@BigKahuna

Well there will always be people that will never touch anything other than GW stuff going so far as to reject everything that is non GW without even trying it, but there are also many players that have started a second or even third game system and some have even left GW games entirely.

So yes GW is and will be the big boy with the most players and the most cash made but you do not need to surpass GW as long as you get enough players and money to live and grow everything is fine and that this is possible was shown by many companies.

Interesting discussion with a lot of valid points... Makes for a nice read.

In my case, I started playing a bit of Warhammer back in the day (around 20 years ago) but stopped playing it because of its obtuse rules, not because of the painting (which I love and still do... at the moment I'm painting some Imperial Assault and Descent minis, but still paint every now and then a Warhammer 40K or Fantasy model).

I also think the success of X-Wing is not only because of it being Star Wars or pre-painted... I think a big part is its simple rules that allow you to make a lot of interesting tactical decisions in around 1 hour... This is the sort of thing that Warhammer always lacked, as you can play a game of 2-3 hours and maybe take 2-3 important decisions in the whole game, which is boring... I think a good hint of that is that competitive games and tournaments in X-Wing are very successful, and this does not have so much to do with the pure collectors or pre-painted aspect, but just with the fact that the mechanics of the game are great.

So I think the game will attract a lot of people if the rules are so streamlined as in X-Wing or Armada, especially people that, like me, love both miniature painting and pure mechanical games... Now, whether they attract enough people to support the game, I don't know, but Descent 2 is still going on after a lot of expansions and I don't think it's FFG's main bread earner, so I have some confidence that they'll manage to produce a game with enough projection to make it an interesting one to follow.

In any case, nice to see they try the maneuver-templates mechanics with a Fantasy miniatures game.

In any case, nice to see they try the maneuver-templates mechanics with a Fantasy miniatures game.

Agreed, I think this was a very smart move. The use of "measurement rulers" is so 1985 that I just honestly couldn't play a game like that today, it's just too old school and I'm suprised that so many modern miniature games have stuck to this format. I mean I can understand Games Workshop, they have always done it that way so it makes sense they would stick to their own traditions but new games? eh... Im glad to see FFG had the sense to realize that. '

I just hope they are able to identify many of the other problems with miniatures games because it happens often that people "copy" the model of successful games with the assumption that what they are doing, is what makes them successful but this really is not the case. Measurement rulers, Army books, whacky and unpredictable dice rules.. tons of keywords.. all of these things are what make Warhammer suck, it's not the cause of their success.

I really hope we see more X-Wing and Armada in Rune Wars and less Warhammer.

In any case, nice to see they try the maneuver-templates mechanics with a Fantasy miniatures game.

Agreed, I think this was a very smart move. The use of "measurement rulers" is so 1985 that I just honestly couldn't play a game like that today, it's just too old school and I'm suprised that so many modern miniature games have stuck to this format. I mean I can understand Games Workshop, they have always done it that way so it makes sense they would stick to their own traditions but new games? eh... Im glad to see FFG had the sense to realize that. '

With templates you have to think and plan your movement ahead where as with range rulers you make your decision how to move when you activated your miniature/unit, but with templates your stuck with them and i don't mean the one you've chosen for movement i mean all the templates in general, you can only move the way the templates are shaped, with a range ruler you have fredoom of movement which can be important to avoid terrain, block enemy movement or get to a specific spot on the table.

So just because one system is old and one is new does not make one better, ist depends on the game experience you want the players to have and other rules like terrain and cover rules , the type of your game (skirmish, massed infantry, ship....) and more to decide which system is better suited for your game.

That's an interesting point, I really didn't think about that but I definitely think you are right. With measured movement templates you are kind of limited and while there is some semblance of predictability, it comes with the caveat of restriction.

Not sure how the Warhammer crowd will view that, but for me personally I find that a more structured approach is preferable and as Armada has shown, even with movement templates you can have flexibility. Im actually surprised that they didn't choose to use the Armada movement system as it really is a sort of more flexible and advanced version of the flight system. Alternatively it may have been better to go back to the roots of the flight systems as in Wings of Fury where you have a deck of card for each unit that can be made unique offering added flexibility in the process.

See, the problem is that it is assumed by a lot of people at this point, and possibly to an extent by FFG, that RuneWars Minis is targeted at/will draw people who play the "old-school" or "hardcore" miniature wargames - your Warhammers, Infinities, Warmahordes, Malifaux... xeses? Which simply won't work. There's already empirical evidence for that: the game announcement is already linked on every wargaming page on the internet, and the overwhelming reaction from 90% of the established "hardcore wargaming" (I'm doing serious air-quoting here) fanbase is "oh that's cute, anyone know what the scale is, I wonder if I can use those skellies for proxies in my game?".

The most problematic thing with FFG "miniature games", be it X-Wing, Armada, Imperial Assault or RuneWars, is that a) they don't have enough faction choice and b) the way these are packaged and marketed.

There is a general consensus in the miniature gaming community that you need, at the very least, four distinct factions available at launch to provide meaningful choice and a sense of faction identity that was already discussed on this forum as a concept. Apart from Star Wars games (in which this consideration is outweighed by the power of the license), I can't think of a miniature game that had two factions at launch and didn't struggle/peter out. Dust had two, it struggled, added a third, struggled even more, continues to struggle and can't seem to put in the fourth. Starship Troopers had two, struggled, added a third after much delay, petered out and wasn't renewed for the license before it got a third. Maelstrom's Edge did okay on Kickstarter, came out this year with two factions at launch, it's already showing up in retailer bargain bins at half price. The HALO fleet game launched with two factions by necessity, it's already largely forgotten. There's piles upon piles of other examples. I'm not saying there aren't/weren't other considerations that contributed to those games' downfall. But what you universally and overwhelmingly see on the internet whenever a game like that is released is "That looks kinda cool, I'm ready to jump in after they commit to the game with more factions". Heck, even Battlelore 2ed has the majority of people still upset and anxious about getting the Elves, since they feel the game is still incomplete with just three factions (and I'm one of those people personally), and people were clamoring for more houses in Battles for Westeros, but by the time Baratheon was released, that was too little to late and the game petered out. RuneWars will be launching with two factions as far as we know. There will instantly be a very large segment of the audience that will take the "I'd buy in, but will wait for more factions" stance. The cynic in me expects that, by FFGs track record, we won't get a thir RWM faction within a year of launch. The ultra-cynic in me expects that, by FFGs track record, the game will peter out completely and be functionally discontinued before we get a fourth.

The other thing is the packaging. The wargaming community is accustomed to choosing a faction, buying stuff for that faction, and then playing that faction and having access to more or less all the choices for that particular faction. You flat out can't do that for FFG's miniature games. First of all, you need to buy the huge core set to even have all the fiddly gadgetry to play - that may or may not have the faction you want, and even if it does, it forces you to shell out dough for a faction that you don't want. Then, there's the upgrade cards. Oh, the upgrade cards. Whether you're playing X-Wing, Armada or Imperial Assault, you know for a fact that you flat out cannot just commit to one faction and play that one faction in a 100% optimized fashion, since no matter what force you build, there will always be some card that will make that build better. At best, that card will be packaged in another box that you don't want in that build, but at least it's your faction. At worst and seemingly most commonly, it'll be packaged in another faction's release or in that variant play mode box that you have no interest beyod that one card. That's a sour point even for the completionist boardgame crowd that's already accustomed to buying one of every SKU for a game line. For the miniature wargaming crowd, that's flat out an utterly alien concept. We already know for a fact that RWM will be coming out as an mandatory two-faction core set and it will have upgrade cards as part of the army building framework. It'll be all that all over again.

Long story short: it might look like RWM will appeal to the existing miniature wargaming crowd and FFG might even purposefully hope that it will. But it won't. On account of the way the product line is and most probably will be handled, it'll only appeal to the existing X-Wing/Armada demographic of people interested in light competitive wargames and ameritrash boardgames and people that were curious of "hardcore miniature games" and might have even played one at one point, but presently do not have time for that in their daily life. Which is all good. But assuming that this will draw existing "hardcore miniature game" crowd on account of having ranks-and-flanks like the old Warhammer did, is missing the point and I sincerely hope that FFG realizes that - otherwise they are setting themselves up for failure.

Also, answering before anyone weighs in with that argument: the reason X-Wing has captured a seemingly significant chunk of the old Warhammer Fantasy community after that game imploded is simply because X-Wing had the biggest, most accessible and most structured organized play/tournament community after Warhammer, and those people were specifically looking for an active game that they can play every week or a couple of weeks in a tournament setting. Many members of the Warhammer community flat out consider any game that doesn't have an easily accessible 10+ attendee tournament at least once every other week to be a "dead game that no one plays". RWM will not have that community at launch, and as such will not be interesting to those people in the slightest bit.

-Snip-

In short, I'm in complete agreement with everything you said. I honestly think it's going to play out exactly as you said.

I do think because it's an FFG game there will be plenty of people that will line up to buy the core set to try it, there is a lot of consumer trust as can be seen in some of the posts here, but in the end, for a miniatures game to have any hope of longevity if 30+ history is used as example, it absolutely MUST have the hardcore miniature crowd which is one of the pickiest and most competitive. A two faction game with a handful of miniatures is not going to be enough to sway the core audience this game needs.

I do believe the reason why X-Wing and Armada are successful rests entirely in the fact that it's Star Wars though, people in this forum are really underestimating that fact. I mean sure it has great organized play, Its a fun game.. all those things are true, but if X-Wing was some generic science-fiction theme instead and had the exact same mechanics, no one would be playing it and it would have died a long time ago. It sells because its Star Wars, plain and simple.

In any case, nice to see they try the maneuver-templates mechanics with a Fantasy miniatures game.

Agreed, I think this was a very smart move. The use of "measurement rulers" is so 1985 that I just honestly couldn't play a game like that today, it's just too old school and I'm suprised that so many modern miniature games have stuck to this format. I mean I can understand Games Workshop, they have always done it that way so it makes sense they would stick to their own traditions but new games? eh... Im glad to see FFG had the sense to realize that. '

Because both systems have their pros and cons.

With templates you have to think and plan your movement ahead where as with range rulers you make your decision how to move when you activated your miniature/unit, but with templates your stuck with them and i don't mean the one you've chosen for movement i mean all the templates in general, you can only move the way the templates are shaped, with a range ruler you have fredoom of movement which can be important to avoid terrain, block enemy movement or get to a specific spot on the table.

So just because one system is old and one is new does not make one better, ist depends on the game experience you want the players to have and other rules like terrain and cover rules , the type of your game (skirmish, massed infantry, ship....) and more to decide which system is better suited for your game.

Interesting point, but I would not compare them just because they are old and new systems... I think the advantage of the template system is the secret and simultaneous planning phase. This reduces downtime a lot so that in the same amount of time people take a lot more decisions and feel more engaged with the game because of that.

The problem with the range rulers is that you cannot have a secret and simultaneous planning phase, and this slows down the game a lot because you have to "enter planning mode" for each of your units... plus, it's way more fiddly, which also goes against having a more tactical game...

Anyway, just my experience/opinion... I just find it curious that I love GW's games such as Blood Bowl (and now Silver Tower) that have a clear "template" move whereas I always disliked their "traditional" range ruler games, but could be just my predisposition.

See, the problem is that it is assumed by a lot of people at this point, and possibly to an extent by FFG, that RuneWars Minis is targeted at/will draw people who play the "old-school" or "hardcore" miniature wargames - your Warhammers, Infinities, Warmahordes, Malifaux... xeses? Which simply won't work. There's already empirical evidence for that: the game announcement is already linked on every wargaming page on the internet, and the overwhelming reaction from 90% of the established "hardcore wargaming" (I'm doing serious air-quoting here) fanbase is "oh that's cute, anyone know what the scale is, I wonder if I can use those skellies for proxies in my game?".

The most problematic thing with FFG "miniature games", be it X-Wing, Armada, Imperial Assault or RuneWars, is that a) they don't have enough faction choice and b) the way these are packaged and marketed.

There is a general consensus in the miniature gaming community that you need, at the very least, four distinct factions available at launch to provide meaningful choice and a sense of faction identity that was already discussed on this forum as a concept. Apart from Star Wars games (in which this consideration is outweighed by the power of the license), I can't think of a miniature game that had two factions at launch and didn't struggle/peter out. Dust had two, it struggled, added a third, struggled even more, continues to struggle and can't seem to put in the fourth. Starship Troopers had two, struggled, added a third after much delay, petered out and wasn't renewed for the license before it got a third. Maelstrom's Edge did okay on Kickstarter, came out this year with two factions at launch, it's already showing up in retailer bargain bins at half price. The HALO fleet game launched with two factions by necessity, it's already largely forgotten. There's piles upon piles of other examples. I'm not saying there aren't/weren't other considerations that contributed to those games' downfall. But what you universally and overwhelmingly see on the internet whenever a game like that is released is "That looks kinda cool, I'm ready to jump in after they commit to the game with more factions". Heck, even Battlelore 2ed has the majority of people still upset and anxious about getting the Elves, since they feel the game is still incomplete with just three factions (and I'm one of those people personally), and people were clamoring for more houses in Battles for Westeros, but by the time Baratheon was released, that was too little to late and the game petered out. RuneWars will be launching with two factions as far as we know. There will instantly be a very large segment of the audience that will take the "I'd buy in, but will wait for more factions" stance. The cynic in me expects that, by FFGs track record, we won't get a thir RWM faction within a year of launch. The ultra-cynic in me expects that, by FFGs track record, the game will peter out completely and be functionally discontinued before we get a fourth.

The other thing is the packaging. The wargaming community is accustomed to choosing a faction, buying stuff for that faction, and then playing that faction and having access to more or less all the choices for that particular faction. You flat out can't do that for FFG's miniature games. First of all, you need to buy the huge core set to even have all the fiddly gadgetry to play - that may or may not have the faction you want, and even if it does, it forces you to shell out dough for a faction that you don't want. Then, there's the upgrade cards. Oh, the upgrade cards. Whether you're playing X-Wing, Armada or Imperial Assault, you know for a fact that you flat out cannot just commit to one faction and play that one faction in a 100% optimized fashion, since no matter what force you build, there will always be some card that will make that build better. At best, that card will be packaged in another box that you don't want in that build, but at least it's your faction. At worst and seemingly most commonly, it'll be packaged in another faction's release or in that variant play mode box that you have no interest beyod that one card. That's a sour point even for the completionist boardgame crowd that's already accustomed to buying one of every SKU for a game line. For the miniature wargaming crowd, that's flat out an utterly alien concept. We already know for a fact that RWM will be coming out as an mandatory two-faction core set and it will have upgrade cards as part of the army building framework. It'll be all that all over again.

Long story short: it might look like RWM will appeal to the existing miniature wargaming crowd and FFG might even purposefully hope that it will. But it won't. On account of the way the product line is and most probably will be handled, it'll only appeal to the existing X-Wing/Armada demographic of people interested in light competitive wargames and ameritrash boardgames and people that were curious of "hardcore miniature games" and might have even played one at one point, but presently do not have time for that in their daily life. Which is all good. But assuming that this will draw existing "hardcore miniature game" crowd on account of having ranks-and-flanks like the old Warhammer did, is missing the point and I sincerely hope that FFG realizes that - otherwise they are setting themselves up for failure.

Also, answering before anyone weighs in with that argument: the reason X-Wing has captured a seemingly significant chunk of the old Warhammer Fantasy community after that game imploded is simply because X-Wing had the biggest, most accessible and most structured organized play/tournament community after Warhammer, and those people were specifically looking for an active game that they can play every week or a couple of weeks in a tournament setting. Many members of the Warhammer community flat out consider any game that doesn't have an easily accessible 10+ attendee tournament at least once every other week to be a "dead game that no one plays". RWM will not have that community at launch, and as such will not be interesting to those people in the slightest bit.

I agree with all of this, I just hope they don't do the same distribution model as X-Wing. I've actually just recently begun building and painting models and have been deciding what rule set to play. I was leaning towards HOR Kill Team or 30k, but would have really enjoyed a fantasy theme. Using X-Wing movement is already kind of a turn off, if I have to buy models I don't want just to get an upgrade card then it's a deal breaker. FFG has the ability to compete in war games, they just need to really invest into making one and not make another board game that has miniatures.

-Snip-

In short, I'm in complete agreement with everything you said. I honestly think it's going to play out exactly as you said.

I do think because it's an FFG game there will be plenty of people that will line up to buy the core set to try it, there is a lot of consumer trust as can be seen in some of the posts here, but in the end, for a miniatures game to have any hope of longevity if 30+ history is used as example, it absolutely MUST have the hardcore miniature crowd which is one of the pickiest and most competitive. A two faction game with a handful of miniatures is not going to be enough to sway the core audience this game needs.

I do believe the reason why X-Wing and Armada are successful rests entirely in the fact that it's Star Wars though, people in this forum are really underestimating that fact. I mean sure it has great organized play, Its a fun game.. all those things are true, but if X-Wing was some generic science-fiction theme instead and had the exact same mechanics, no one would be playing it and it would have died a long time ago. It sells because its Star Wars, plain and simple.

I completely agree about X-Wing and Armada being successful primarily because it's Star Wars. It's a good game, but nowhere near as good as its impact in the market would indicate.

-Snip-

In short, I'm in complete agreement with everything you said. I honestly think it's going to play out exactly as you said.

