Amature vs Professional. 6ed

[Renegade]

Going from forum to forum, and reading the latest from Brent, it seems that opinions on this edition are broken in to dividing parties still.

You have those that want a more competitive game design, that allows for tourney play. Another way of describing such a design would be to make the game professional, those that play to win and play the most competitive lists and/or armies.

Then you have those that play for the sake of enjoying a game, win or lose. So called fluff players etc. These could also be called amateur gamers, as they are unlikely to get involved in tourneys and have more unconventional lists.

The company that makes the game has come out in favour of amateur play over professional play time and again, and such direction is emphasized in this edition. Personally it is a move that I appreciate, as professionalism has consumed many games and sports already, and all it does is take the game away from those that just want to have fun with it.

There are many other games that simulate warfare that are played professionally, let this game alone and enjoy it for what it is.

[Wolfshade]

I think the direction was inevitable.
When I look at my group and how often we play we rarely play in tournaments, and I would imagine that the majority of people's gaming experiance is in a non-tournament scene.
It makes sense therefore to appeal to the larger base in terms of rules.
The engagement of people with the fluff (or fluffier side) is one that causes people to have more attachement to the game then say a game of monopoly. This engagement is what make moves the game from a game to an hobby.

[velox atrum]

The two styles are not mutually exclusive. If rules are written to the level of "professional" play than can easly have alternative rules or levels of rules for "fluff" players... if the game is written to the "fluff" it is much harder to go the other way as the basic requirements of "RULES" not "guidelines" has been missed

[Mr Mystery]

Look at the people GW seek to employ, and you'll understand the ethos of their game design...

A good staffer should reflect the hobby, and GW want hobbyists, not those who declare themselves 'elite' gamers.

[velox atrum]

Which is why each edition is "broken" to aid what ever army/style the hobbyist in question at GW London likes.

As to the Pro v. Fluff players.... to take each to its logical exteme Pro players would have 40k look like Star Fleet Battles rules. [url]http://starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/CadetHandbook.pdf[/url] while Fluff players would end up like the schools that no longer keep score on sporting events so every one can just have a good time..

[Mr Mystery]

Having had the benefit of GW training, you've done them quite the disservice there.

More later, am at work with a sneaky iPhone posting!

[eldargal]

Of course the key thing to remember is that the vast majority of hobbyists are fluff players, competitive players are a (loud) minority. GW does has never seemed to believe that making the game more competitive would net them more sales, and they are in a far better position than any of us to judge.

Also, it is frankly insulting to compare fluff players to stupid schools which remove scoring. Fluff players just remember that while the goal of the game is to win, the point of it is to have fun.

[Wolfshade]

Which is why each edition is "broken" to aid what ever army/style the hobbyist in question at GW London likes.

As to the Pro v. Fluff players.... to take each to its logical exteme Pro players would have 40k look like Star Fleet Battles rules. [url]http://starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/CadetHandbook.pdf[/url] while Fluff players would end up like the schools that no longer keep score on sporting events so every one can just have a good time..

I'm not sure what school you went to, but winning was everything. Hey being in the 1st XV gave one certain privileges that was not afforded to those who weren't.

[Captainparty]

GW has never promoted the game as a competitive game, its always been a roleplaying experience. People will try and make it competitive, like people try and make Smash Bros competitive, it can be done, but it isn't the most effective way of having a competitive game.

WAAC tournement players would do well to remember, and I think the new rulebook spells it quite clearly on page 8, that they're not playing the game as it was intended to be played and they're in the vast minority of war game players.

I guess they seem more important online than they really are becuase people who play for fun don't write useful blogs about how they made their games fun for other people who only play for fun to copy verbatim in their own games.

[Chumbalaya]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, they never were.

Stop forcing a false dichotomy.

Better writing benefits everyone, better rules benefit everyone.