Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums

Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums (https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/)
-   General 40k (https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/14-general-40k/)
-   -   Does 40k need new rules for Tournaments? (https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/general-40k/130202-does-40k-need-new-rules-tournaments.html)

Zion 11-14-13 10:41 PM

Does 40k need new rules for Tournaments?
 
2 Attachment(s)
I already posted a short article on TWG about this but it's really something I'm just curious about what others have to say so I'm launching it here: do you think 40k needs a new ruleset for tournament use be it a "6.5 Ed" or a full reworking by the community?

Now there are no wrong answers, I'm just curious to hear what everyone has to say.

lokyar 11-15-13 10:25 AM

I think yes, there should be a LOT of more balance in the form of monthly updates for too strong/to weak units (like the WS shield) to make tournaments more varied (other then Eldar WS spam, Tau and the odd demon player)

Jacobite 11-15-13 10:51 AM

I think any sort of postive engagement with the community is a good thing and by positive I mean GW using the community as a resource and working with them rather than simply throwing stuff out into the world and only acting on 1% of what they receive back. Having a frequent forum for them to work with players and see how the community is making use of the rules they have set up would be a very good step.

Kreuger 11-15-13 02:03 PM

I'm not a tourney player so take this with a grain of salt, I also haven't read your TWG article yet.

I would say that instead of a new "version" GW should be doing more active management of the army lists ands rules.

With the electronic resources available now, it seems foolish not to more actively manage the state of the game. Considering how fast the internet can potentially change the meta-game it seems prudent to make changes as needed.

The difficult part would be properly disseminating these updates without it seeming like gouging. Perhaps players who own paper copies of the books could also receive a free or discounted digital copy, and the digital copy would be automatically updated to reflect the changes in the rules as the game evolves.

lokyar 11-15-13 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kreuger (Post 1432275)
I would say that instead of a new "version" GW should be doing more active management of the army lists ands rules.

With the electronic resources available now, it seems foolish not to more actively manage the state of the game. Considering how fast the internet can potentially change the meta-game it seems prudent to make changes as needed.

The difficult part would be properly disseminating these updates without it seeming like gouging. Perhaps players who own paper copies of the books could also receive a free or discounted digital copy, and the digital copy would be automatically updated to reflect the changes in the rules as the game evolves.

You can stick the updates (like an FAQ) on the site and in every White Dwarf.

Straken's_Fist 11-15-13 03:01 PM

I don't see the point in 40k tournaments full-stop anymore. Hence why GW go on about 'spirit of the game' in the rulebook and 'creating a narrative': The game is so unbalanced now I think it is virtually impossible to create a fix for that for tournament play, it would require a massive re-writing of the rules for each unit.

I am starting to see just how horribly unbalanced 40k is the more I play and learn Malifaux 2nd Edition: There is a tournament going on right now and it's hugely enjoyable because it's so well balanced and thus nigh-on impossible for people to bring cheesey lists (maybe bar one or two exceptions, but even then it's nothing compared to Necron flyer spam, x8 heldrakes etc), the environment is just much nicer as a result and people are just infinitely more sporting and friendly. No netlist bullshit.

Don't get me wrong, I still love 40k - but I love it for what it is: Narrative based game that rewards homebrewing and is designed for beer and pretzels type gaming.
For example, a homebrewed 40k campaign can be incredibly fun; mix your own objectives in there for certain armies: Salamanders going around the board protecting/rescusing civilians and gaining VP for doing so, Black Templars getting VP for winning challanges, Dark Eldar getting VP for capturing slaves and so forth. I think this is how 6th ed 40k is supposed to be played.

That said, if you want to play it competitive, go nuts. I am just done with it because I think there is so much dependency on netlists now and the inbalance just means he who spams the most powerful units wins, and the creativity has been sucked out of it (you see less and less homebrewing these days compared to the 90's). No amount of FAq'ing will fix that, because GW do not care about balance, they also do not care about listening to feedback: Look at Wyrdgames in contrast: They released the beta rules for 2nd Edition for free and listened to the feedback from players and adjusted the rules in the run up to the 2nd edition release. I think the same happens with Dystopian Wars and Infinity and Warmachine. GW has alienated there fanbase to the point now people are giving up completely and exploring the competition. 40k isn't even 3rd most popular game in my hometown anymore, and Malifaux sold so quickly that they are having serious supply issues to meet demand. I think that trend will continue. Sad but true.

MidnightSun 11-15-13 03:12 PM

317 Attachment(s)
The rules don't lend themselves to competition, true, but a big problem is the community themselves. People say omg netlists r op, but look at Mike Brandt's NOVA list. Space Wolves/Imperial Guard works well, no doubt about it, but it's a long shot from a netlist. Yet it was able to beat all the netlisters, which I must add were not being played by noobs to any extent.

Magic The Gathering, for all it's flaws, has a much better competitive community than Games Workshop, in my experience (they're shit at personal hygiene, shaving and basic etiquette, but they're better competitors than we are). The entire MtG metagame reacts and adapts constantly to compensate for each new release. We're still stuck on mech vs foot in 6th. MtG is also pretty bad at balance - 90% of material is never seen in a tournament, but somehow it still manages to be a much more competitive game. I reckon it's because of the fans.

Midnight

lokyar 11-15-13 03:22 PM

i think the difference between magic and wh40k is that its far easier to adapt to things. you can play a couple games a DAY while most of us are stuck at 5 games a week if we are lucky at all.
large parts of the wh40k dont play very often because a game of wh40k just takes so damn long. also, magic has a realistic online version and a far bigger online community and TBH i live in the 3rd biggest city of my country and im, as far as i can tell, the only one who spends some time on forums.

Kreuger 11-15-13 03:35 PM

Oh, I'm certainly aware of the faqs. The problem with publishing in white dwarf is that iterative updates end up spread throughout a wide range of editions and it becomes awkward to manage.

Straken's_Fist 11-15-13 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidnightSun (Post 1432294)
The rules don't lend themselves to competition, true, but a big problem is the community themselves. People say omg netlists r op, but look at Mike Brandt's NOVA list. Space Wolves/Imperial Guard works well, no doubt about it, but it's a long shot from a netlist. Yet it was able to beat all the netlisters, which I must add were not being played by noobs to any extent.

Magic The Gathering, for all it's flaws, has a much better competitive community than Games Workshop, in my experience (they're shit at personal hygiene, shaving and basic etiquette, but they're better competitors than we are). The entire MtG metagame reacts and adapts constantly to compensate for each new release. We're still stuck on mech vs foot in 6th. MtG is also pretty bad at balance - 90% of material is never seen in a tournament, but somehow it still manages to be a much more competitive game. I reckon it's because of the fans.

Midnight

Don't play MTG myself but yeah it's the same with Malifaux (and pretty much all the other popular alternative games now): The community is so much friendlier and there is no real difference between friendly games and competitive games, they feel exactly the same. With 40k it is completely different, it seems to attract dicks, to put it bluntly.

I think you touch on a very good point it is a lot to do with community, or perhaps the lack of a community in 40k. Perhaps there is a stronger community with the other games because most of the companies interact and listen to the fanbase? I think that in itself creates a stronger sense of community: The game is balanced enough that it isn't going to attract those WAAC players who everyone hates playing in 40k (they will argue every point with venom, bog the game down to the point it isn't remotely enjoyable, generally be rude and obnoxious to everyone...I find this incredibly sad to be honest). And competitive gaming is a joy as a result. Infact there is next to no distinction between fun vs competitive, which says it all really.

Again this is why I don't think any amount of rules tweaking will help.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Powered by the Emperor of Man.


vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.0 Beta 4 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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