View Full Version : Regular Army Books - Can you use them without your opponents consent?

Mad Makz
17-04-2006, 05:09
The answer is no.

If your opponent doesn't want to play your regular army book list you can't use it against that opponent. Even in a tournament, they can bite the bullet and get up and walk away if they don't want to play your army.

I bring this up because of all the talk about 'valid' armies etc. I have decided the whole opponents consent thing which has been snowballing for the past 13 odd years (when special characters starting having it mentioned in their entries when previously they did not) is an ever growing mistake by GW if only because it is an absolutely redundant statement.

Of course you need your opponents consent to play a game. If they don't want to play they just won't.

The very idea that you can force your opponent to play what is in your opponents opinion a cheezy, horrible but regular army book generated army but there are some armies that you or anyone else can't force them to play is not only repugnant but also one of the biggest causes of negative play experience out there and one of the reasons why some people manage to justify to themselves playing a game in such a way that it isn't fun for their opponents.

Players who are on the receiving end of negative play experience games should NOT be made to feel like there are some types of army that they can't refuse to play, on the virtue that their are some armies that have been labelled as needing their opponents consent and other's that haven't.

It should be reinforced to all players at all times if you don't want to play an opponent or their army, then don't! It's not part of the hobby to do things which aren't fun.

I propose that any and all instances of the phrase 'requires your opponent consent' be expunged from any and all GW publications, and never used again.

In it's place, I suggest a new term to be used 'Tournament Tested'.

This term could be placed on army lists by GW, or by an independent players committee, and outlines which list have been tested to be suitable for tournament style play.

This would not entirely preclude the other lists from being used by tournament organisers if they didn't want to, but it could allow them to offer incentives for using tournament tested lists over other lists for those who are worried about winning more than anything else (e.g those who wish to play non tournament tested lists are allowed to, but can not win a place in the Best General category and can not win Best Overall. Other Awards such as Best Army, Best Painting, and Best Sportsmanship may still be won by players using these lists).

While I realise in effect this change is cosmetic rather than practical (i.e you could do the above now anyway), the real point of this change would be to change the culture of GW gamers to further seperate regular play from tournament play, to encourage trying out new and different armies irrespective of their current or future status, and to totally obliterate the idea that there are some armies you have to play against simply because GW has published them in 'official army book' form.

17-04-2006, 08:21
There is such a thing as a pickup game, you know. I have no problem with using what you're calling the "tournament tested" lists as a guideline for playing against strangers; I'm less likely to want to play a Clan Moulder list or something unless it's against people I know. :angel:

17-04-2006, 09:02
Know for a fact that if your army IS a big block of Brie, you won't get many games, that is the truth.

However, special characters marked with Opponents Consent have been marked so to show that they might not make for a fun game, and therefore, you should warn/ask your opponent before the game that you are/if you can use that character

17-04-2006, 09:18
I think that they should simply label them:

Play-tested - anything in a Codex/Armybook or WD or any other GW publication.

Not Play-tested - *Hey we thought of this, it sounds cool, tell us what you think*.

Everything is considered *Play-tested* unless specifically stated to the contrary. In short, if GW says it, they better have put *some* thought into it.:eyebrows:

17-04-2006, 12:05
I like your view, Mad Makz.

That's something I had not thought about, but you're true: you always need your opponent's consent, after all...

Mad Makz
17-04-2006, 12:16
For pick up games I don't think you need to know whether something is ok or not, unless you are looking at playing to a tournament style of gaming in which case you could reference the Tournament Tested status.

My arguement is that it should be more emphasised that A) both players should always try to bring an army that is likely to be fun for both players, over an army that is currently 'tournament legal' or what have you, and that B) by removing the idea of opponents consent being needed or not needed players who take stupid characters/items/armies who break the game (Morghur etc.) in an attempt just to win won't be able to hide behind the excuse that GW didn't say you needed your opponents consent and that it's somehow GW's fault for allowing you to do it (in a pick up game or otherwise). Instead they have to face up to the fact that they took an army that wouldn't be very fun for their opponent to play, on purpose, and it was THEIR decision, not GW's, that caused their opponent to have an unenjoyable game because of it.

17-04-2006, 15:02
Well i see what you mean, i think people would just substitute that term for what we now use and it wouldn't change alot. I think the problem is not forcing people, its the fact that a legal army an opponent often couldn't object too much without being annoying as there aren't many legit reasons to object, however i do see cheese as being a legit enough reason to object to an army. With an unofficial army anyone could object on whim, just because its been stated by games-workshop that it possibly isn't going to be fair and i think that strikes a blow big with some kinds of opponents.

I am a big fan of variant lists though and themed ones, i just don't like the idea that some people will object to playing me on the sole reason that its not official.

I just am not sure as i said if the arguments would remain the same just terms substituted.

17-04-2006, 18:57
This is the view I've had all along.

Gaming groups police themeselves with what they find to be fun to play against or not fun, regardless of "officialness" or not. It is perfectly legal to use Scragg the Slaughterer in a 2000 point game with 8 Gorgers, however in our group we have asked the guy who usually plays that army to not do it so often (he does it here and there, which is cool, but it gets ridiculous when it is every single game). Our local tournament organizer allows appendix lists from the back of army books and we have yet to have problems (no one has went over the edge and used the Clan Skyre list).

Mad Makz
18-04-2006, 00:20
It's a small thing I know, but it is also a lot about cultural reinforcement. Having more varied battlereports in White Dwarf where people take unusual lists and play scenarios as well as the odd Tournament Tested game etc.

GW did a good thing by promoting tournament gaming in my opinion, because of the way Jervis identified the need to have sports and painting points included, and to make the tournaments about having fun. However, at the same time they have failed I feel in promoting more varied scenario style play, despite having supplements and worldwide campaigns running to support this.

And when I think about why this has failed to catch on with people it is because the average game is very much like a tournament game, and that is what is most commonly promoted even in the army books. I thought they were moving in a good direction with the 6th edition rulebook including the scenario table in the back, and was hoping that they were going to continue in this direction throughout 6th edition. What I have found is that despite printing campaign books and army articles for Fantasy etc apart from Storm of Chaos which they had to specifically advertise as legal for regular play, very few people have picked up on the other armies and the reason is that regular play and tournament play have pretty much become synonymous.

While the terms themselves changing would mean little, if GW enacted a cultural and promotional change (which I think they may be able to do with the release of 7th edition, whose box set has a series of linked scenarios, so new players will have a different starting point to the straight pitched battle style of play) to go along with a terminology change, I feel they could help shift the culture of gamers so that as a group tournament and no tournament style play are sign as destinct, viable and equally supported styles of play.

18-04-2006, 14:40
I think they just need to get rid of any labeling and just have tournament rules, so tournament rules might say you need army books but you also need to field them in a certain way i.e. without maxing out on rattlings or pegasis knights and such. So although you can use army books its shown that even they aren't entirely balanced unless with extra rules, i think if it was shown as part of rules to use army books but modified by tournament rules, but not label them as such as official and not label anything as unofficial or not allowed, it would take away some of this divide and wouldn't give people any leverage just because something is official or not and it would force players to use the descretion to use something that opponents will like. If that makes sense.