PDA

View Full Version : Would you buy 40k: Tournament edition



Fixer
25-11-2009, 13:00
We've had a lot of discussion on Warseer about the state of codex/rules updates from GW of late.

Though in general GW's balance has been improving in 40K (and we don't have a fantasy style trinity of power armies) there are a few glaring issues in balance that could easilly be fixed by a little errata, rules changes or simple points cost changed.

Back in 3rd edition we did get a few of these things fixed in Andy Chamber's chapter approved. Terminators were a forgotten remnant of 2nd edition there to be cut down by plasmaguns and power swords until they were granted an invulnerable save.

However the new 5th edition mindset is that the 'rules are sturdy enough on their own' and that there are no changes to be made. Along with the extremely slow codex release rate has lead to huge swathes of model selections, army types and even entire factions becoming effectively obsolete and never seen again.

This is due to GW's current vision for Warhammer 40,000. It's seen as a hobby game for friendly matches and not one for serious competetive play. The ideas is that a few friends can pick up a few models, a rulebook and a codex and play their favourite army against each other. However 40K is played competetively and in tournaments as well and while perhaps the majority of young players may be happy with the current setup, for the more mature or veteran players this product strategy is a huge drawback.

So what could be done? GW don't seem to be in any rush to break their current plan which serves perhaps the core of their market but certainly there is something to be said for the mature player base?

What I suggest is a tournament edition book. A living rulebook available to subscribers (perhaps for a one-off fee) with rules for all army lists with the fluff and painting sections stripped. This way balance issues could be addressed, currently worthless units could be buffed to internal parity in their army lists and every codex could be viable.

Just throw in the caveat that the tournament edition is for competetive play, not the definitive version and the normal codecii are fine for friendly play and you're good to go.

Would it work and would you be interested in buying it?

Chaos and Evil
25-11-2009, 13:03
Not unless the entire rule system was re-written from scratch so that it became a tournament-appropriate game.

Just applying some stat and points cost nudges don't go very far down the road towards making Warhammer 40,000 tactically complex enough to be fun when played in a competative style.

Vaktathi
25-11-2009, 13:04
Perhaps, if kept reasonably up to date and was something that actually addressed issues and wasn't just an ad for the next event in some place I'm not going to be.

In an ideal world I'd say yes, however GW's hobby publications have been less than inspiring to me of late. We've gone 5 years without a Chapter Approved, with designers refusing to fix codex errors or plainly fuzzy wording in FAQ's (which, while a little better with the IG book, leave a whole lot to be desired still).

Tymell
25-11-2009, 13:06
I voted yes, but I wouldn't pay for it.

I'm firmly a "friendly" gamer, in fact I've more of a collector than a gamer really, but I never bother with tournaments or competitive games.

However, I realise some people do, and get a lot out of that. I'd be in favour of a "tournament edition" if it was in addition to the "normal" game edition. If that was available as an alternative it might help distinguish, but I certainly wouldn't want 40K as a whole abandoning the casual side in favour of tournament play.

leonmallett
25-11-2009, 13:07
No. The poll imbalance aside (three to one - yes vs. no - is an inherent bias and slanting and therefore makes the poll pretty worthless), I still say no.

They need to get the game right, to have one version that works, not diversifying their focus to hodge podge the rules further over multiple concurrent iterations.

IAMNOTHERE
25-11-2009, 13:11
I voted yes, if they published a tournament edition of the rules then naturally it sohould have a much tighter written rule set.

That tighter rules set would help streamline play by answering all the questions constantly asked.

It would defacto become the game most people played.

Fixer
25-11-2009, 13:12
No. The poll imbalance aside (three to one - yes vs. no - is an inherent bias and slanting and therefore makes the poll pretty worthless), I still say no.


I would have added 'no, they should just fix the current rules' had I thought of that option at the time :)

Count de Monet
25-11-2009, 13:23
This is due to GW's current vision for Warhammer 40,000. It's seen as a hobby game for friendly matches and not one for serious competetive play. The ideas is that a few friends can pick up a few models, a rulebook and a codex and play their favourite army against each other. However 40K is played competetively and in tournaments as well and while perhaps the majority of young players may be happy with the current setup, for the more mature or veteran players this product strategy is a huge drawback.

I don't agree with the premise. A set of rules should be clear, regardless of whether it's being played for "friendly" vs. "serious" games. In a game played just for fun, unclear rules slow things down unnecessarily, remove you from the moment and make it less fun. I don't see how unclear rules/inferior product are somehow OK just because you're doing a friendly game.

leonmallett
25-11-2009, 13:27
I would have added 'no, they should just fix the current rules' had I thought of that option at the time :)

It is more a case of balancing the poll with 'no' answers that are comparitive to the 'yes' responses, so three no answers would have been better. I know it isn't scientific or anything, but a biased poll isn't likely to yield great data. ;)

I Likert scale may have been better...

MVBrandt
25-11-2009, 13:44
You're not going to make a game dependent on the variable of dice rolls truly tournament worthy, b/c there's always a luck factor involved. That alone, plus the very open ended nature of the game, allow officer moronis internet-wide to constantly "explain away" the tournament accomplishments of anyone; plus, most tourneys involve a subjective sportsmanship aspect, and many tack on theme/comp, and painting'/etc. to the total score.

The game is actually incredibly well balanced if you take 5th edition as it is now, change kill points to victory points, and break missions 1 and 2 with victory points if a draw occurs.

I've run a 40k league for a while with those factors, and have a huge data range of games to support this at the 2,000 point level, including two tournaments, where even armies like daemonhunters are able to be competitive.

I hear a lot of shallowbrain carping on the competitive nature of 40k and whether it can be a competitive game, and I can't help but scoff at it. Other than the fact that people in desperate need of an ego boost aren't going to find it in a game system that is open enough to allow others to always "blame" success on other factors, it's perfectly "fine." This isn't a sport, after all ... it doesn't need to be perfect, and you're not going to make it perfect anyway.

leonmallett
25-11-2009, 13:45
I don't agree with the premise. A set of rules should be clear, regardless of whether it's being played for "friendly" vs. "serious" games. In a game played just for fun, unclear rules slow things down unnecessarily, remove you from the moment and make it less fun. I don't see how unclear rules/inferior product are somehow OK just because you're doing a friendly game.

Really well put. The problem is not in creating an axis of two (or more) versions of what should be the same game (and the expansions are not analogous in this case), but in getting the core ruleset and attendent mechanics 'right'.

Since we won't ever see a shift again akin to first to second, or second to third editions again (or at least it is incredibly unlikley), then we are stuck with GW stumbling forwards and making tweaks along the way. They are never going to be able to produce a set of rules able to satisfy everyone, simply since every potential WH40K gamer has a different set of experiences, preferences and desires from the game.

MVBrandt
25-11-2009, 13:49
An important sidenote is glanced there.

If the game is balanced as well as the developers can make it for tournament level play, it pays dividends REGARDLESS for the "fun and friendly" crowd. Nothing about the casual gamer's experience will be harmed by a balanced game ... in fact, it will probably be enhanced. So, yeah ... "srsly" ... two separate editions is an absurd notion.

I will reiterate, however, that the game with some tweaks to missions is actually incredibly well balanced. Happy to Vassal anyone who thinks otherwise ... pick any codex vs. codex.

Fixer
25-11-2009, 14:18
Ideally GW would fix their current rules. It doesn't seem compatable with their current Codex release structure though.

GW has rarely reprinted army books with updates. From memory the only changes to books have been minor Changes for 3.5 Chaos (Obliterator toughness from 5 to 4(5)) Codex Armageddon (Minor points cost changes) and Dark Eldar (basically applying the Chapter Approved updates to the book).

GW could release quite easilly for example a Chaos 5.1 Codex which has the bulk of their current rules updated with a few points fixes, upgrades to substandard squads, wargear additions and Lash of Submission being nerfed to something sensible. They don't seem interested in doing this though because their codex release is tied in with their miniatures released.

SPYDER68
25-11-2009, 14:26
We dont need a tourney Edition..

We just need a better GW FaQ to be as expanded and as good as the Adepticon INAT FaQ.

Lotoc_Sabbath
25-11-2009, 14:35
Would it work and would you be interested in buying it?

Yes, but it would harm the friendly aspect of the game.

No. 40K doesn't need a different edition.


I could respond both of these.
surely 40k doesn't need a new edition, 5th edition is great and made for the tournaments too. I really have no problem for these rules and I hope that they will never change the base to this rules.

Anyway as a necron player I say the problem of 40k isn't the rulebook but some army's codex (ahem..necorns, DE...)once solved that problem I think 40k would become a perfect game because the rules would be fantastic and codexs would work with them.

So if a tournament book was done to adjust some of the current problems I'd get it punt not paying for it and I'd use it just for a temporary fix of some rules, so when rules would become complete and right I'd go for them.

So, yea, a temporary adjust to rules for now would be great.

DeeKay
25-11-2009, 14:38
As a friend of mine put it, 40k mixes its abstractions too much for its own good. Now abstractions are good, it allows a game to be playable without being overly complex or boring. However, they seem to have included some counter intuitive stuff that messes the game up something chronic.

For example. The game uses true line of sight rules and area terrain. When you look closely, these two concepts are at an impasse, because a model can claim a cover save for being in a crater, even if that same crater only covers the models ankles. GW would need to fix things like this in order to make 40k tourney material.

The fact that combat armies seem to hide a power fist in any squad expected to see combat tells me that there is also something that really isn't working with regards to how combat is fought, with basic plebs essentially reduced to ablative armour for the squad leader. However, if a person were simply allowed to pick off the guy with said power fist, there would be a (supposedly) large squad with little to no hope of damaging whatever picked him off in the first place.

I'm also not too sure what to make of the fact that I have seen armies go completely mechanised, from mainly infantry affairs. Realistic, maybe. A ploy to sell APC kits, more than likely.

In summary I think that the idea of 40k tournament would be for players already familiar with the standard 40k and want a more involved game rather than pelting the table with tons of dice. If they could do that (to a certain extent they did in 2nd Ed) then I think |I would buy into that. As it stands, I simply don't have fun playing 40k 5th Ed. A shame now I think about it.

With regards,
Dan.

Askari
25-11-2009, 14:39
I disagree with the thought it's more mature and veteran players who want a "Tournament Edition". Having played for 10 years I care as little for tournaments as I did to begin with. :p

That said I'd like the core rules to be perfectly clear and "tournament worthy" so to say, but the Codexes are fine, I like using substandard units as they can be quite interesting to use, if all units were balanced then you wouldn't see slightly quirky units like Lictors, who are only useful in specific scenarios. Instead they'd be a little more bland as their abilities have to be on par with all other armies for tournament play.

