Warhammer and the ITC announcement

[Dark Shepherd]

You also have to find someone/people to agree to play the way you want to play, hence wanting some universitality, if thats even a word

 

Re the rulebook, Indomitus was a launxh box not a starter box so no reason to

lumber us with 4kg of fluff. Heck GW would have saved a tonne on shipping costs and

would have made a bigger product margin even with a reduced price

 

Though am not sure ITC winners will be advising them on carriage and freight costs :)

Hopefully the winners dont drop out when they get bombarded with people telling them what suggestions to make

Edited February 1, 2022 by Dark Shepherd

[Dracos]

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?

No what I’m saying is your community is going to decide the style of play it prefers. Match Play all on its own is just fine without adding a layer of GT on top of that if one chooses to do so. I did just this with a player I’d never met before last week. The Core book already gives you that.

 

*below is not directed at Noserenda*

 

 

I am truly curious though . . .

Just what are one is asking for GW for when you ask for them to add a non-competitive (?) Match Play category?

 

Is it for them to playtest and develop more rules and missions?

Spend less time on GT rules and missions?

Specifically what is it that this non-competitive Match Play would need to satisfy one?

[sairence]

That's often what I wonder too...Matched play is meant to be the style of play that's as balanced as possible. Whether individual people think that's inherently impossible is irrelevant, the aim is to achieve this.

 

What exactly is the big difference that is being sought between the current setup for tournament rules and this...I guess non-competitive but finely balanced rulesset? What is the big divider? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm genuinely unclear.

[MegaVolt87]

That's often what I wonder too...Matched play is meant to be the style of play that's as balanced as possible. Whether individual people think that's inherently impossible is irrelevant, the aim is to achieve this.

 

What exactly is the big difference that is being sought between the current setup for tournament rules and this...I guess non-competitive but finely balanced rulesset? What is the big divider? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm genuinely unclear.

 

I don't get it myself. If anything, surely there should be only one FOC type, the old 2/3/3/3/6 while removing stratagems completely in exchange for a universal set (no more than 12) for everyone for the tournament matched format. Clipping strats and alt FOC's would go a long way with balance in the tourny format. I don't understand how people consider such gamey elements as fine in a matched tourny context. 

[Noserenda]

Obviously a community picks its own setup but generally that means playing strangers at a store/club of some stripe and implicitly matched play unless said club/store is doing something different for whatever reason. Everyone has some subtle variants on that, and us lucky folk have a close group of mates we play 99% of our games with and can plan out something elaborate, houseruled and weird if we want to, but thats not the average experience for the majority.

Keeping it simple essentially so you can just rock up and play without doing a few nights homework, balance tweaks are fine and with a delicate hand it cutting down the bloat should work fine for both versions of matched play. 

Broadly: 

Straightforward scenarios, as seen in most previous editions. Drop secondaries.
Limit Stratagems, like a dozen or so at most.
Dial back the rules bloat, usually faction wide stuff like Katah or Doctrines, thats the more involved thing obviously to balance things.

That gives you a (In theory) balanced version of 40k you can play after work directly from the datasheets wherever possible without spending half the game buried in rulebooks or the two nights before balls deep in forums/reddit/goonhammer/discord/codex getting your homework done to keep it all straight.

That tournament mode is fine if you have the time/devotion/youth to do it all but not all of us do these days, but we would like to play some 40k. I think its notable that when our group switched to AoS for a bit a bunch of our lapsed players were back and loving the similar but simpler setup (Though i kinda prefer limited stratagems to the command abilities in AoS)

[Dracos]

Just how old are you man ;) I'm 58, just saying :)

 

I can get behind trimming the fat out of all the rules bloat. Much as I enjoy the game, I'm hoping 10th does quite a bit of what you are proposing as far as not needing quite so many resource layers. I like secondaries though. I feel it adds a narrative element. Still, I see how it could feel like an entry barrier. That's not the competitive scene as much as GW digging the crumbs out of our pockets.

[Halandaar]

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.

 

It's not a choice you can make entirely for yourself though, that's the whole point. You can't do "what suits you", you have to decide in conjunction with your opponent and as you've pointed out yourself, Matched Play (using GT rules) is the standard for pick-up games, like it or not.

 

So sure, if you don't want to play whatever ITC-influenced GT missions GW come up with you could choose not to play, but for a lot of people in a lot of places that isn't a choice to play a different game format, it's a choice not to play 40k at all. 

 

Having "Tournament" be it's own distinct 4th "way to play", separate from "Matched" harms nobody.

[Orange Knight]

One direct detriment I have personally experienced as a result of GW catering to competitive play ahead of everything else, is the constant changes made to armies.

 

I started collecting Adeptus Mechanicus shortly before their 9th edition book was released. Once the book came out I bought the various kits and units to build an army around the rules presented in the book.

 

In the time between the book coming out, an me getting the army finished, (before I ever had a chance to actually use the codex) they nerfed and changed various units on multiple occasions, and changed the cost of various units time and again. The units I currently own can't be used in the same way as they were written into that book, ad the army has to be chopped and changed to fit into the necessary point limits. There was literally no opportunity for someone like me, who assembles an army at a reasonable pace, to even play a game before they altered the book.

 

I understand the book might be too strong, but the force I put together was varied and didn't spam units. I have been punished for the sins of the competitive players who were spamming Walkers and Rangers, to the point where the army I have is outdated and needs changing before I ever had a chance to play it. How is this a better experience for me?

[Dark Shepherd]

That's often what I wonder too...Matched play is meant to be the style of play that's as balanced as possible. Whether individual people think that's inherently impossible is irrelevant, the aim is to achieve this.

 

What exactly is the big difference that is being sought between the current setup for tournament rules and this...I guess non-competitive but finely balanced rulesset? What is the big divider? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm genuinely unclear.

To echo noseranda a bit, and its part what we dont want, its a straightforward/accessible way to play but also more emphasis put on it. Theres so much focus on tournament matched play that it creates a soft push towards it

 

No secondaries. No points for painting. Less bookkeeping. Portable mission pack thats faqd or updated if necessary but obviously you still use general rules and points updates

[phandaal]

 

It's not a choice you can make entirely for yourself though, that's the whole point. You can't do "what suits you", you have to decide in conjunction with your opponent and as you've pointed out yourself, Matched Play (using GT rules) is the standard for pick-up games, like it or not.

 

So sure, if you don't want to play whatever ITC-influenced GT missions GW come up with you could choose not to play, but for a lot of people in a lot of places that isn't a choice to play a different game format, it's a choice not to play 40k at all. 

 

Having "Tournament" be it's own distinct 4th "way to play", separate from "Matched" harms nobody.

 

 

This is really what it comes down to. In a pick-up game you often do not know your opponent, and the best way to ensure fairness is to use the ruleset that people agree is the common standard.

 

In my personal experience, it takes much longer to find someone willing to play a game mode besides Matched Play. There have been times when I have just not gotten any takers when looking for someone to play an Open War match and have had to put off playing a game until the next weekend or longer.

 

That is in one of the largest cities in North America with easy access to multiple local 40k Facebook and Discord groups and a half dozen stores nearby.

[Noserenda]

Just how old are you man I'm 58, just saying

 

I can get behind trimming the fat out of all the rules bloat. Much as I enjoy the game, I'm hoping 10th does quite a bit of what you are proposing as far as not needing quite so many resource layers. I like secondaries though. I feel it adds a narrative element. Still, I see how it could feel like an entry barrier. That's not the competitive scene as much as GW digging the crumbs out of our pockets.

 

Old enough that me and my buddies to have a whole load of adulting draining our much limited time and energy :D  I think the youngest in our group are late thirties?

 

A Basic mission specific secondary built into the mission can work fine, for narrative i much prefer the Agendas in Crusade, its broadly the same concept but with a lot more buy in :) 

 

 

One direct detriment I have personally experienced as a result of GW catering to competitive play ahead of everything else, is the constant changes made to armies.

 

I started collecting Adeptus Mechanicus shortly before their 9th edition book was released. Once the book came out I bought the various kits and units to build an army around the rules presented in the book.

 

In the time between the book coming out, an me getting the army finished, (before I ever had a chance to actually use the codex) they nerfed and changed various units on multiple occasions, and changed the cost of various units time and again. The units I currently own can't be used in the same way as they were written into that book, ad the army has to be chopped and changed to fit into the necessary point limits. There was literally no opportunity for someone like me, who assembles an army at a reasonable pace, to even play a game before they altered the book.

 

I understand the book might be too strong, but the force I put together was varied and didn't spam units. I have been punished for the sins of the competitive players who were spamming Walkers and Rangers, to the point where the army I have is outdated and needs changing before I ever had a chance to play it. How is this a better experience for me?

I think thats broadly going to happen due to a wider testing base and unfortunate timing but the other option is to just leave things imbalanced and i think thats worse for more people overall, and i say that as someone who used to buy whole armies and work through them too! Ultimately i dont think more competitive influence is going to push that past the release FAQ, 6 monthly updates and the odd campaign book adding new toys. 

[RWJP]

 

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? 

 

There already is a "Non tournament focussed" Matched Play option... It's the Eternal War mission pack in the 9th Edition Core Rule Book. 

 

18 missions covering games from 500 points and up.

 

Alternatively my local gaming group uses Matched Play army building and then creates mission from the Open War cards.

[MARK0SIAN]

One direct detriment I have personally experienced as a result of GW catering to competitive play ahead of everything else, is the constant changes made to armies.

 

I started collecting Adeptus Mechanicus shortly before their 9th edition book was released. Once the book came out I bought the various kits and units to build an army around the rules presented in the book.

 

In the time between the book coming out, an me getting the army finished, (before I ever had a chance to actually use the codex) they nerfed and changed various units on multiple occasions, and changed the cost of various units time and again. The units I currently own can't be used in the same way as they were written into that book, ad the army has to be chopped and changed to fit into the necessary point limits. There was literally no opportunity for someone like me, who assembles an army at a reasonable pace, to even play a game before they altered the book.

 

I understand the book might be too strong, but the force I put together was varied and didn't spam units. I have been punished for the sins of the competitive players who were spamming Walkers and Rangers, to the point where the army I have is outdated and needs changing before I ever had a chance to play it. How is this a better experience for me?

This is definitely annoying. I now have an informal policy that I won’t buy a kit (especially a new kit) from GW until at least 6 months after it or it’s rules are released in case they nerf it into oblivion at the six month mark. I don’t always follow the policy if I really like the model or it’s something special like the Templars refresh but I find it a good rule of thumb.

 

To be clear, I’m not talking about nerfing something that was clearly overperforming and bringing it in line but taking a good unit and making it unplayable like they did when they upped the knight castellan cost by 100 points because of the soup interactions.

[Halandaar]

Alternatively my local gaming group uses Matched Play army building and then creates mission from the Open War cards.

 

+1 for this, the Open War cards can be a lot of fun. But again, this is a solution your group has agreed upon and it unfortunately doesn't hold in the wider world of pickup games against random opponents.

[phandaal]

 

Alternatively my local gaming group uses Matched Play army building and then creates mission from the Open War cards.

 

+1 for this, the Open War cards can be a lot of fun. But again, this is a solution your group has agreed upon and it unfortunately doesn't hold in the wider world of pickup games against random opponents.

 

 

Yep, my favorite way to play right now. And as mentioned above, even in a city of millions with a strong 40k scene it is sometimes not possible to find anyone willing to play that mode for a pickup game on a given weekend.

 

Since Matched Play (i.e., Tournament Play) is the agreed-upon common game mode, any changes there are going to affect way more than just tournament players.

[Dark Shepherd]

 

 

 

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?

 

There already is a "Non tournament focussed" Matched Play option... It's the Eternal War mission pack in the 9th Edition Core Rule Book.

 

18 missions covering games from 500 points and up.

 

Alternatively my local gaming group uses Matched Play army building and then creates mission from the Open War cards.

Again though, back to 2 people having to bring the full rulebook (or open war cards being relegated to obscurity this edition compared to last) and to play missions/secondaries that have never been updated/faq'd once, so they still have any issues they had and its a totally different set of secondaries

 

Id be all on brb missions and the updated secondaries cards from white dwarf if bothering with secondaries, same for open war cards, but if a prospective opponent said wurt what Id see where theyre coming from

 

Edit: if anyones wondering the rulebook, marine codex, and Space Wolves supplement weigh 7.6 pounds

Edited February 2, 2022 by Dark Shepherd

[Schlitzaf]

Honestly: I’d use classic fifth ed mission style as a baseline. I loved that setup.

[Noserenda]

 

 

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? 

 

There already is a "Non tournament focussed" Matched Play option... It's the Eternal War mission pack in the 9th Edition Core Rule Book. 

 

18 missions covering games from 500 points and up.

 

Alternatively my local gaming group uses Matched Play army building and then creates mission from the Open War cards.

 

The rest of my post you didnt quote covers most of why i dont think that qualifies :D Really thats barely different to using the tournament packs anyway isnt it? 

 

The Open war cards are pretty good, not played with the current version but its peers are a solid way to crank out a varied, straightforward scenario. Im pretty sure the various tactical objective decks and popping 6 objectives on the board should work too with a few QoL tweaks.