Does 40k need new rules for Tournaments? - Page 6 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
General 40k This is the place to talk about everything related to Warhammer 40k.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-03-13, 11:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Straken's_Fist's Avatar
Straken's_Fist's Flag is: South Georgia
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,094
Reputation: 18
Default

Just a final thought on the cost side of things:
Honestly the only reason that 40k costs more than other games is because you need infinitely more models for 40k compared to the other games. But if you look at prices on a model by model basis GW are actually sometimes cheaper, and often no difference between prices.
Case in point: Just ordered box sets of Malifaux and another starter box of Infinity over the weekend: All metal mins, each pack contains 5 or 6 minis, they both cost around 25.00. You can get a box of x10 plastic Space Marines for that, and if you go to the 25% off websites you can get them for even cheaper.

However, what does cost A LOT more are the codices and all the rulebooks. They are often double the price, while rival companies will often offer a pdf download of rules for free if you don't want to fork out for the additional fluff and pictures in the rulebook. But in the case of the 40k rulebook, you are getting 300 pages as opposed to 150 pages for rival gaming systems. So you are getting double the content. All well and good.
However, the difference here is that you don't have a choice to not buy the 40k rulebook and forgo all the pages in it dedicated to fluff, artwork and lots of pictures of models. You have to buy it or you cannot play. So there is that.

Out of interest though Zion, in previous posts you mention GW have made mistakes throughout their history that other gaming companies have learned from. What mistakes in particular?

Last edited by Straken's_Fist; 12-03-13 at 11:51 PM.
Straken's_Fist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-04-13, 12:36 AM Thread Starter
Token Trans Mod
 
Zion's Avatar
Zion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the internet.
Posts: 6,385
Reputation: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Straken's_Fist View Post
Out of interest though Zion, in previous posts you mention GW have made mistakes throughout their history that other gaming companies have learned from. What mistakes in particular?
A couple that come to mind off the top of my head are:
- How to balance the game for competitive play (GW has given up on that as of 6th ed)
- Brick and Mortars (honestly GW has been burning money on those for at least a decade now and with all their cost cutting and restructuring I'm surprised they weren't dropped in favor of FLGS and direct only support)
- Forums (GW definitely showed how to NOT run one)
- Rules with no models (that was a screw up that CHS and other companies exploited and it's burned them hard, from what I've seen a lot of other companies get the rules and models out at the same time instead)
- Publicly stating Finecast was cheaper than metal (generally they have trouble spinning things well)

I'm betting anyone could think of more. But yes, GW has stepped on it's own dick a few times in the last 30 some-odd years.
Zion is offline  
post #53 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-04-13, 02:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Lord_Aaron's Avatar
Lord_Aaron's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 108
Reputation: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wusword77 View Post
...
We should try and leave cost of GW products out of this, as it's one of those factors that always seems to derail any good conversation about GW's policies and rules.

Lets just all agree on the idea that we are always willing to pay a lower price for the same product, and the price we pay can never go to low.
...
Now lets just stay away from the cost thing. It's gonna kill this thread and I like reading this one.
+1
Lord_Aaron is offline  
 
post #54 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-08-13, 04:31 AM
Senior Member
 
Lord_Aaron's Avatar
Lord_Aaron's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 108
Reputation: 3
Default

Sorry to dig up old treads, but I was thinking about this topic and I had an idea.

To me, it seems like a lot of the conplaints/anger/nerd rage comes from "spamy lists." Ex: Army lists with 3 or more of the same annoying unit.

How about for the tournaments, a 0-1 restriction on EVERYTHING that's NOT a troop choice.

Your only allowed one copy of a unit fron your codex unless it counts as a troop choice (or dedicated transport). But, if you had an ability that made something a troop choice, then you can have as many as you want. Like have Typhus make Plage Marines troops or what's his name from the Dark Angeles that makes terminators trooos.

Thoughts? (Be kind please)

Last edited by Lord_Aaron; 12-08-13 at 06:31 AM.
Lord_Aaron is offline  
post #55 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-08-13, 11:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Sethis's Avatar
Sethis's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alston, Cumbria
Posts: 4,190
Reputation: 58
Default

Frankly spamming is a lot less prevalent than it was in 5th, where 6 Chimeras full of Melta/Plasmavets or 6 Razorbacks were common simply due to the near-invulnerability of Mech.

I honestly think the easiest way to balance the game right now would be to make Flyers 0-1 per detachment, therefore allowing you 2 in total. No other unit breaks the game nearly as badly. It isn't the Heavy Support that's the problem, and Elites aren't used much in any army bar Tau and sometimes Space Marines. Non-Flyer FA choices don't see much time on the table either.

With that in mind, I think a 0-1 limit is overly harsh and doesn't solve the fundamental problem of balance in 40k at the moment.

90% of people think they are above average.

Statistically Improbable. Psychologically Inevitable.
Sethis is offline  
post #56 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-10-13, 05:31 PM
Senior Member
 
iamtheeviltwin's Avatar
iamtheeviltwin's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Beyond the Pale
Posts: 992
Reputation: 32
Default

It looks like the new escalation and stronghold supplements have finally pushed the first major tournament to create a comp rule set. Feast of Blades will be a comp tournament next year.

While the article is interesting and I have no real issues with a comp system, the comments on the article are entertaining.

Lots of screaming about what is one of the nastier combos out there right now getting hit (screamer star 2++ re-roll)...of course many of these are the same players that are freaking out about D-Weapons in tournament play.

Personally, I think it is about time, MTG has used a comp system basically since they started competitive tournaments, and it will be interesting to see how all of this falls out and what sort of comp environments are created much like the various comp systems in WFB (swiss, ETC, etc.)

Servants of the Laughing God (Harlequin Themed Eldar Army)
First Eastern Mirage Corps (C:SM)
I am the Evil Project Log (All my work since restarting the hobby)
The Crusade of Morr (WFB Empire Battle Reports)
Dem Bones (Dice Rolling Program)
iamtheeviltwin is offline  
post #57 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-11-13, 05:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Lord_Aaron's Avatar
Lord_Aaron's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 108
Reputation: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamtheeviltwin View Post
It looks like the new escalation and stronghold supplements have finally pushed the first major tournament to create a comp rule set. Feast of Blades will be a comp tournament next year....
Yes! I think this is a great idea!

Quote:
"...You're constrained to playing the overpowered characters or the counters, rather than having free choice of all characters...."
I totally agree. Just replace "characters" with "units."

Of course, what to ban and/or restrict is a matter of debate, which is probably best done at another time and place.
Lord_Aaron is offline  
post #58 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-11-13, 01:26 PM Thread Starter
Token Trans Mod
 
Zion's Avatar
Zion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the internet.
Posts: 6,385
Reputation: 103
Default

Unit restrictions don't actually solve Screamerstars or Jetseer Council combos sadly unless you make very specific bans to keep them from being available as options.
Zion is offline  
post #59 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-11-13, 03:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Lord_Aaron's Avatar
Lord_Aaron's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 108
Reputation: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zion View Post
Unit restrictions don't actually solve Screamerstars or Jetseer Council combos sadly unless you make very specific bans to keep them from being available as options.
Interesting point! Thanks for the input. :D
A 0-1 restrictions wouldn't stop screamerstar, but only having one herald of tzeentch would limit it's effectiveness. (4 heralds = 1 HQ, But each herald would be different)
But, I'll sleep on it and try to come up with other ideas ;)
Lord_Aaron is offline  
post #60 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-11-13, 04:09 PM
Where is Jessica Hyde?
 
humakt's Avatar
humakt's Flag is: England
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,182
Reputation: 30
Default

I find it interesting that the thing they are going to ban at Feast of Blades is actually not that powerful except under certain circumstances (specifically Tzeentch). I love the Grimoire of True Names just for its randomness.Plus on a few occasions I have managed to get a 2++ invunrable on my Beasts of nurgle.
I just don't think GW care about tournaments in the way they used too and events like Throne of Skulls emphasis the playing of the game rather than the winning.

Your toast has been burnt and no amount of scraping will get rid of the black bits.
humakt is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > General 40k

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome