after a couple of years, but days?

This is exactly the sort of thing that people slate Wizkids for doing.

So you buy an army whose list has only ever appeared as a White Dwarf article, and then are surprised and upset when a designer suggests the list is not on the same level as a publsihed army book for the game?

This makes you sound a bit thick, frankly.

The army was clearly linked to the Lustria Realms books, whose armies are led by special characters, and which exist is a fairly self-contained campaign.

Perhaps you could cite an example where an army list for either Warhammer or 40K was published once and only in White Dwarf, and was considered to be the same as any published army book for that game. It might also help if you told us where you cannot now use this army you have bought, following Gav's words.

For the record, I have also started to buy Zombie Pirates, but then I play Vampire Counts, so I don't have the problem someone else might in that I can simply integrate most zombie pirate (or Sylvania) models back into my 'main' army if I want to.

I don't recall any furore like this about those War of the Beard lists, or Dark Elf City Guard. I could well have missed it of course.

GavT
16-06-2005, 11:17
I buy an army whose brand new list states that it is official and then a few days later I find out that GW intends to make this list unofficial.


Which list has been 'made unofficial', please? Are we talking about a Lustria List, Zombies, or what? I'll say it again – none of these have changed or are changing, the requirement of the special character is the only thing that makes them 'unofficial' and that has existed since they were printed.


GAV

amagi
16-06-2005, 11:37
I hate to say this again, but lest anyone think that Bruen represents all those opposed to this plan--I have consistently said that he is wrong about that.

therisnosaurus
16-06-2005, 11:38
I belive they are refering to a statement in one of your, or one of the other games designers posts that you intend to make all non-armybook armies 'unofficial' at some point in the future. not sure exactly, but that is, I think, the gist of it.

Bruen
16-06-2005, 11:45
So you buy an army whose list has only ever appeared as a White Dwarf article, and then are surprised and upset when a designer suggests the list is not on the same level as a publsihed army book for the game?

The WD article specificaly states that the ZP army is official. Thus it should stay official for a reasonable period of time, say a few years.

If this is not the case why say it is an official army?

Why should an "official" army list published as part of Warhammer Chronicles not be on a par with an army book? Certainly nothing in the article says that it has a lower status except that it may not be used in some tournaments due to the special character. Well I don't go to tournaments so this is ok for me.

The rules in the Generals Compendium say that they are official, just like ZP; are you now saying that they have a lower status? Afterall they do not appear in an army book.

Remember that Gav stated that everything not in an army book would become unofficial. Bye bye Generals Compendium, bye bye Warhammer Chronicles, bye bye any article published in WD or on the GW website.


The army was clearly linked to the Lustria Realms books, whose armies are led by special characters, and which exist is a fairly self-contained campaign.

So what? I have no problem with the issue of special characters. Its the official/unofficial thing that gets me. I want armies whose lists state that they are official to stay official for a reasonable period of time (not a week).


Perhaps you could cite an example where an army list for either Warhammer or 40K was published once and only in White Dwarf, and was considered to be the same as any published army book for that game.

Since when did published location matter? Afterall FAQ's are only published on the GW website and they are pretty darn official.

Equally there are things in army books that are not official, for example some variant lists and special characters state that they require opponents consent. A good example of this is that most special characters in 40k say thet they need opponents consent in their description, but the 3rd edition Tyranid codex special characters did not state this and did not require opponents consent.

What is important is the content of the article, not its location.


It might also help if you told us where you cannot now use this army you have bought, following Gav's words.

All the same places where I already have a hard time using forgeworld stuff or trial rules or other opponents-permission things. The store and club that I play at.


I don't recall any furore like this about those War of the Beard lists, or Dark Elf City Guard. I could well have missed it of course.

No idea, I was not interested in WFB until I saw the ZP list.

GavT
16-06-2005, 11:53
You know, I'm getting the strange feeling that we're not really disagreeing as much as it seems, but it's more a question of the different frameworks we're using! I'll explain as I go through…


Hah! Quite right there, but you'll find that in a later post my praise had no strings attached. I'll repeat it. I'm impressed with your willingness to address the criticism of anonymous and contentious forum-dwellers.

I retract my snippiness – really shouldn't write long posts when I'm tired.



Now, my objections.
[snippity snip]

There is currently a very real problem with the presentation of the army lists, namely:
----It is not always entirely clear what is or is not official (e.g. your example of the discontinued supplement).
----There is no consistency in which sources will contain official material, so official lists are scattered throughout many sources.



We absolutely agree on this, and it is this past inconsistency that needs to be avoided in the future.


However, in both these cases, it is not the absolute number of lists as such that is the problem. It is the haphazard, inconsistent presentation of those lists.
You repeatedly and accurately describe this problem of the clarity of rules: ("It's not really on to turn up at a club, store or tournament and find that the army you are facing appeared in a discontinued supplement, or old WD, and is now available only on some part of the website")
But to conclude from this example that what’s needed is mandatory special-characters, for example, is blatantly wrong. The non sequitur is obvious.

Special characters are only one possible solution – army lists that can be used in Siege, or in Lustria games, or during a specific summer campaign, etc. The point, and this relates to the very first point you make, is that we have to clearly and definitely say that the rulebook and armies books are one thing, everything else is something different.


[You suggest that forcing “special-context” on armies will somehow help players know what is official or not. This is a strained rationalization—simply compiling official material in a consistent manner and making a clear and comprehensive presentation of what is official or not will easily let players know all they need, without the pointless measure of restricting new armies to special-context. There is no conceivable reason why a mandatory special character makes it easier for a player to be familiar with a particular army. If anything, it should be clear that this restricting would make more confusing and unclear the issue of what is allowed in what context!!!]

This is where the term official/ unofficial really doesn't help the matter. Siege is 'unofficial', in that it is obviously not a normal game of Warhammer. Plenty of players play siege though, and don't begrudge owning a castle to use in Siege games. Future articles or different types of supplements shouldn't masquerade as Army books, they are not the same thing. Let's look at another example. We could publish a Kurgan variant list, that allows units of Marauders to be given the Mark of Chaos Undivided, and publish it like an army list in a book. You would have no problem with that, I'm guessing? However, as soon as I say you must have Vardek Crom to lead this army, suddenly it becomes a problem. However, if we publish Vardek Crom's rules and he allows you to do exactly the same thing, this is suddenly okay again? The format is what is misleading. Imagine the Vampire Coast list is simply a really, really long Special character entry. Does that present so much of a problem? The only reason there's confusion is in the presentation, and we agree that this needs addressing in the future.


I am in agreement with part 2 of your solution. With the following exceptions: I think a limited number of books in addition to army books could contain official material (e.g. major supplement books like Lustria, or books expressly designed to compile official material). Also, if there are any currently existing WD lists worthy of being official, they could be published in a future book.

This is where official/ unofficial again fails as a labelling system. Lustria is obviously 'official', it's a big colourful book and everything, with Warhammer written on the front and our logo. On the other hand they are our 'official' jungle fighting rules and Rise of Sotek lists. If we were to do a Dogs of War book, these would be our 'Official' dogs of war rules, or siege, or any other kind of game expansion that is not a core Army Book.


Where I differ from you is that

[read and snipped to keep word count down!]

But this is moot, because the issue of the number of armies is not remotely the problem you claim.
Here’s why:
---------------------------------------------------
----All new variant lists are only modifications to the existing army-book lists. Once WE is out (and then Chaos Dwarfs!!) there will be a set number of core, primary armies. I agree that this should be the limit on core armies (or maybe one more new one in the distant future). Most players will be sufficiently familiar with these core armies. Therefore they will easily adapt to and quickly understand variant lists that simply change details of familiar armies. Changes in, for example, composition rules (special, core), equipment options, or one or two new troop types (horned ones, ranked skinks) are very easy to handle. The main troop types and army rules remain the same.

I agree. :)


----If the rules clarity problem is fixed, then players faced with an unfamiliar army will simply be shown the army list, and they will know unambiguously that it is official.

As soon as you do that, you are expanding on your 'core' lists, since there is no definition other then where they are published. Army list variant is a misnomer – they are an army list, it's just that for space reasons we might sometimes piggyback them onto existing published material. For example, the Zombie Pirates have no duplicate entries with any Undead list, although they do share the rules. We could have simply reprinted all of those rules int he article (increasing its length considerably) and then what would be the difference between Vampire Coast and Vampire Counts in terms of officialdom? Both would look exactly the same, so in essence it would be an army book pretending to be an article.


----Far from being terrorized by the “minefield” of army choices, most players have an insatiable appetite for new and different material. Note, for example, the online frenzy generated by the slightest rumour of new releases. What Warhammer needs is more variety, not less. More variety in army choices, in army playing styles, in troop types, in composition options (e.g. a Beasts general changes core, special, etc.). The expectation of and hope for new and generally usable material keeps interest in Warhammer strong. Confining yourself from now on to putting out either unofficial or marginalized special-context material does not satisfy that need.

I'm going to answer this and your next point about marketing strategy in one reply. By freeing ourselves of the restrictions of a 'core' army list – one that is balanced within the 'core 2,000-3,000 points Pitched Battle' that the majority of people play – we are free to expand in more exciting directions. Even a relatively straightforward army like Wood Elves stretches the envelope of the main game system whilst we try to retain their inherent character. The requirements of the main game force us to make compromises on character and selection. By being able to ring fence these restrictions to army books, this widens the playing field a lot further and allows us to do more exciting things, not less. If players are so hungry and accomodating, then they are not going to be concerned with an official badge. As we go forward, it will be a lot clearer how this policy works in practice, and if we end up getting snowed under with letters of complaint, then we'll rethink. I suspect the prospect is much scarier than the reality will turn out.

Cheers for the discussion,

GAV

Bruen
16-06-2005, 11:55
Which list has been 'made unofficial', please? Are we talking about a Lustria List, Zombies, or what? I'll say it again – none of these have changed or are changing, the requirement of the special character is the only thing that makes them 'unofficial' and that has existed since they were printed.

I am talking only about Zombie Pirates (because it is the only Fantasy army that inspires me) and this is nothing to do with the special character requirement.

I am referring to this part of your origional posting on the GW message boards:


Going forward we'll hopefully end up in a place that is a lot clearer for existing and new players alike, and is essentially going to boil down to:

Rule book + Army book = 'Official', use without prejudice.

Everything else = 'Unofficial', we think it's great, but not for pick-up-and-play games without warning.

My conclusion is that since Zombie Pirates is not in an army book or the rulebook it will inevitably become 'Unofficial' if you carry out this plan.

I know from experience that people regulary refuse to play other unofficial things like Forgeworld so I am not prepared to risk this with an entire army.

Am I wrong? If I am you can tell me now and I will shut up.

Other people may have other issues, and I represent only myself.

thecuckoo
16-06-2005, 12:23
Does anyone know how many army lists there are at the moment, in total ? I don't.

I'm not talking about core-race main lists. I mean *all* of them.

All the variant lists at the back of rule books. All the lists from the various "summer campaigns". All the white dwarf lists. All of them. Everything.

How many ?

Do you know *all* the rules for these list ? Honestly ? I don't, and I congratulate you if you do.

Now which of these are "official" and which ones not ?


----There are too many army lists now, or there soon will be. This causes players to be confused about what is or is not official, and it means that players will sometimes be faced with armies they are not familiar with.

Hey! Sounds like me!

If spotty Herbert comes up to you and wants a game and his army list is written on something that looks like he's nicked it from the school toilets, are you gonna play him or not ? Like the gameshow says "The choice is yours!"



Your solution has two elements:

1) Many future army lists ("a lot of these variant lists") will now be context-specific, "meaning they'll require some agreement and discussion by the players."

2) Eventually you want to move toward a system wherein only rulebook and army book material is official.



Hmmm. Sounds like a plan.



Now, my objections.
I reject the basic assumption that the current number of armies is or soon will be too complex for players to handle.

Well, you can reject it if you like, but failing to accept reality is a slippery slope. I, for one, am not familiar with all the lists available. I don't have that kind of cash to buy and read all the books. Sorry.

I don't know if you have a PHD is quantum mechanics, but you appear to be clever enough to write a lucid argument. Not everyone is so blessed with such talents. GW needs to appeal to a wide audience, so my guess is they are taking a more "balanced" view of gamers and their attitude to the hobby.

This whole issue sounds like one of data management. Because there is so much material out there, the sheer volume of data leads to problems of consistency, interdependancy and above all accuracy. Like any complex system, the validity of the whole is often questioned when a small error is found. Such niggles and gripes can 'snowball' and eventually, you have to call a halt to the whole thing and have a sit down and decide what to do. Sometimes you rewrite and start again, sometimes you dont.

Increasing control on the lists means that in future things will be easier to manage. And I mean "manage" as in "it will be easier for players to understand" and also "manage" as in "GW can handle their IP more easily".

I think that this sounds like a good idea.

Delicious Soy
16-06-2005, 14:38
the cuckoo: I, nor anyone else I suspect knows every single rule off by heart. But I wager you have a passing familiarity with the main books? Elves do this, Dwarves do this and so on. If we were talking each army being as diverse as the army books, then I would say yes, there is going to be a problem with that. But we are talking Variant lists. By their very name, they are a variation of another army, ie a series of modifications without completely changing the army.

It seems to me that the GD team is tying in this whole official/unofficial thing with variant lists and throwing the baby out with the bath water. Now non-tourney players are being penalised by new variants having a mandatory special character. Variant lists are for something a little different, off the wall or for the flat out creativity of an individualistic force. Mandatory special characters fly in the face of that. The Zombie Pirates and Pestilens armies sound really good. But I'm not going to take an army where I get no say in the type of general I have, how I arm them or even their name and history, it takes all the flavour out of building my army, and considering how GW tries (sometimes) to encourage this sort of play, it seems curious that this is the route being taken.

Bruen
16-06-2005, 14:53
Do you know *all* the rules for these list ? Honestly ? I don't, and I congratulate you if you do.

Why is it important to be familiar with all the lists?

Griefbringer
16-06-2005, 15:20
The rules in the Generals Compendium say that they are official, just like ZP; are you now saying that they have a lower status? Afterall they do not appear in an army book.


Ahem - my copy of General's Compendium states that all contents are definitely unofficial.

thecuckoo
16-06-2005, 15:28
Why is it important to be familiar with all the lists?

Because there seems to be a line of argument that say that your average Joe Gamer has an encyclopaedic knowledge of such things. I am arguing that that is not the case. My point is that you either trust your opponent that their list is ok, or you don't.

I do have a *rough* idea of what other armies do and don't do / can and can't have, but not everything.

So, if spotty Herbert tells me that his 1000pts of Dwarfs can have 3 gyrocopters I have to either take him at his word, or ask to see the army book.

Maybe he shows me a variant list from WD I've never seen before, and hey! He can have all the 'copters after all! Great! But even if he does that, what has he proved ? That the issue of WD was as it was when it went to print. Great. Big deal. Suppose there was a later FAQ that says that 3 Gyrocopters was a typo and it should have said 1 ? He isn't gonna show me that is he ?

No matter what, it's still about trust. You either do or you don't. If you trust your mates, then why does "special context", "special characters", "lustria only" or whatever matter ?

So what I'm saying is, unless GW gets a hold of all this material that is floating around out there, firms it up, ties up the loose ends and shows it to us lot, things are only gonna get worse.

I think what Gav is proposing will go some way to achieving that aim. Control of where the game goes.


p.s.
Me and my mate played ZP vs WE. I used WD, he used the revised (Chronicles?) list. Are you sitting down? We played with 1000pts each. No ZP special character. OMG! End of the world. We ate kebabs, some pizza, talked about football and nattered about the new WE list. Finished in the wee small hours of Sunday a.m. Great. I think it was a draw. Doesn't matter, though, does it ?

Bruen
16-06-2005, 15:53
Because there seems to be a line of argument that say that your average Joe Gamer has an encyclopaedic knowledge of such things. I am arguing that that is not the case. My point is that you either trust your opponent that their list is ok, or you don't.

I do have a *rough* idea of what other armies do and don't do / can and can't have, but not everything.

So, if spotty Herbert tells me that his 1000pts of Dwarfs can have 3 gyrocopters I have to either take him at his word, or ask to see the army book.

I still don't really see why this is a problem.

If you are in doubt you can just ask to see their army list.


Maybe he shows me a variant list from WD I've never seen before, and hey! He can have all the 'copters after all! Great! But even if he does that, what has he proved ? That the issue of WD was as it was when it went to print. Great. Big deal. Suppose there was a later FAQ that says that 3 Gyrocopters was a typo and it should have said 1 ? He isn't gonna show me that is he ?

I can see where you are coming from here but why is the situation any better for army books? The problem that you have just described applies as much to army books as it does to WD (or any other GW rule).

The ideal solution is for GW to get their official releases right first time.


If you trust your mates, then why does "special context", "special characters", "lustria only" or whatever matter ?

The people that I play with won't touch anything that isn't official. Now I feel that this is unreasonable but there isn't anything that I can do about it.


Ahem - my copy of General's Compendium states that all contents are definitely unofficial.

Oops bad example then :)

Bruen
16-06-2005, 15:56
Me and my mate played ZP vs WE. I used WD, he used the revised (Chronicles?) list. Are you sitting down? We played with 1000pts each. No ZP special character. OMG! End of the world. We ate kebabs, some pizza, talked about football and nattered about the new WE list. Finished in the wee small hours of Sunday a.m. Great. I think it was a draw. Doesn't matter, though, does it ?

Thats interesting. The only ZP list that I know of is the one in the Chronicles article in this months UK WD. This requires Harkon and can't be used under 2000 points.

I am very keen to hear if there is another official ZP list out there.

thecuckoo
16-06-2005, 17:57
Thats interesting. The only ZP list that I know of is the one in the Chronicles article in this months UK WD. This requires Harkon and can't be used under 2000 points.

I am very keen to hear if there is another official ZP list out there.

OK guv, it's a fair cop. You got me bang t'rights.

Subtlety isn't working is it ? I'll spell it out for you.

We used the list in UK WD 306. We agreed beforehand that we would play to 1000pts. No Lords. We did. It was fun. Great night, in fact. No special characters. Gav and the rest of GW did not pull up in a sqaud car outside my house with blue lights flashing. We were not arrested.

My point ?

Official, unofficial, WD, special context - it's all garbage. Agree on some limitations and play.

The Spotty Herbert situation is a problem because if you require someone to 'proove' their army is valid, unless you have a contradictory piece of eveidence, what it says in their army book goes, and potentially, they are only going to show you what they want you to see. This also applies to WD/Chronicles/yada yada yada.

So, in effect, you are requiring Herbert to 'proove' his army is legal, while you assume it is in fact illegal. With trust, the situation is reversed, and trust is what is missing.

Real example: I have a TK army and a careful reading of the army book would seem to indicate that because TK swarms are skirmishers they should get the special 'double move'. There is nothing in the book to specifically exclude this interpretation. However, a later FAQ decided that such a move would be illegal. So, if I am playing someone who has never read the TK FAQ should I tell him about it or not ? We might even assume that he doesn't have internet access, placing him at a further disadvantage, perhaps.

So I tell him or not ? As it happened, I did. We talked about it afterwards and decided the FAQ was cobblers, but hey ho, there you go.

GW doing what they're doing is a measured and reasonable response to a situation that has got out of hand over recent years. They need to exercise more control over the material that is out there. If you still don't see why, go and read Gav's more recent posts. He is making sense.

Sylass
16-06-2005, 18:04
@Bruen
I think what he's saying is that it's up to you to make the best out of an (un)official army list like the ZPs. I think it was mentioned already, the fact that it got the unofficial* stamp means that GW does not consider it balanced. It could be seen as a bit of a warning that it's somewhat unfinished.
At the end of the day it's up to you what you make out of it. If you feel happy about using the list without Luthor, do so. Noone forces you to use the list how it was written. :)



Not sure if it's been said already or if it's going to help/add to the discussion (the thread is kinda long and a bit repeative ;)), but after the obvious initial disappointment about the need of a special character & the connected 2000 point limit to use the ZP, I kept telling myself to try seeing the unofficial rules from a different point of view.

Maybe a bit naive and wishful thinking, but what if it's more a bit of a open test phase? First, to see if there's a general interest in the army list at all and second, to give the rules a try. You know, kinda like what the armylist testers hired by GW do, just for the public.
I don't know if it's happening, but maybe someday someone will pick up the list again, take a look at it and start developing it further.

No idea if it's meant like this or ever going to happen, but at least it helps me to sleep again. :p



*edit*
ah, a bit too late for the first clarification part...

*unofficial seems to be the wrong term here...let's call it "restricted" ;)

Auzu
16-06-2005, 18:27
but what if it's more a bit of a open test phase?

Syllas here is a qoute from Andy Hoare from the gw boards:

Meaning we intend to do a lot more with the list in future and wanted to include a range of characterful Magic Items from the off. Future versions will likely include more characters, some of which can take the item

Enyoy ;)

thecuckoo
16-06-2005, 18:29
...the fact that it got the unofficial stamp means that GW does not consider it balanced...

Why is it unofficial ? Have a look at WD 306, page 61. This list is official.



the thread is kinda long and a bit repeative

agreed.

Sylass
16-06-2005, 18:43
Auzu, thanks for the quote. Looking forward to the future version. ARRR!

@thecuckoo
I edited my post for clarity. :)

Bruen
16-06-2005, 18:54
@Bruen I think what he's saying is that it's up to you to make the best out of an (un)official army list like the ZPs. I think it was mentioned already, the fact that it got the unofficial* stamp means that GW does not consider it balanced. It could be seen as a bit of a warning that it's somewhat unfinished.

The list specificaly says that it is official and I bought it on that basis because I know that the people that I play with have problems with unofficial stuff.

Now that I have spent the money GW turns around and makes it unofficial and I am stuck with an army that I can't easily use because GW changed its mind.

I would have no problem at all if the list had not said it was official, I just would not have bought the army. Instead I get cheated out of £100.

If GW considered it unbalanced and thus unofficial then they should not have stated in the article that it was an official list.

I don't have a problem with unofficial lists, I simply don't want to own one.

I take offense that GW lures me into buying the army by stating that it is an official army and then changes their mind a week after I spend the money.

Bruen
16-06-2005, 18:56
We used the list in UK WD 306. We agreed beforehand that we would play to 1000pts. No Lords. We did. It was fun. Great night, in fact. No special characters. Gav and the rest of GW did not pull up in a sqaud car outside my house with blue lights flashing. We were not arrested.

My point ?

Official, unofficial, WD, special context - it's all garbage. Agree on some limitations and play.

I play pickup games at a GW store and club and I also attend GW campaigns.

Your solution does not help me in any of these situations.

I am glad that you have found a way to use the list but it is not applicable to my situation since I do not know who I will be playing until I get there.

Avian
16-06-2005, 18:57
Now that I have spent the money GW turns around and makes it unofficial and I am stuck with an army that I can't easily use because GW changed its mind.
So you're not taking it back after all? :angel:

Bruen
16-06-2005, 19:02
So you're not taking it back after all? :angel:

LOL busted :)

I can't until Saturday because the store manager is away.

I keep posting because I am hoping that Gav will come back and say that GW has changed their mind because I still, even after all of this, think that its a cool army list.

Zeb
16-06-2005, 20:30
If your not playing tournaments, just ask the managers take on it. And if he agrees that you will be able to play with it in the store, just keep it...

I don't think it will be a problem. :D

Bruen
16-06-2005, 20:43
If your not playing tournaments, just ask the managers take on it. And if he agrees that you will be able to play with it in the store, just keep it...

I don't think it will be a problem. :D

Want to bet £100 on it? I dont.

Killgore
16-06-2005, 22:35
Hohoho all this offical this, non-offical that thing is rubbish!

This complies with my theory that growing tourney mentality is ruining this hobby (and it seams it is firmly rooted into certain gaming groups whilst others stil play for fun).

I myself play this game for fun. If I encounter an unusual army I'd fight it for a laugth, I'd love to fight against a zombie pirate army or one of them varient armys just because its differn't, hell I'd even try and trash a steamtank.


in the end it comes down to player mentality. I'd much rather play in a more liberal club then in a strict tourney boot camp club.

Lordmonkey
17-06-2005, 00:03
Personally I find "unoffcial" and "beardy" armies a nice challenge... im a good enough gamer to know how to fight most balanced armies with my own balanced force, so having something a little spicy like the lustria lists is always refreshing. With Storm of Chaos, I know that a lot of people, (even me) at one point decided the the SoC variant lists were either overpowered or just plain wrong, but once players learn how to face them it's not so bad and their inherent, unbalanced weaknesses become more apparent. Such lists arent to be attacked by the GW stamp* o' d00m.. GW isn't, and never will be god.

Warhammer isn't just a complex gemotrical arrangement of markers on a tabletop. It's a game of miniatures, of rich background, of tales of war, ranging from dramatic skirmishes to epic conflicts. The lustria lists are interesting, but I dont really find them to be much more than that - they are filled with background, and are a part of the warhammer worlds history... not much more else. They were (are?) fun to use, just like storm of chaos, but they aren't really "core" at the end of the day, and the tournament environment is no place for them. I think, perhaps, this is the intention of the "official/unofficial" stamp*, but to be frank, a lot of players need to wake up and smell the black powder - the variant lists, the lustria lists, etc, regardless of their respective classifications, are there for vaiety and diversity. Enjoy them and what they have to offer your imagination, but don't, for the love of all that is the hobby, look at them as a way of bearding out. That's just not cricket.

*Stamp, Official/Unofficial stamp is a trademark of Lordmonkey. I don't really know why, but it just is. So ner. Ner, with knobs on.

Zeb
17-06-2005, 02:13
Bruen, in one way I all ready have, a Cult of Slaanesh army is resting on one shelf in my appartment, and since it's not in an armybook per se, it's unofficial according to you...
And I consider myself to be more of a tournament player then I guess you are...

Bingo the Fun Monkey
17-06-2005, 03:47
get one or two mates who think like you do, buy four foam 2x3' boards ($8), spray green ($4), apply glue ($4), apply flock ($10), apply trees/hedges ($12), go to your garden and get some rocks and wash them ($ leaving an insulated environment...*gasp* :D) and you can play however you wish. You can even form a new club without some redshirt trying to get you to buy a shaggoth for your high elves.

Delicious Soy
17-06-2005, 03:57
Wow. I can't believe we overlooked such a brilliant and obvious solution. You should really look into life coaching.

*Detonates sarcosomater*

And what happens if you lack sufficient space, time or opponents? Too bad I guess.

amagi
17-06-2005, 06:45
I've made my case, so I'll just add a few final comments on Gav's replies and close with some insightful suggestions... :D

This is where the term official/ unofficial really doesn't help the matter. Siege is 'unofficial', in that it is obviously not a normal game of Warhammer. Plenty of players play siege though, and don't begrudge owning a castle to use in Siege games.This analogy obscures the issue. Whereas Siege is essentially an entirely different game to standard Warhammer, the army lists are part of the normal system. It's true that official/unofficial is not an important label when talking about alternate rule systems like Siege, skirmish, junglefighting, or a special campaign. But it does have greatly important consequences for the army lists specifically to be official/unofficial/special-context. You simply can't compare the appropriateness of these categories for things like Siege or junglefighting to their appropriateness for army lists.
(And importantly, it's the army lists that overwhelmingly determine which pieces players will buy--we collect armies, and here the official/unofficial/special-context categories have a tremendous influence on many people, for good reason.)
Imagine the Vampire Coast list is simply a really, really long Special character entry.But what would be lost by simply making the character optional? You can still associate the army with the character through theme and background story. Whatever thematic effect you're going for by making these armies into giant Regiments of Renown is retained, but now they're far more appealing and useful for many players.
As soon as you do that, you are expanding on your 'core' lists, since there is no definition other then where they are published.Core would still mean the main lists in the army books. Official variant lists could still be published in a limited number of specially designated supplement books designed to compile official material. Once we move much more toward the goal of non-army book=unofficial, an exception in the form of a major official supplement book is probably okay.
Army list variant is a misnomer – they are an army list, it's just that for space reasons we might sometimes piggyback them onto existing published material. For example, the Zombie Pirates have no duplicate entries with any Undead list, although they do share the rules.Zombie Pirates does have a large amount of original stuff compared to most variant lists (though I still hardly think it's an excessive or hard-to-deal-with amount). Still, they retain most of the broad rules for standard Undead, which makes them a variation on VC. So I wouldn't say it's a misnomer. ZP might be said to be in a different league than most variant lists, but familiarity with VC still helps one to adapt to ZP.

At any rate, the variant lists I have in mind are more like the Southlands or Lustria Lizardmen, or any of the unofficial back-of-book lists. With these it is clearly proper to say they are only variants of the core lists--the changes are relatively minor, but important enough to give a different theme or playing style. It's these kinds of lists I'm arguing GW should make many more of (officially!!!). [But I'm not limiting the possibilities to merely the level of difference in, e.g. Southlands. A bit more variation is still acceptable.]
As long as these types continue to be made, then I'm fine with future Zombie Pirates-like lists finding a home in WD, as unofficial just-for-fun lists (though there'd still be no reason to mandate sp. characters!!).

So here's my suggestion:
This is a way to keep official material largely in the army books while still coming out with an abundant amount of official lists--without creating any problem of complexity for players.
I'm assuming 7th ed. will bring revisions for each army book. I suggest that as each revision is made you include in it a new, fully-official back-of-the-book list, along with whatever tweaks are made to the core lists.
I've already detailed the benefits of releasing new official variant lists (added product value in pieces and more variety for players, and cross-marketing, if that's a real term, for GW), so I'll just add that this system would create an especially strong anticipation for all 7th ed. releases. Many would probably decide to collect whole new armies, whereas they might pass on a mere revision of the old core lists.
An added bonus is that because the new lists would be released one at a time for each book, this system would allow for ample playtesting/design time to make the new lists worthwhile.

As a second, somewhat related suggestion, I think that in regard to the existing core armies, the new revisions should incorporate more of the Chaos-style variation in composition options--i.e. the choice of General affecting what can be taken as core, etc. (Though perhaps not to the same extent as Chaos for each army!)
Note that this effectively creates multiple variant lists in one. Combined with my back-of-book list this would make the new revisions very attractive indeed.
Incidentally, the back-of-book lists would have to be sufficiently distinct to justify their separate existence--to distinguish them from just the difference between, say, a Beast or Mortal General's army. This could be done with one or two semi-new units only available to the back-of-book list (horned ones, ranked skinks) or with a special rule that changes the general playing style (e.g. perhaps the back-of-book list gets a Beastmen-style Ambush rule, but the core list doesn't).
That's it.

I'm glad to have been able to make my concerns clear to the loremaster himself, and I hope I've been of some help.

Briareos
17-06-2005, 09:13
Allow me to try to tackle the problem from another angle.

Instead of giving the axe to already published lists, it might be a better idea to change to whole "official/unofficial" list structure. The army lists could be grouped in three categories :

1. "Official" or "core" armies : may be used at all times, in tournaments, store games, campaigns and such.
2. "Context" or "campaign" armies : may be used during special events (in stores or tournaments) where battles are part of a larger, "historical" happening (Lustria, Storms of Chaos, Bretonnian crusade).
3. "Warband" armies : may be used in friendly games. This would be where "fluffy", but not necessarily balanced lists would fit in.

An army of categorie (1) could be used for type (1), (2) or (3) battles, a category (2) army for type (2) or (3) events, and a category (3) army for (3) events.
Explicit consent of the game's organizers/opponents would be required in all other cases.

A simple one-page add-on published in White Dwarf, on the Games Workshop websites, and faxed or mailed to the Games Workshop stores should be enough for the new classification to reach the masses.

What applies to army lists could be extended to rules (jungle combat) or generals (Valten).

Keep the diversity, but order it a bit more than it currently is by using a simple and tight classification system.

This suggestion of course presumes that a decision hasn't yet been reached by the Games Workshop management regarding production schedules, and that the Development Studio isn't just scrambling for explanations to provide to their customers :angel:

Bruen
17-06-2005, 10:23
Instead of giving the axe to already published lists, it might be a better idea to change to whole "official/unofficial" list structure.

Its a very good idea but I thought that we already had this.

Tournament legal - use everywhere
Official - Use everywhere except tournaments
Opponents permission - Use sometimes if your opponent is feeling nice
Unofficial - Use amongst friends just for a laugh

Most publications already state which of these categories each thing applies to.

Briareos
17-06-2005, 10:36
The existing categories are, to me, not simple enough. For example, one could argue that all lists published by GW are "official". Similarly, your opponent's permission is always required if you wish to play against him/her - whatever type of army you may be playing.

Wording is important. So is the definition of the army list categories - something that I knew about and which you recapped nicely but I never saw in print in a GW publication.

If categories are not clearly defined and easy to understand for new-comers, I feel they need to be redone. And I feel that path is easier to travel then what M. Thorpe is proposing.

Of course, I also agree with Amagi that GW needs to work _hard_ on the way they handle their publications - which are the backbone of their products (and yes, that also means getting the fluff right).

thecuckoo
17-06-2005, 11:03
Can I ask if this an age thing ?

I just don't see this kind of issue with the people I play with - but we are mostly male 30-somethings. I say mostly cos the wife is a Dwarf player - you know the type, short-arsed with an attitude problem... and she never, ever, forgets.

Are you lot just hyper-competative youngsters ?

Bruen
17-06-2005, 11:17
Can I ask if this an age thing ?

I just don't see this kind of issue with the people I play with - but we are mostly male 30-somethings. I say mostly cos the wife is a Dwarf player - you know the type, short-arsed with an attitude problem... and she never, ever, forgets.

Are you lot just hyper-competative youngsters ?

Good point. Well I'm 30 but the people that I play with are aged between about 14 and 35. I do tend to have more "thats not tournament legal so I won't play it" problems with the younger people.

Bruen
17-06-2005, 11:52
The existing categories are, to me, not simple enough. For example, one could argue that all lists published by GW are "official". Similarly, your opponent's permission is always required if you wish to play against him/her - whatever type of army you may be playing.

I agree that it would be nice to see the categories and meanings explicitly stated, I just feel that having only two categories is too restrictive.

If we are going to have only "official" and "unofficial" then the only things that can go in the "official" category are tournament legal things because you loose the "tournament legal" category that we use at the moment.

Everything else becomes "unofficial", and while this helps the tournament crowd it makes things worse for the rest of us by slamming all of the existing categories together.

I think that if this happened it would only make the current "I won't play it unless its tournament legal" problem worse.

WLBjork
17-06-2005, 17:17
After reading Gav's post, I have come to the conclusion that the intention is that anything in the Rule, Army or Campaign Books are official, and anything other than FaQs and Erratta in White Dwarfs or Online are unofficial.

I have no problem with this. Not every player buys WD, nor does every player have access to the Internet. No one should be forced to either buy WD or be online to keep up-to-date with every army.

As for certain army lists requiring special characters, it is not really any different to putting a paragraph into the Character Rules stating that an army lead by this character does not follow the normal rules, but is instead chosen from the following list.

Bruen
17-06-2005, 17:37
After reading Gav's post, I have come to the conclusion that the intention is that anything in the Rule, Army or Campaign Books are official, and anything other than FaQs and Erratta in White Dwarfs or Online are unofficial.

Why do you think that campaign books will remain official?

Bruen
18-06-2005, 12:11
Bye bye zombie pirates, they have been refunded.

Since this ends my interest in ZP and WFB I'm signing off, hope you geys get your concerns addressed.

Sylass
18-06-2005, 16:34
Sorry to hear that you gave back the Zombies...I'm still undecided what to do as my next army. I converted 9 Zombie Pirates from my bitzbox already and I'm very tempted. Just not sure if the list isn't too restricted (special character & especially the tactically limited playing style) for me...



Well, I had another thought about this, especially about the "how difficult/more work would it have been to add a generic vampire instead/on top of the Luthor Harkon one" argument in connection to the quote Auzu provided (the one about that they'll probably add more stuff to the list in the future).

Obviously it would not be difficult to add this option, but what if it was their intention to test another low magic variant of an Undead army? There were a lot of complaints about how the VC army works, especially about how skeletons and zombies are summoned.

The VC army has next to now restrictions when it comes to summoning corpses, you can add to existing units and you can rise completely new ones. With the introduction of the TK army, they added the restriction that only existing units could be targeted for the summoning.

With the release of the SoC campaign and the Army of Sylvania, there was another variant of summoning/casting introduced: Grave Markers & the removal of spellcasters except of the Vampire General (at least in games up to 2999 points).

Now, together with the Lustria campaign, we got a list that can't summon new troops at all & lacks a magic phase alltogether (exception would be a character with the Slann Gold magic item).

After thinking about this pattern, the complaints about the VC army, the quote Auzu mentioned, a possible redoing of the VC army for a future edition and a possible connection of all this, I think I found a possible reason why the developing team don't want to have the option of a generic Vampire right now: Testing of different ways how the magic phase in Undead armies work.


<insert X-Files music here>


No idea if this is the case or not, maybe I was just sitting in the sun too long today...


*edit*
spelling, typos, clarity

Bruen
18-06-2005, 16:47
So sort of like low-fang VC with added cannon goodness?

Its plausable, and I hope that its true. If it happens I might come back to ZP as a theme army, for some reason I just don't like magic.

Avian
18-06-2005, 17:16
Its a very good idea but I thought that we already had this.

Tournament legal - use everywhere
The tournament organizer decides what is allowed at any tournie they organize. Official labels by GW don't matter much in this case.

Bruen
18-06-2005, 17:22
The tournament organizer decides what is allowed at any tournie they organize. Official labels by GW don't matter much in this case.

Technicaly true, but have you noticed that all the major tournaments seem to spontaneously decide on the same set of rules?

Certainly every tournament that I have ever been to uses the same rules as GW official tournaments.

I am sure that if GW changed the rules for its own tournaments you would soon see most of the independants do the same thing.

Avian
18-06-2005, 17:32
Technicaly true, but have you noticed that all the major tournaments seem to spontaneously decide on the same set of rules?
Well, no, frankly I haven't. Not what I'd call the "same" set of rules, no. Dunno about the situation where you live, though.


In any case it's pointless to have "official" and then "even more official".

Bruen
18-06-2005, 17:58
In any case it's pointless to have "official" and then "even more official".

I can't see how it can be avoided if you are not going to reduce 90% of the current material to second-class status.

You are always going to have several levels of "officialness".

Tournaments are always going to be stricter than pickup play with will always be stricter than stuff that you play around with at home.

For a start any model goes at home, while any GW model goes at a GW store but only 3-colour based GW models are acceptable at tournaments. Its like this with practicaly everything.

Then there is stuff like siege and lustria which GW will probably want to be "official" while they are still promoting it and then want it to drop to "unofficial". Thats going to go down a treat with those players.

What we really need is for GW to explicitly state these rules, and I agree with Gav on this. However I feel that just having two states (official and unofficial) is too blunt an instrument.

For a start where do GW stores stand? If they follow GWs new classifications then either they allow only official stuff and thus are enforcing tournament rules (I can't see GW stores banning unofficial stuff from new GW campaign books while they are trying to sell those same books) or they allow anything (can't see this option happening). The moment you make a third category for stores you are back where we are now.

I just can't see how GW could ever bring the current tournament and store categories together into one.

If they had decided on a 3-level system then I could see it working.

Avian
18-06-2005, 22:39
Well, yes and no. There are a lot of things that people will use in friendly games only with their opponent's consent, and that includes pretty much everything except the basic army lists in your army book (minus Special characters). Anything beyond that is not something you'd spring on your opponent without warning (at least not with any great level of success, or so it seems to me).

At a tournament this approach really doesn't work, so the tournament organizer must list which additions to the army list are going to be used. The two extremes of this are 1) only the main list of each army book can be used, and 2) everything laveled as 'official' goes.

Then there are a lot of variations opun this theme. For example, some scandinavian tournaments allow Dwarf Mountain Rangers, even though they aren't official at all and certainly not something you'd bring to battle without informing your opponent.

So I myself cannot see how a "tournament legal" category could be of any interest.


EDIT: Just to recap, I see the gaming material divided into two categories: stuff you'd have no hesitation to use in any game (for most people this is not neccesarily the things with the "official" stamp on them), and the rest. Tournament organizers would then have to make a pick out of those two categories.

lorelorn
19-06-2005, 01:54
I would sugges that the range of army books (inluding Wood Elves) makes up far more than 10% of what is being played in Warhammer. Army books are not going to suddenly become "less official".

If you want to play a list from White Dwarf go ahead. Just don't be surprised if it's not viewed on the same level as an army book. I don't think this is rocket sicnece here, or anything different form how Warhammer has 'always' been played. Main lists from books, plus a few variants here and there.

I would further suggest that if you turn up to a GW store with an army with the correct figures and rules, they will let you play with it. Assuming said rules are current, so no turning up with your old 5th edition Vampire Counts list(!)

As for two levels of army lists- isn't that obvious? I mean, what GW game has a set of army books, and a set of White Dwarf lists that must use special characters, that sit at the same level. What game? Ever?

What I don't undersatand is why you feel GW have committed some sort of crime against you. They printed a list. You bought some figures. Now you're all upset because someone pointed out that a one-off list is not the same as an army book.

Yeah, put 'em away for life

:rolleyes:

Bruen
19-06-2005, 06:42
I'm not upset at all now, taking them back for a refund fixed that, but what I was complaining about was that the list says it was official and then a week after I buy the models GW announce that they are going to make it unofficial. If it had been unofficial all along I would never have bought it.

Its like seeing an advert for a cell phone but after you buy it the network tells you that the tariff and features in the ad that you signed up for will cost twice as much as the advert said.

If both the list in the army book and the list in WD state that they are official lists why should they be different? If they are what is the purpose of labelling them both official?

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the categories thing. IMHO there are 3 natural groupings (tournament, official and unofficial) rather than 2 (official and unofficial).

I wasn't aware that there was that much variation in tournament rulkes, in my experience most tournaments use the GT rules.

rune
19-06-2005, 15:02
Yeah, I'd wanna build a zombie pirates army as well but .. you must admit that being able to bring core zombies w/handguns that hit on a roll of a 6 is crazy. Whats more crazy is the deck gunners & carronade being a special selection. Str6 handgun w/36" range for 10pts? A move and fire cannon with str7 and 36" range for 70pts in a special choice?

So you see, one could create a zombie pirate army that will OBLITERATE anyone in shooting by sheer number of gunpowder equipped models. Some cheesemeisters would take this list and abuse it, make a cheesy army with a bizillion deck gunners & carronades. Then again, a fair and good player may take the list and build a perfectly fine list that doesnt go overboard at all and is great to play and to look at. These guys should be able to field these armies in that case, but do they really belong at a tournament, where the cheese can be unleashed unfairly? Most certainly not. But if you make your variant list FAIR .. your friends and others will gladly play against it time & time again, despite it being 'unofficial' for tourney use. Isn't this what the point or goal is anyway, to play games at will with a variant list? Just dont scare off the competition with the Gorgonzola. :D

Bruen
19-06-2005, 19:27
Yeah, I'd wanna build a zombie pirates army as well but .. you must admit that being able to bring core zombies w/handguns that hit on a roll of a 6 is crazy. Whats more crazy is the deck gunners & carronade being a special selection. Str6 handgun w/36" range for 10pts? A move and fire cannon with str7 and 36" range for 70pts in a special choice?

So you see, one could create a zombie pirate army that will OBLITERATE anyone in shooting by sheer number of gunpowder equipped models. Some cheesemeisters would take this list and abuse it, make a cheesy army with a bizillion deck gunners & carronades.

How is that more of a problem just because the list is in WD?

Lists from army books suffer from potential cheese just as badly.

Lady Bastet
19-06-2005, 21:26
Yeah, I'd wanna build a zombie pirates army as well but .. you must admit that being able to bring core zombies w/handguns that hit on a roll of a 6 is crazy. Whats more crazy is the deck gunners & carronade being a special selection. Str6 handgun w/36" range for 10pts? A move and fire cannon with str7 and 36" range for 70pts in a special choice?

So you see, one could create a zombie pirate army that will OBLITERATE anyone in shooting by sheer number of gunpowder equipped models. Some cheesemeisters would take this list and abuse it, make a cheesy army with a bizillion deck gunners & carronades. Then again, a fair and good player may take the list and build a perfectly fine list that doesnt go overboard at all and is great to play and to look at. These guys should be able to field these armies in that case, but do they really belong at a tournament, where the cheese can be unleashed unfairly? Most certainly not. But if you make your variant list FAIR .. your friends and others will gladly play against it time & time again, despite it being 'unofficial' for tourney use. Isn't this what the point or goal is anyway, to play games at will with a variant list? Just dont scare off the competition with the Gorgonzola. :D

What? have you really read the whole list? shooting themselves on a roll of 1? That army is as likely to "OBLITERATE" itself as it is the enemy.

Now if the army had Necromancers to replenish the units after these self harming shooting phases then I may just agree with you.

I mean really that is like saying “poison is so cheesy because you could roll a 6 to hit with all your dice”

Quite frankly the Bloated Corpse is the closest the army comes to broken.

GavT
21-06-2005, 08:38
I'm not upset at all now, taking them back for a refund fixed that, but what I was complaining about was that the list says it was official and then a week after I buy the models GW announce that they are going to make it unofficial. If it had been unofficial all along I would never have bought it.


Please point out to me exactly how we have changed the way you could have used the army? All of the rules for using the army are in the article, and I certainly knowe there hasn't been seen a single correction or errata concerning it.

GAV

amagi
21-06-2005, 08:55
We've been over this with Bruen many times over now.
I believe he's reacting to your statement that "going forward" you'd "eventually" like to "hopefully end up" in a place where White Dwarf material is unofficial. (A good plan. See post # 179, page 18 for my suggestions about future ZP-like lists. :D ;) )

I'd say that's clearly a long term prediction for some vague point in the future which has little relevance to the Zombie Pirates. I suppose that in light of this plan, however, ZP might someday become unofficial, years from now, but I don't see that as much of a problem (since they're already restricted to a kind of special-context pseudo-official limbo :)). I think Bruen is just expecting that to happen in the near future.
Correct me if I'm wrong Bruen.

thecuckoo
21-06-2005, 09:10
Slightly OT, but...


and I certainly knowe there hasn't been seen a single correction or errata concerning it.

Does anyone know what was published in the US WD 306 (?) regarding the ZP. It seems *something* has. Just wondered if it was a carification/update/whatever.

Any ideas, anyone ?

lorelorn
21-06-2005, 09:13
I'm not upset at all now, taking them back for a refund fixed that, but what I was complaining about was that the list says it was official and then a week after I buy the models GW announce that they are going to make it unofficial. If it had been unofficial all along I would never have bought it.

I wasn't aware that there was that much variation in tournament rulkes, in my experience most tournaments use the GT rules.

I'm with Gav in that I have no idea how a comment on an internet forum by a GW staff member changes the way you could use your army.

On tournaments, I can only guess you have not attended one, GW or otherwise. GW tournaments rules change year on year. There is no such thing as "GW tournament rules". At least not in the way you seem to think. They change from year to year and from event to event. Back of book armies have been in and out (mostly out) ditto Dark Elf City Guard, special characters, and more. Composition requirements are yet another ever-changing aspect.

Non-GW tournaments use their own rules, which tend to be unique to the organisers. They might be broadly similar, in that I've never seen a published army book not be allowed, but smaller lists tend to be at the mercy of the organiser. I would have thought this common knowledge to Warhammer players?

Bruen
21-06-2005, 10:12
Please point out to me exactly how we have changed the way you could have used the army? All of the rules for using the army are in the article, and I certainly knowe there hasn't been seen a single correction or errata concerning it.
GAV

As others have said we have been over this a number of times.

I mostly play pickup games with people who often refuse to play against unofficial armies or rules. I feel that their position is unreasonable but there is nothing that I can do about it.

Once you make ZP "'Unofficial', we think it's great, but not for pick-up-and-play games without warning", as you have said that you intend, many of the people that I play with will refuse to play against ZP thus making the army undesirable to me.

I would have lost on two counts:

1) cannot gain their consent in advance because I never know who I will be playing from week to week.

2) Even if I could ask their consent in advance many would refuse on the basis that it is not an official army.

With both of these factors in play I feel that I will have a hard time getting a game for a ZP army.

The suggestions that "this is not a problem because we have not put this plan into action yet" is not a source of comfort because I view wargaming and creation of armies as a long term project.

I would not expect to fininsh painting and converting the army for a year or two and would expect to still be playing it in some form (and I don't mean as a VC army) for a couple of years after that. Thus the fact this is your long term aim is very much a concern for me even if you have not yet put it into action.

My average spend on an army is around £400 so I just count myself lucky that I happened to see your post before I opened any of the ZP packs.

I'm not totaly knocking you or GW on this BTW, I still think that it was an awesome idea for an army and I really appreciate you posting your future plans so that I could make informed choices about purchases. Plus having a decent returns policy. Its just a shame that what I feel to be a bad choice on your part makes this army undesirable to me.

I think I have stated my point several times now, I'm going to stop replying (for real this time :P ). Hope it all works out.

lorelorn
22-06-2005, 10:03
I think your main problem here is your conception that there is a set of 'official - play anywhere' Warhammer armies.

There isn't.

There never has been.


You could have an army built from a published army book, legal for that book, and be unable to play that list in a Tournament. This is nothing new.

You could turn up to a casual game, sight unseen, and have your opponent refuse to play becasue of what is in your army. Again, this is nothing new.

Neither of those situations is rare or unique or new to the game. Games Workshop are in now way able to say "these rules are official. You may play this army anywhere, at anytime, against anyone you wish." They never have been, and they never will be. Warhammer is just not that type of game.

If you think that playing an army from an army book is the only way to ensure you are not rejected from casual games and tournaments, you are in for more disappointment. And that comes from your not understanding a few truths about Warhammer.

Kalanic
21-07-2005, 06:52
Sure you couldn't take them all to tournaments but I don't go to tournamets so that doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is pickup games in store.

The problem with this new position is that these lists will now be in the same position as DIY special characters and special scenarios that you make up to play with your friends and Forgeworld beasties - they will effectivly be banished to playing at home only. Its just going to be impossible to get a pickup game with any of these armies because they are "not tournament legal".

Well its certainly like that where I play, basicaly if its not tournament legal then it might as well not exist.

Wow, I find this really sad. It seems to me that folks are really reacting strongly to Gav's post instead of just trying to communicate with each other a little. More often than not, players know the other players they are playing with, so why not communicate with them about what army you have/are going to be bringing and go from there. I find it sad that people in any given area are so closed minded or tournament oriented that they'd just throw out the window interesting lists such as those found in the Lustria book. Yes, those lists require the use of special characters as listed in the book. Does that preclude just talking with your opponent and "ok-ing" a lord choice other than the special characters? Once this has been done a couple times, folks get to know what you have and it's no longer "well I'm letting him use this special army without a lord so no wonder he wins" and becomes "yeah, that's John Doe, he's plays Bubonic Plague Skaven." Just communicate people!!! I know we're supposed to reclusive gamer nerds, but I'm sure we can collectively dredge up some modicum of social skills!

feintstar
21-07-2005, 12:20
That's not the problem. The problem is that we can't go around spending cr@ploads of Cash and time on a list that will only be usable in limited situations. While any gaming Group will be theoretically fine with this flexibility, no individual player will willingly put themselves in this situation, thus making unofficial/semiofficial lists worth less than the paper they're printed on.

I'm not sure if this has been said before, but What I don't understand is the simple fact that 40K has an almost imbecilic abundance of official variant lists, and no-one has any problem with that! This isn't an Issue in 40K! Why doesn't Gav take a leaf from Andy Chambers?!!

Bruen
21-07-2005, 12:35
More often than not, players know the other players they are playing with, so why not communicate with them about what army you have/are going to be bringing and go from there.

Because I play pickup games in GW stores and never know from week to week who I will be playing.


Does that preclude just talking with your opponent and "ok-ing" a lord choice other than the special characters?

Its not possible for me to agree in advance and since I don't want to carry two armies with me I need to make sure that the one I do take I will always be able to use. If I turn up with an unofficial list and my opponent says no what do I do for the rest of the evening? My evening would effectivly be wasted.

I know that if I take an official list I will always be able to get a game and if I take an unofficial list I will sometimes be refused so if I am going to invest hundreds of pounds and hours in an army then it has to be official.


Just communicate people!!! I know we're supposed to reclusive gamer nerds, but I'm sure we can collectively dredge up some modicum of social skills!

That works fine if you play with a small group of gaming buddies, but if you usually play random_stranger_347 its just not possuible.

Falcon
22-07-2005, 17:13
I have to say, there seems to be a lot of people that get's a real kick out of criticizing GW. Sometimes someone threatens leaving. (I do not know if they ever do, either because they change their minds, or because they are not hear to tell us that they now finally left.)


Here's my take:

1. Warhammer is a GREAT game. It has been a great joy and passion for me for longer than nearly any other thing that caught my fancy (excluding my wife of course, even though she often disagrees. :angel: )

2. I admire people who are probably highly intelligent and capable, spending time and effort to keep the game interesting when they could well be spending their creative effort somewhere else. Shure, they are making money out of it, but people are making money out of worse things and I do not begrudge a capable person making a decent income. In fact, I have a susspicion they are definately not making as much as they could.

3. I can imagine how difficult it is to create a balanced new army list. I have seen what happens if GW fails either way. I still haven't decided the lesser evil of a too strong or too weak release. On the one hand you want solid and balanced army lists. On the other hand you need to try fun things and keep it exciting. I can see how you release lists which is fun, but perhaps not completely official.

What would be nice is if those concepts that work well could be remodeled to be official.

4. All and all Warhammer should be a fun game. It's not about who wins and who loses, it is about the process. It's unfortunate if a player conciders 'fun' to be if you catch you opponent with a fad, loophole or obscure and unknown rule or modification, to beat the living daylights out of him. I do not think win ratio is a measure of success. This is a social game. The measure of success should be how many people would like to play against you or see you play.

Enough ranting and raving. I do not know if any GW ppl are still lurking around or if they have all moved on, but here goes:

"Thanks guys for a great game, thanks for dedication, effort and sacrifice, thanks for doing it probably for the love of the game. I'm having fun and enjoying it, and I hope, so are your!"

Kalanic
22-07-2005, 20:23
4. All and all Warhammer should be a fun game. It's not about who wins and who loses, it is about the process. It's unfortunate if a player conciders 'fun' to be if you catch you opponent with a fad, loophole or obscure and unknown rule or modification, to beat the living daylights out of him. I do not think win ratio is a measure of success. This is a social game. The measure of success should be how many people would like to play against you or see you play.



Totally agree. I usually have a blast playing regardless of the outcome. Opponent sportsmanship/attitude always helps as well. (Especially when I'm getting pounded :P)

Falcon
23-07-2005, 06:04
I forgot to give the flip side about being a fun player, so for completeness: If someone pitches at a friendly game with a fun and colourfull army he's keen to try, let him! Don't be a stick in the mud. Enjoy it with him. If you lose, its OK. If you can honestly say it's because the army's really unballanced, you may mention it, or not :-)