Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Regular Army Books - Can you use them without your opponents consent?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005

    Regular Army Books - Can you use them without your opponents consent?

    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.
    Last edited by Mad Makz; 17-04-2006 at 05:15.

Similar Threads

  1. Are Imperial armor rules opponents consent only?
    By Jonathan =I= in forum 40K Tactics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-08-2006, 19:36
  2. Gnoblar list - Can you use it without opponents consent?
    By immortal99 in forum Games Workshop General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 18-04-2006, 16:34
  3. wight army. opponents permis only, taken from the vamp counts book.
    By nurgle_boy in forum Rules Development Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20-09-2005, 13:50

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts