Warhammer and the ITC announcement

[Dark Shepherd]

Generals Handbook coming twice a year or whatever was specifically because of player feedback in the surveys. So all those people who never play and don’t own any models but are ‘fans’ of 40K spamming the survey wanting ‘Once or Twice a Year’ on the update question are to blame.

Id disagree.

Points updates twice a year would be good DIGITALLY

every 6 months in a book effectively means theyre annual for all factions because the next book is gone to print before the previous book hits the shelves

Then we're back to tourney v non tourney matchedplay

[Khornestar]

We’d have to see some metrics from their surveys to judge and blame, would we not?

[phandaal]

Generals Handbook coming twice a year or whatever was specifically because of player feedback in the surveys. So all those people who never play and don’t own any models but are ‘fans’ of 40K spamming the survey wanting ‘Once or Twice a Year’ on the update question are to blame.

I play a lot more than once or twice per year and own many thousands of points worth of models and was also one of the people who responded positively to the idea of more frequent updates.

 

And no, Games Workshop deciding to sell more updates to people did not happen just because of survey feedback. Maybe we took different surveys, but I do not remember any questions asking me if I wanted to buy more rules updates.

 

If Games Workshop took the feedback they received and used it to sell more books to people, that is because they were planning to do so already and were looking for something to justify their decision.

 

It is so tiresome seeing the same old fan-blaming nonsense coming out whenever a company does something unpopular. Let's leave that back in 2015 where it belongs.

[WrathOfTheLion]

The survey was only a few months ago, there's no way that it informed their decision making on doing seasons and two chapter approved per year.

[Marshal Rohr]

They have been doing surveys for years.

[Khornestar]

If Games Workshop took the feedback they received and used it to sell more books to people, that is because they were planning to do so already and were looking for something to justify their decision.

I think this is the crux of it. I am a dummy, but I want to say there is 0 chance they would risk their bottom line in any way based on customer input from a survey. Input in the form of sales is the only reliable indicator, and they don’t seem to have any problem selling anything and everything. Surveys can then be used as a PR tool to “give us” what we were “all” clamoring for. But without seeing the results, how can any claims about them be judged?

Edited January 31, 2022 by Khornestar

[Noserenda]

Now my memory aint great either but havent they been doing two or more big FAQ/Updates for years already anyway?  Really pushing a second book instead is hardly a seismic shift.

And yeah, blaming the fans for GWs decisions is pretty dumb in anything but the broadest sense.

[Marshal Rohr]

GW ‘fans’ are responsible for like 90% of any problem in this hobby. Edited January 31, 2022 by Marshal Rohr

[phandaal]

GW ‘fans’ are responsible for like 90% of any problem in this hobby.

 

Fan-blaming is a lame and tired activity these days. You are not doing Games Workshop any favors by carrying on as if it were still the 2010s.

 

Luckily, enough companies have lost enough money doing so that it has started to lose its shine and we actually get attempts to please fans instead.

[tychobi]

The fans are 100% of the reason 40k exists at all. The rules should serve those fans and encourage them to buy models. The present model of asking for fans to subscribe to a never ending churn of expensive updates with short life spans is a cash out strategy but will not grow the game.

[Marshal Rohr]

GW is losing money because of supply chain and production issues, not because a few people with 3D printed armies are made Custodes rules release weren’t up to their standard or dragon armies did well at LVO right after their release.

The fans are 100% of the reason 40k exists at all. The rules should serve those fans and encourage them to buy models. The present model of asking for fans to subscribe to a never ending churn of expensive updates with short life spans is a cash out strategy but will not grow the game.

If you think the current GW release cycle is anything but them running around with their pants on fire you’re attributing to malice what is caused by mistake.

[WrathOfTheLion]

They have been doing surveys for years.

Yes, but I've seen many things conflating the 'six month update' the community requested a couple months ago with the decision to make Chapter Approved biyearly, whereas this CA had to have already been close to finalization by the time that vote even happened. The six month CA decision had to have been made before that specific piece of feedback was received by them. I don't mean anything more or less than that.

[ThePenitentOne]

It's a tiny bit of a tangent, but since we're on the topic of semi-annual GT Mission Pack updates:

 

One of the interesting things about the "seasons" approach is that it gives players a quick way to agree to certain terms of battle. If you've seen the pages that were posted from the GT Mission Pack 2022, the new detachment changes appeared in the Mustering an Army section under the clear heading of "Follow these steps when preparing for a Matched Play game in the Nachmund Campaign"

 

So if you jump forward to this time next year, and you're trying to set up a game, it's going to be easier for a players to say "Hey, instead of playing GT Armageddon, let's go retro and play a GT Nachmund game."

 

For Crusade players, this is nothing new, because our mission packs have always been linked to campaign settings, but for GT, up until now, the assumption has always been "These are the most current, up-to-date, default rules for pickup games and they have thus invalidated everything that came before"

 

The new system sounds more akin to what people have told me about Battletech. I think this is a good thing for the game, if the community chooses to see the resources through this lens and use them this way.

[Slave to Darkness]

Yeah maybe we should wait and see what we get before we all loose our Grox dung. We should at least let them drop the ball before we declare Exterminatus. Paint minis now, crusade after we get the product in hand.

[Xenith]

I think GW has seen the light with buggies.

 

Tournament armies largely take a good unit, and spam the hell out of it. That in itself, exacerbates any tiny imbalances within the codex, and between codexes.

 

If you want to balance tournament play more, then limit each unit choice to 0-1, Highlander Style (troops in 0-2/3 maybe?). When certain armies underperform then, with a broad swathe of their units in action, then take a look and see why.

 

If people say the armies are unusable due to a lack of unit options...then that's hard feedback for GW to pad out the codex. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Xenith

[Dark Shepherd]

A rule of 2s for tournaments might be good and stops the people with one of a hot unit being punished in casual games too much

 

They might have to look at vehicle squadrons too

[Warhead01]

A rule of 2s for tournaments might be good and stops the people with one of a hot unit being punished in casual games too much

 

They might have to look at vehicle squadrons too

Maybe. My biggest issues is the trickle down and would hope that this would be explained in such a way that players would understand and accept that it was not mandatory in a random pickup game ect. 

 

A few posts I've read bring me right back to a I have said off and on, here and there, over the years that I believe a tournament pack with a tournament/event only foc is the best way to go. 

GW and others, like itc, should put in the work to balance that and everything that goes with it. Over a long enough timeline they would have enough material to use for every "season" of tournament play and enough material to change it up for their competitive players. And as much as I am not a fan of the competitive end and buying the GT mission pace and points updates I would see more value if they did as I suggest and included it with a schedule and associated missions list. (Ideally or released a list a month or two prior to the next season for those planning to attend to get their table time in. I realize it's asking a bit much. But with copy past and all that good stuff they could always reuse missions and charts that players liked the most, so in the long run it would, I do imaging, save them time and money on over book set there after. 

So I see the GT stuff needing to be the "4th" way to play. 

 

Would I buy that book? Probably not. I am not able to do many events or tournaments any more* for lots of reasons. But I would look at that product as a positive for competitive play. 

 

* " were I a younger man...with less knee and back pain and more free time... " If only. 

[sairence]

A few posts I've read bring me right back to a I have said off and on, here and there, over the years that I believe a tournament pack with a tournament/event only foc is the best way to go.

 

Rest of quote cut purely for size. :)

 

See...that is, in my understanding, exactly what the Chapter Approved packs are. The points changes bundles in with it is silly without a doubt and muddles the pack a bit in that regard, admittedly.

 

But the actual rules, restrictions and missions in CA are purely for competitive tournament play. Matched play has its own Eternal War standard missions in the core rules, narrative has a huge amount of pretty regular releases with Crusade content, open play is do whatever you want, but specifically tournament play is what CA is there to address. Even the timing cylces have been addressed now, where we know we have 6 months intervals before the next big update. So what you're suggesting seems pretty much exactly what we're getting right now.

 

Taking that a bit further, the issue and the most common response to this is then "Oh, but everyone only plays the competitive ruleset!"

 

Well...maybe, but that's not something anyone can blame GW for and, in my own, insulated and purely anecdotal experience, is what you're meant to discuss with your group/opponent pre-game. And if that's what everyone in your area plays, it's probably worth finding out why. Maybe they're not all that aware of for example Crusade and can be introduced, or maybe they just enjoy the competitive games more than other parts of the hobby. In which case that might suck for the odd person out, but it's hardly reasonable to blame GW for when other options most definitely exist and are being promoted.

Edited February 1, 2022 by sairence

[MARK0SIAN]

I think they could definitely do with more distinction as to what the packs are for but people who play matched play as opposed to tournament games are still going to want new missions, even if they don’t want all the other stuff that comes from CA. Asking them to be happy playing the eternal war missions from the core rulebook isn’t reasonable, they get stale too quickly.

 

The other reason that these tournament packs tend to get adapted into regular matched play is that most of the changes they bring in for tournaments are theoretically meant to make the game fairer or more even. It’s hard to argue why you wouldn’t include a new rule that supposedly makes the games more balanced.

[DesuVult]

I could be mistaken but doesn't GW put quality of life updates like the super heavy aux change in the tournament pack rules.

[AenarIT]

I have played zero tournament games in 9th thanks to covid but in all the games I’ve played we used the GT pack.

Whenever I play pick up games or prearranged practice ones at my club I use the tournament ruleset. During an edition I usually play more games during tournaments than outside them, so hoping to be able to attend them again soon I just practice for them.

 

I don’t understand why or when I would ever use the Eternal War matched play missions from the core rule book: at my club whenever it’s not a GT pack match it’s a Crusade one for those who like it.

It’s just two ways to play 40K in practice, at least based on my local scene.

[Dark Shepherd]

Am all in on the change in distinction/increased emphasis on what is tournament and what is not.

 

Bundling in the accursed paper points changes doesnt help

 

However a literal big issue is people dont want to lug that 5kg rulebook around. It was one reason why the beloved spiral bound chapter approved WITH ALL THE RULES was so good

 

If they really wanted to make friends then a portable version of the rulebook would be awesome or better yet a mission booklet or pamphlet like 8th ed core rules

[Noserenda]

Widely available slim rulebooks is definitely a good idea, its 90% useless weight in most games.

Highlander tournaments are gamey as heck, are usually wildly imbalanced depending on what your army actually has to play with, there are always have and have nots that dont exist in a more sensible format, i think the rule of three broadly works, just come down on the actual problem cases rather than punishing anyone not wanting to play a bag of pick and mix themed army.

GW arent entirely responsible for people wanting to stick to Tournament play even if they dont like it but they absolutely could do something about it, Crusade as a legit alternate play mode is one thing but having a deliberate balanced casual mode, whether thats a fourth way to play or some variant or the existing three is debateable. 

[Dracos]

Nothing is mandatory in a pick up game. Do what suits you. Use the Match Play or don’t. Use Crusade or don’t. Unless it’s a tournament it’s your game. So I do t see where non-tournament players are getting worked up over something g that’s not their sandbox?

 

I play in or three tournaments a year. Otherwise it’s Crusade or pick up games. I prefer Incursion but most the community likes Strike Force. I have choice of not playing or agreeing to play Strike Force games.

 

Most pick up games are Match Play because it gives two strangers a feeling of equity of effectiveness as far as that goes in GW value when they put their toy soldiers on the table. It feels fair. In out of environment about 2/3 Match Games use the GT rules because they are perceived as the most tested and most up to date. This more fair. I can either chose to play those players with GT rules or look elsewhere.

 

It’s a choice … you make for yourself … don’t push it on others.

 

Please remember none of this effects you … unless you choose to play in a tournament. Don’t hate those who make the choice to play in that environment. You’re always free not to.

[Noserenda]

Nothing is mandatory in a pick up game. Do what suits you. Use the Match Play or don’t. Use Crusade or don’t. Unless it’s a tournament it’s your game. So I do t see where non-tournament players are getting worked up over something g that’s not their sandbox?

 

I play in or three tournaments a year. Otherwise it’s Crusade or pick up games. I prefer Incursion but most the community likes Strike Force. I have choice of not playing or agreeing to play Strike Force games.

 

Most pick up games are Match Play because it gives two strangers a feeling of equity of effectiveness as far as that goes in GW value when they put their toy soldiers on the table. It feels fair. In out of environment about 2/3 Match Games use the GT rules because they are perceived as the most tested and most up to date. This more fair. I can either chose to play those players with GT rules or look elsewhere.

 

It’s a choice … you make for yourself … don’t push it on others.

 

Please remember none of this effects you … unless you choose to play in a tournament. Don’t hate those who make the choice to play in that environment. You’re always free not to.

You realise your argument is essentially its own counter? I mean sure people could choose to just not play (smoooooth) but why does it hurt you to have a non tournament focused matched play option?