Bunnahabhain
25-11-2009, 14:50
No, fix the main rules.

That inherently creates a set of rules better suited to tournament play, and improves the game generally. Would also increase sales.

Typical club conversation where I usually play...
"You playing 40k this evening? Why?"

I'd like the answer to be

"You got an army in storage? Bring it in next week, and I'll show you. They've rejigged the rules, they're really intuitive now, not the mess they were before."

rather than "Because my opponents for X and Y are all away or busy with Z game over by the bar."

Giganthrax
25-11-2009, 14:53
The best option would be for GW to just abandon the whole codex thing, and start publishing free .pdf codexes on the internet on a yearly basis.

This way they could keep their rules updated, and could use tournament data to see what should and what shouldn't be buffed/nerfed. Of course, GW isn't going to do this because they earn money from selling those codexes, but nevertheless it'd be very nice.




That being said, I think that, apart from a few older codexes (necrons, DE, tau, and inquisition, primarily) the game is very well balanced.





BTW, someone mentioned that a game with dice can never be tournament-worthy because someone on teh interwebz can renounce it as "just luck" or some such. This is bullcrap, because there are perfectly legit tournament games that rely on chance. Magic the Gathering and Poker are great examples.

As for people who go around the internet saying prolific players and tournament winners are "just lucky" or w/e, who cares? People do that for every game. Even for games such as Starcraft, Street Fighter, Warcraft 3, Counter-Strike, etc. that have virtually no luck factor whatsoever. It's just jealous people who vent their rage on teh intrawebz, where they can say whatever they want without being really called out for it.

forbin
25-11-2009, 14:54
if the 5th was a good instead of mediocrity personified then you wouldn't need a "tourney " edition . IMHO GW are giving up on 40K and pushing apocalypse.

5th ed is definite the "artillery " edition from what little play testing I did before ebaying it.

I suspect you'll get more people supporting the 5th on Warseer because anyone who didn't like 5th have most likely moved on now.....

Forbin

Fixer
25-11-2009, 14:57
I'm also not too sure what to make of the fact that I have seen armies go completely mechanised, from mainly infantry affairs. Realistic, maybe. A ploy to sell APC kits, more than likely.

I don't think the 'Sell more APCs' part was in any way intentional.
They had just brought out an awesome new Drop pod model and at the same time released a whole bunch of rules changes and metagame that made them obsolete ;)

Drop pods were great when you could take twin special weapons on reg marine squads, you could drop the entire army 2nd turn so you always got the opening shot and Rhinos were death traps.

Now Rhinos are the bunkers that you have to hide in to avoid charges and instantdeath psychic combos like Oblits + Lash which make tactical marines worhtless without them. My 4th edition tournament Salamanders drop pod army went from raining space marine plasma and flamer death upon the enemy to half dropping down while the enemy was in reserve, getting shot to hell or murdered, making slaaneshi inspired group hugs in front of plasma cannon firing lines or mildly annoying huge 30 strong Ork mobs with bolter fire before dying in a pathetic blaze of non-glory.

I'm figuring that the Drop pods probably still sell a handful for the odd Vanguard or Dread but now in 5th edition they've no-where near hit their old plant-pot popularity and have likely undersold GW's expectations. Might pick up now with the Space Wolves as their Grey Hunters are very viable for Drop podding.

I'm a great believer that variety is part of what makes 40K great. There's literally hundreds of differently themed lists you can make. However balance issues, obsoletion and outdated codecii reduce the number of viable units and thus many of the types of list you can expect to face.

SPYDER68
25-11-2009, 14:58
I find people who play 4th over 5th amusing.

The changes are so small, and the few changes they did add make the game so much better then in was..

Alot of people didnt give it a good chance.. got upset over change and didnt care after that.. once some people get something in their head you cannot change their minds..

Ever since 5th was released.. ive liked it.. alot more then 3rd and 4th edition.

And no.. GW is not pushing Apoc.. they released 1 book for it and a few nice kits.... thats it..
You could say they are pushing planetstrike just as much as apoc.. and its only had 1 release and nothing more.


At least 40k is in better shape then lolfantasy.

PaddyF
25-11-2009, 14:58
Dan have you been sniffing my LSD based super glue again?

Pushkin
25-11-2009, 15:08
Hmm i'm still not to sure what a tournament edition would involved?

Because the way i see it there are three real options if you're going down that route:

1. An annual Official 40k FAQ which address problems in the rulebook/codex

2. A Tournament rulebook, consisting of an updated/clarified set of rules and additional tournament rules.

3. A New edition of 40k that solves all the problems of the current system and a quick and systematic release of the codexs

Let's be realistic, option 3 is complete fantasy. That would leave option 1 and 2. I think option 2 might make tournaments clearer and more competative, but would probably require you to shell out 30-40 without really offering any real benefit.

Option 1 could be done by a downloadable .pdf file. This would essentially be a jumped up FAQ/Errata covering all of the rules and i think it is the only realistic option.

However, what would be good if they set up a tournament committee, and a tournament specific website that dealt with problems as they arose and serve as an online FAQ. This could be a living document that could be update regularly

So no i don't a tournament rulebook/better edition is feasible but some downloadable/online tool aimed at clarifying rules/ banning certain units/unit combos would be good.

leonmallett
25-11-2009, 16:27
The issue as I see it is that the OP is focusing on GW's strategy from the wrong perspective. GW have been clear for many years that they they are in the business of selling toy soldiers. They make no bones about that. Therefore the staggered release of codexes (nd army books) is intended to service that, not the models to service the rules.

A business model that focused on game first, models second, would be perfect from a gaming perspective, but poor from a retail one. The ideal gaming view would be to reintroduce all codexes with each new edition, and revise through second edition/revised codexes any issues within the life-cycle of that iteration/edition of the core rules. What that does is take away GW's business success. They have lasted as long as they have because the business model works as far as it does. They will not compromise that strategy. If rules were bundled with model releases, and model releases were spread about among a greater number of ranges they would basically be emulating what Rackham did and what PP do now. Yet GW are the big dodg in the hobby, so why should they change?

I enjoy tournaments but they are but a small portion of the hobby. We should not focus on them anymore than is proportionate. GW have a business model and it isn't likely to change any time soon.

Cheeslord
25-11-2009, 16:38
Despite their business model being allegedly based on models not rules, I would still worry that they would sue the a$ off anyone actually charging for an alternative set of rules.

Mark.

I would like to see a set of rules with current ambiguities and balance issues resolved, but I agree it should be universal rather than for tournaments only.

Gaargod
25-11-2009, 16:41
Warning: long


To be honest, i wouldn't buy it if it was a book. However:

As we're all fairly aware, GW's policy regarding competitive play and the internet is frankly appalling. The persistently bad FAQs, badly wordly rules and general 'we are just here to sell you models, don't really care otherwise' attitude they have going on are clear symptoms of this.

If they decide/get pushed into changing this, then i think we could start to see a decent set of FAQs and erratas, specifically focusing on competitive play. Being GW, you'd probably have to pay to sign up, but then you can access the rules. Just the rules mind, not the fluff/etc - i don't think this would severely damage sales of books - i certainly would still buy a book of an army i'm collecting.
In fact, it might even help sales somewhat - people could examine an army, see if they like the rules and if they do then decide to collect the army rather than asking on the internet all the time.

These would have more balanced versions of the rules. Ideally of course, they'll do more play testing at the first stages (see below) so it wouldn't be too necessary. But certainly on an edition change things do change and need to be edited. Prices can be tweaked, unclear rules made more obvious, etc etc. Plus, as its on the internet in a pdf, there is no real issue with page space, as opposed to now where they have to cram it all in. This allows for longer explanations and maybe designer's notes.

But the real issue with the current balance problems is the play testing. GW are currently in the middle of a rumour lock down. This is a) stupid, as people like to get excited about rumours rather than just 'here is space hulk, go buy' and b) hindering them using one of their greatest tools - us!
They can release the bare bones rules, no fluff whatsoever, onto a pdf on the internet when they're done - perhaps as much as a year in advance of release. The community can then play test the crap out of it, and send feedback saying 'x is overpowered, y is underpowered and will never be used and z is just plain unclear'.
This means they don't have to have NDAs with play testers etc, but just have to get guys to trawl through all the vast feedback. If they did a sensible, logical system on it, it would actually be fairly easy too (see below). This allows them to balance the books as much as is humanly possible.

The system could work something along the lines of different sections to leave feedback on: bestiary, magic items, magic, etc. Then subsections beneath this to discuss, so a play tester can leave comments on an individual item/unit/spell, a group of items (so magic weapons for example)/units, or the section as a whole.
Furthermore, for quick and easy data logging, each comment has to have an accompanying multi-choice answer on it. So the feedback is instantly labelled as 'this unit/item is under/over powered/unclear/clear/good/whatever'. This would allow designers to, at a glance, see what things are good overall and what things need looking at. Finally, this would allow the designers themselves to leave their own comments on the entry on the pdf itself - explaining the reasoning behind it or saying that they are currently looking at it.

This sounds complicated, but i think it would be suprisingly easy. If they really really wanted to promote it, make it so that the armies currently being playtested are free to access/leave comments on (altho you still have to be signed up, to stop idiots), and only the released books need you to be a paying customer.


Now, if only GW would actually read the damm forums, they might learn a little something on design policy.


TL,DR version: GW need to use the internet and the community to balance their fricking ruleset.

the1stpip
25-11-2009, 18:25
I would like to see codexes have two army lists. The first list would be very open (remember traits and doctrines) and give you plenty of room to do what you want.

Then there would be a condensed tournament list, restricting a lot of things you could take (maybe 0-1 Daemon Prince, no mounted Seer Councils) limiting or restricting the really powerful stuff, to make tournaments about skill rather than an overpowered army list.

bigcheese76
01-12-2009, 20:12
It would work I suppose but the real problem is that GW dont update their codexes when a new rule book is published. They are slowly working through them though. (They might even get to Dark Eldar one day)
Because of the fact I have already paid out for my rulebook and my codexes I wouldnt want to pay for this though.

spetswalshe
01-12-2009, 20:30
I've read GW staff (particularly in Jervis' Standard Bearer column) make a distinction between 'competitive' gamers and 'casual/social/beer 'n pretzels/friendly' gamers.

But really, is there any other hobby which requires around 100+ outlay, plus maybe twenty hours of assembling and painting (not to mention learning the rules), before one can be considered a 'casual' or 'friendly' player?

I don't consider Forumla One a hobby, btw.

Kriegfreak
01-12-2009, 20:47
There wasn't an option but I voted for.

No, because tournament play makes everyone care to much about a GAME, and they end up concentrating on all the negative aspects of the game instead of enjoying what used to make 40k so awesome.

I'm all for a rule system that stream-lines some of the more annoying aspects of 40k, but I agree with GWs stance on keeping the game friendly and away from major tournament play where it translates badly. Nothing is stopping anyone from using 40k models with a rule system that works better for tournaments. I hear more horror stories about crappy tournaments, power list, not being able to play your army because it has a FW model, people cheating, or my codex sucks far to many times to want to see anything more done about 'tournament' play/edition.

Just my opinion, of course.

MVBrandt
01-12-2009, 20:48
Yup; the reason there shouldn't be a tournament edition is b/c it already should be.

Demanding hundreds of dollars from your player base, and then blowing off poorly written and edited rules with comments like BEERRRR N PREZTZLLLZ PEPOLES ARE OURZ U COMPETITOVE GAMERZ KEN SUKIT ... is absurd. What's more absurd is how many people buy into that kind of spinjob like it's the nectar of the gods.

Very well tested and balanced rules benefit everyone. No excuses allowed just b/c there are outspoken folks who are too competitively apathetic to care.


It's fine to discourage "angry" play, but you don't see people playing Monopoly and going OMG I HATE YOU I HATE YOU THESE RULES ARE SO BALANCED I HAVE TO BE SUPER COMPETITIVE OMG. The game is well designed for tournaments so long as it is well balanced and proofread. 40k at present isn't really, lots of little problems that could be avoided crop up, and the spinartists at the top convince the average majority of their gamers that instead of BAD PRODUCT REVIEW, it's actually just "catering to the people we like - those beer'n'pretzels folks!"

DEADMARSH
01-12-2009, 20:55
I'm not sure how to vote exactly, but here's my thoughts:

Would I buy 40k:TE? Yes. I wouldn't want to, but I think it'd quickly become the de facto rulebook even for friendly matches as people like me who aren't crazy competitive but still play by the rules would want to be fair to all players (not to mention the fact that if I beat you, I don't want to hear some kind of, "Oh well, if we were playing Tournament Edition that wouldn't have been legal, so maybe you wouldn't have won).

Now, that being said, I don't know why GW continually force players to buy this gigantic book that costs more than (almost) any individual model or boxed unit set just to get into the game. Christ, it's no wonder so few people know the rules!

Sell a rule book. Don't make it so expensive that new players are immediately turned off by it. Also sell hobby books for those that want the pretty pictures and whatnot. Sell a fluff book that comprises the other third of the current rulebook. Make them all $10 or $15 bucks. $20 maybe for the actual rules. The step 3 would be make a collector's edition that is just like the current rulebook with all three books in one cover.

TheShadowCow
02-12-2009, 12:10
if the 5th was a good instead of mediocrity personified then you wouldn't need a "tourney " edition . IMHO GW are giving up on 40K and pushing apocalypse.

5th ed is definite the "artillery " edition from what little play testing I did before ebaying it.

I suspect you'll get more people supporting the 5th on Warseer because anyone who didn't like 5th have most likely moved on now.....

Forbin

Figures to back that sweeping statement up?



I'd vote no on a tournament edition, purely because you'd have two sets of rules running at once for each army, which is a daft state of affairs. If they were going to do this and frequently update lists as necessary, why not extend that to cover the entire game?

pom134
02-12-2009, 12:35
You're not going to make a game dependent on the variable of dice rolls truly tournament worthy, b/c there's always a luck factor involved. That alone, plus the very open ended nature of the game, allow officer moronis internet-wide to constantly "explain away" the tournament accomplishments of anyone; plus, most tourneys involve a subjective sportsmanship aspect, and many tack on theme/comp, and painting'/etc. to the total score.

The game is actually incredibly well balanced if you take 5th edition as it is now, change kill points to victory points, and break missions 1 and 2 with victory points if a draw occurs.

I've run a 40k league for a while with those factors, and have a huge data range of games to support this at the 2,000 point level, including two tournaments, where even armies like daemonhunters are able to be competitive.

I hear a lot of shallowbrain carping on the competitive nature of 40k and whether it can be a competitive game, and I can't help but scoff at it. Other than the fact that people in desperate need of an ego boost aren't going to find it in a game system that is open enough to allow others to always "blame" success on other factors, it's perfectly "fine." This isn't a sport, after all ... it doesn't need to be perfect, and you're not going to make it perfect anyway.

Magic: The Gathering. Poker. Great, successful, fun tournament games that rely as much on luck as they do on skill.

You are thinking about it completely wrong. After a certain number of rolls, everyone is rolling average. The idea is to put yourself in a better position to make more average rolls or have your average rolls be more effective. That is the point of the competition.

40K is NOT BALANCED. Not even close. There are too many variables for it to be balanced. Look at chess. Everyone has the same pieces that do the same thing but it is not balanced because white gets to go first. If that is enough to cause an "imbalance" in the game, imagine what having 2 different codecies does to balance.

pom134
02-12-2009, 12:37
I would like to see codexes have two army lists. The first list would be very open (remember traits and doctrines) and give you plenty of room to do what you want.

Then there would be a condensed tournament list, restricting a lot of things you could take (maybe 0-1 Daemon Prince, no mounted Seer Councils) limiting or restricting the really powerful stuff, to make tournaments about skill rather than an overpowered army list.

Part of the skill in the game and at a tournament is writing a better list than everyone else.

I will agree with you however that there are some no-brainer better than anything else available options. Falcons. Obliterators. TH/SS Terminators. Just to name a few.

Xelloss
02-12-2009, 12:45
TL,DR version: GW need to use the internet and the community to balance their fricking ruleset.
I couldn't agree more to your post, so I just quote the summary instead of the whole text... :D

I would add that 5th lacks a supplement book called something like "mission book", with other things than the three mission from the core rulebook - like broken alliance from the optional missions, but with 2 or even 4 players. I think it will sell better than a "tourney edition" book. Apocalypse is too much broken without a GM. Planetstrike was a good idea, but was kind of too far from a standard game to make for the loss of all the extra missions from previous editions.

MVBrandt
02-12-2009, 12:47
edit: unnecessary

Lord Malorne
02-12-2009, 12:49
I would likely not get it, I would not mind a big ass book called 'FAQ's for all armies' though.

Lord Malornebin

Pacific
02-12-2009, 22:14
I disagree with the thought it's more mature and veteran players who want a "Tournament Edition". Having played for 10 years I care as little for tournaments as I did to begin with. :p


Seconded.. I would rather put my efforts into the painting and modelling side of things - although this is pretty much a bottomless pit in terms of it being something which is never ending, its a hell of a lot more relaxing :)

Trogdor
02-12-2009, 22:27
Whilst I voted for 'no, 40k doesn't need a new edition' I would buy a skirmish, narrative friendly version at the drop of a hat.

Whilst I'd agree that perhaps a more tournament friendly attitude towards rules clarification and FAQ's from the design studio (or better yet, the White Dwarf team, thus giving the old rag a purpose again) would be a very positive step I don't think that tournament players should necessarily be GW's primary focus - ours is a wide hobby and ideally GW should try to cater for as many of us as possible. There are, after all, other games suitable for tournaments but there is only one 40k.

magnum12
02-12-2009, 22:39
A tournament edition isn't really that nessecary. 5th edition although not perfect is a massive step in the right direction. The current state of the game is overall very well balanced. Right now, I just see a few problems that if fixed would make 40k perfect.

1. Updated codices. This is the prime cause of the game's current balance problems.

2. Wound Allocation: This was a poor answer to a midly annoying issue. The poster boyz here are Nob Bikers (this issue is what makes them such a pain without ID spam) and H. Flamer Banewolf vs complex unit. 4th edition rules were better here. Slower and less intuitive than 4th edition rules.

3. Kill Points: This rule actually causes balance problems. This one rule is what made 1/3 missions practically unwinnable for guard. In fact, one of the likely reasons why platoons aren't seen very often in favor of vets is because of this rule.

4. True line of sight: Great idea. Just needs some minor tweaks.

DuskRaider
03-12-2009, 00:56
Definitely not. The game was built around having fun and being imaginative with the rules / armies, and tournament play takes that and throws it out the window.

lanrak
03-12-2009, 10:16
Hi all.
I voted 'NO' because 40k needs a re-write, focusing on GAMEPLAY not marketing minatures....

Many of the rule sets I use have 'provable levels of inballance' but this doesnt stop us having fun games!

The ONLY time fun is reduced is when when rules are not well defined and intuitive...current 40k rules are a prime example of this!

Many people use the only rule set they know as a base line and draw false assumptions.

If ALL rule sets were as poorly concieved and written (from a gameplay perspective,) as 40k.Then the more complex game play currently achived in many games would be impossible!

If you have played multiple different rule sets using lots of alternative available game mechanics , then you can judge the current 40k rule more objectivley.

Well defined and intuitive rule sets are a joy to play, irrespective of the level of 'competativeness'.

IF the rule set for 40k was developed to maximise game play with the minimum amount of rules, a 'tournament ' edition would not be necissary!

(The current 40k rule set is a marketing excersise , with a bit of game play injected by the devs where they can.:cries:)

Anyhow, have a look at 'freewargamesrules' for lots of free to down load rule sets you can use with your existing minatures.
(Plenty have '40k army list conversions' available on fan sites.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Occulto
03-12-2009, 10:28
Demanding hundreds of dollars from your player base, and then blowing off poorly written and edited rules with comments like BEERRRR N PREZTZLLLZ PEPOLES ARE OURZ U COMPETITOVE GAMERZ KEN SUKIT ... is absurd. What's more absurd is how many people buy into that kind of spinjob like it's the nectar of the gods.

A lot of RPGs aren't balanced - they rely on the GM to be the arbiter (ie not allowing someone to create a super character which will dominate play)

40K isn't balanced either - except instead of a GM, you have opponent's consent. (40K would work a lot better with a GM, but standing round watching two people play isn't for everyone).

40K doesn't work when both players are trying to wring every little last advantage out of the ruleset. The previous Chaos codex was a prime example - if you used all that variety to mix up your list and make it interesting, it was a damn good book. If you just used it to stack every modifier in your favour, it was a broken piece of s***.


It's fine to discourage "angry" play, but you don't see people playing Monopoly and going OMG I HATE YOU I HATE YOU THESE RULES ARE SO BALANCED I HAVE TO BE SUPER COMPETITIVE OMG. The game is well designed for tournaments so long as it is well balanced and proofread. 40k at present isn't really, lots of little problems that could be avoided crop up, and the spinartists at the top convince the average majority of their gamers that instead of BAD PRODUCT REVIEW, it's actually just "catering to the people we like - those beer'n'pretzels folks!"

I refuse to play Monopoly against certain people because they get so worked up over it. My girlfriend is a prime example.

Pacific
03-12-2009, 10:36
I agree with all of your points there Occulto, especially the last 2 :)

Emperor's Grace
03-12-2009, 18:59
IMO, Beer & Pretzels style rules is fine if that's what htey want GW to be.

I should mention, though, that my Beer & Pretzels games usually cost less than $50 (total) and do not label themselves "premier" and/or "niche".

If GW wishes to be the Ferrari of the gaming world then their quality needs to reflect that both in models and rules.

borithan
03-12-2009, 19:51
(40K would work a lot better with a GM, but standing round watching two people play isn't for everyone).Of course 1st edition very much recommended a GM (as did the contemporary Fantasy rules). But yeah, standing about watching a game wouldn't be fascinating... best idea I thought was playing it as a "wargame roleplaying game" with one or more players playing "against" the GM to tell a story (also recommended by 1st edition), though it would rely on the GM not being a dick about it and creating a hard as nails thing for the players to defeat (opr at least not making that the point. Other players could be defeated, but making a good story etc, rather than because the GM played to win).

Occulto
04-12-2009, 00:26
IMO, Beer & Pretzels style rules is fine if that's what htey want GW to be.

I should mention, though, that my Beer & Pretzels games usually cost less than $50 (total) and do not label themselves "premier" and/or "niche".

If GW wishes to be the Ferrari of the gaming world then their quality needs to reflect that both in models and rules.

GW have always treaded a fine line between giving players the freedom to do what they want, and restricting players so that the game isn't totally unbalanced.

As a game system, it can be described as: "jack of all trades, but master of none." It's not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, but it's got to have something going for it to be so damned popular.

The issue they will always have, is that perfection differs from person to person. What you want out of the system isn't necessarily what I want out of the system.

I believe USRs are good. The concept of every codex taking the USRs then modifying them in some way is bad. When you reach the point where the only relevant part of the rulebook is the basic mechanics, we have a problem.

But all the blame can't be laid solely at the feet of the Studio. Players throw temper tantrums when they don't get bonuses or upgrades to make their armies "unique." The fact that said upgrades inevitably become so prevalent that it's more unique not to take them is rather ironic.

Again, using the previous Chaos codex, your army stood out from the crowd if you didn't put tank-hunters on your havocs. :rolleyes:


Of course 1st edition very much recommended a GM (as did the contemporary Fantasy rules). But yeah, standing about watching a game wouldn't be fascinating... best idea I thought was playing it as a "wargame roleplaying game" with one or more players playing "against" the GM to tell a story (also recommended by 1st edition), though it would rely on the GM not being a dick about it and creating a hard as nails thing for the players to defeat (opr at least not making that the point. Other players could be defeated, but making a good story etc, rather than because the GM played to win).

Well that's the case in RPGs and is self regulating. A GM who's a dick quickly runs out of players to torment. :p

Hadafix
04-12-2009, 01:26
Good FAQs for edition updates yes, but not for tourneys. I didnt get into this game for gaming sake, but because I like the storyline, and the game means I can build my own story line using what happens in games as a starting/following on point.

Its the hobbyists that keep GW afloat, not the gamers.

madprophet
04-12-2009, 05:14
I am more of a modeler than anything else but there is no law that says you MUST use GW's rules. Stargrunt II is available as a free download (just Google it), Void is a decent rules set too (also available for free). Battlefield Evolution which began life as Starship Troopers (and was developed by Andy Chambers) is also available free (download the SRD for BFE at MongoosePublishing dot com).

There are lots of simple, and not so simple, rules out there you can use your miniatures with.

Frankly, I outgrew the tournament stage of the hobby about 20 years ago. I like a competitive game, don't get me wrong, but I want to play it to its logical conclusion with people I like hanging out with. I like to win (who doesn't?) but it's okay if I lose. With my closest mates, I bat slightly over 500. I am happy with that because when they were young and foolish, several of them were 'Best General' winners at GW tourneys.

GrimZAG
04-12-2009, 05:29
The rules are just a standard set from where we can build on.

It's a hobby, not legislation, i wouldn't pay for some new tournament edition, but just go with whatever rules the tournament I'm attending enforces.

owen matthew
04-12-2009, 07:03
I would probably buy it for completeness sake, I dont think it is needed, GW will NEVER do it.

Flypaper
06-12-2009, 11:32
I use Games Workshop's rules because they're the market leaders - it's easier to get a game of 40K than it is most of their competitors, because more people have the armies and know the rules.

Splitting the player base kind of defeats the point of the exercise - it'd be easier for me to just migrate to another system that's guaranteed better support.

No, the correct option is for Games Workshop to fix their current embarrassments. Unfortunately, people seem to actually accept the 'Beer and Pretzels" lie, which I find extremely frustrating (and which removes any pressure from GW to do a better job, which is why they propagated said lie in the first place). :(

unheilig
06-12-2009, 13:13
don't make it its own edition, make a supplement like planetstrike and battle missions, and i'm in.

The Crusader
06-12-2009, 13:31
i say no. part of the fun of the old codexs is making them work for 5th ed. just let GW go their own pace. although an update for DE would be nice :smile:

Lostanddamned
06-12-2009, 13:52
Again, using the previous Chaos codex, your army stood out from the crowd if you didn't put tank-hunters on your havocs. :rolleyes:
Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Mine were super original, they had Infiltraitors, the Mark of Nurgle and Meltaguns. Y'know, the other default loadout


Well that's the case in RPGs and is self regulating. A GM who's a dick quickly runs out of players to torment. :p Depends on the metagame, do the players know another GM, is there even anybody about who plays or is interested in the game? Players may end up with a bit of a p**** simply because there is no other option.

Personally, I would buy a copy of tournament edition 40k, to help bump up the sales numbers (eg x bought 5th ed, x+n bought TE). But I would refuse to play it, simply put; I play friendly pick up games, not tournaments, so why should I use tourney rules? I dont drive like a rally driver when I'm going to Tesco's to buy potatoes, do I?

Marlow
06-12-2009, 15:56
No, I only play 40k for fun.

Emperor's Grace
07-12-2009, 21:57
40K doesn't work when both players are trying to wring every little last advantage out of the ruleset. The previous Chaos codex was a prime example - if you used all that variety to mix up your list and make it interesting, it was a damn good book. If you just used it to stack every modifier in your favour, it was a broken piece of s***.

Relying on an opponent's sense of decency is poor planning. It will only work if one plays with decent people.



GW have always treaded a fine line between giving players the freedom to do what they want, and restricting players so that the game isn't totally unbalanced.

As a game system, it can be described as: "jack of all trades, but master of none." It's not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, but it's got to have something going for it to be so damned popular.

The issue they will always have, is that perfection differs from person to person. What you want out of the system isn't necessarily what I want out of the system.

While I agree with the above, the point I was trying to make is that it's counter productive to have a set of rules that is perceived as sub-par when you are trying to make people see you as the best model company in the world.

If they want to be seen as a beer and pretzels rules/game, that's fine but then people will always expect lower prices. If they want a polished image, they need a polished ruleset.



I believe USRs are good. The concept of every codex taking the USRs then modifying them in some way is bad. When you reach the point where the only relevant part of the rulebook is the basic mechanics, we have a problem.

I'm with you there. Universal rules are best when they are "universal".

Occulto
07-12-2009, 23:41
Relying on an opponent's sense of decency is poor planning. It will only work if one plays with decent people.

One thing I've learnt over the years, you can't legislate against bad behaviour. What I have seen, is players change their bad behaviour because it simply wasn't tolerated.

GW shouldn't have to write rules to cover every single potential abuse - like figures converted exclusively to take advantage of the LOS rules. In that case, players should be saying: "you're an unsportsmanlike sunovabitch for doing that, I won't play you."

Similarly, rules shouldn't be loaded down with hundreds of FAQs explaining how option X interacts with unit Y in situation Z that might happen once in every hundred games.

That's not saying FAQs aren't needed - just that players need to take more ownership of their game, rather than just limply rolling over the first time some jerk wants to twist the rules to their advantage, then running to their nearest forum to whinge how it's GW's fault that they got screwed over.


While I agree with the above, the point I was trying to make is that it's counter productive to have a set of rules that is perceived as sub-par when you are trying to make people see you as the best model company in the world.

I've bolded the reason why the rules aren't as tight as they could be. GW make their money from models, not rules - so if it's a choice between investing in better models or tightening up the ruleset, it's obvious what they're going to focus on.


If they want to be seen as a beer and pretzels rules/game, that's fine but then people will always expect lower prices. If they want a polished image, they need a polished ruleset.

GW's rules aren't terrible - there's just this group think where one person finds a problem, posts it online, then everyone takes ownership of the issue and complain as if it happens on a regular basis.

"Broken" lists are a good example - you'd think every Chaos player uses lash/plaguemarine/obliterator spam, but when you ask how many people have actually faced it, it turns out that the majority either face it rarely or not at all.


Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Mine were super original, they had Infiltraitors, the Mark of Nurgle and Meltaguns. Y'know, the other default loadout

I stand corrected. :p


Depends on the metagame, do the players know another GM, is there even anybody about who plays or is interested in the game? Players may end up with a bit of a p**** simply because there is no other option.

All possibilities - but no game is worth playing if the experience is as painful as applying a beltsander to your crotch. :D

Darthvegeta800
08-12-2009, 13:55
I wouldn't buy it. Don't play in Tournaments. And it would just add to the hassle I think... slowing down codex production even further. I want fun codices > tournament orientated rules.

Nexus Trimean
08-12-2009, 15:51
40k Needs a better set of rules, not necessisarly a different set. Take the monopoly Example. Lots of people use it as a beer and pretzels game, and some people play it like a hardcore tournament style Blood Sport. Yet they both use the same rule set? I Quite believe that you could make a good set of balanced rules that would be Applicable to both the Tourny player, and they guy who wants to spend a few hours blowing his buddies Nid's To pieces on the weekend.

A tournament worthy rule system isn't going to suddenly make Everyone a tournament player. But it will make those Friendly games a bit easier. You wont have the arguments that you (at least i) get now when i go to have fun in my spare time that hold up the game.

We need one good ruleset. That would make eveyone happy. You can have good rules and casual play. you cant have bad rules and tourament play.