I do think because it's an FFG game there will be plenty of people that will line up to buy the core set to try it, there is a lot of consumer trust as can be seen in some of the posts here, but in the end, for a miniatures game to have any hope of longevity if 30+ history is used as example, it absolutely MUST have the hardcore miniature crowd which is one of the pickiest and most competitive. A two faction game with a handful of miniatures is not going to be enough to sway the core audience this game needs.

I do believe the reason why X-Wing and Armada are successful rests entirely in the fact that it's Star Wars though, people in this forum are really underestimating that fact. I mean sure it has great organized play, Its a fun game.. all those things are true, but if X-Wing was some generic science-fiction theme instead and had the exact same mechanics, no one would be playing it and it would have died a long time ago. It sells because its Star Wars, plain and simple.

I mostly agree with both of you here, but on the other hand I think immediately jumping into full 4+ factions mode would be too risky financially...

Considering what happened with previous FFG games, they probably have planned several expansions and have good ideas on how to expand the system with other factions if their core boxes sell well enough... If not, then it'll probably still make an interesting small game to have in the collection, if only to see a new mechanic in action.

And about competition with GW and Warhammer in the miniature "game world" I think becoming a real competitor is very unrealistic. Even considering the complexity and obtuseness of Warhammer rules, its fluff is fantastic (I love it and have played a lot the RPGs and read several novelas) but it's a universe that took 20+ years to develop, so the inertia there is too big to be able to have something comparable in the short run. Maybe they could try with Terrinoth something similar to what they are trying with Android and develop also the fluff of this (at the moment) vanilla universe...

So I think a more sensible option (and seems what they'll do) is to just try out a small game "à la Battlelore", see how the community reacts, then adapt the expansions rate to the size of the community... and they have an advantage here because they won't have to pay any expensive licensing, so producing stuff at a slower pace is still viable (again, if the community reaches a certain size).

Finally, I do think the Star Wars theme was important in the debut of X-Wing, but in the final success of the game the beauty of the mechanics have a big importance. I don't think the game would have reached 10 Waves plus several intermediate expansions based only on collecting the minis.

As another "real" minis game veteran, I agree with you guys. For tabletop guys to take this seriously there need to be real factions (at least 4) and they need to drop the crap about making people buy models from other factions to get upgrade cards. When you play a real minis game you pick your faction and that's the faction you buy. Buying both factions was sort of OK for Star Wars with just two factions. Then they shoehorned in a 3rd faction and it's a stretch, people grumble but stayed in because they already had an investment. Armada can't even do a 3rd faction. But in a system with four or more factions it's not going to work *AT ALL* and there will be no prior investment to keep people in, nor will there be a magical golden theme that gives you a free pass.

Now, FFG isn't a minis company and they have no history of understanding faction communities. I expect some bumps, and it's hard work making essentially a completely generic fantasy theme catch on, they're going to have to work on that part too. What's important is that they need to declare their intentions. If they want this to capture the minis crowd they need to make it clear what the goal is for the game. What factions are going to be there at launch or shortly afterwards? What is the model for how cards will be packaged and sold? If there are not good answers to these questions, it's going to die on the vine because the theme alone won't draw in significant numbers of players, just a few hopefuls and Battlelore fans.

Interesting point, but I would not compare them just because they are old and new systems... I think the advantage of the template system is the secret and simultaneous planning phase. This reduces downtime a lot so that in the same amount of time people take a lot more decisions and feel more engaged with the game because of that.

The problem with the range rulers is that you cannot have a secret and simultaneous planning phase, and this slows down the game a lot because you have to "enter planning mode" for each of your units... plus, it's way more fiddly, which also goes against having a more tactical game...

Anyway, just my experience/opinion... I just find it curious that I love GW's games such as Blood Bowl (and now Silver Tower) that have a clear "template" move whereas I always disliked their "traditional" range ruler games, but could be just my predisposition.

Yes and no, yes the secret planning is really nice and it can be faster but it doesn't have, you do not enter planning phase when your turns starts you begin planning on your enemies turn, and how fast one system is depends also on the players I know fast and slow thinkers.

And why is a range ruler fiddly? You use bendable rules so you can make turned and what not and you lay it at your miniatures base plot the movement, pick your miniature up and you set it down at the appropriate spot, it's really easy and fast, and now one should ***** about if you move a tiny little bit farther per accident if you play fo fun, which is the only way I play.

And some more things games as 40K, Infinity, Freeboters Fate use buildings/structures with multiple levels, with a range ruler you just measure the distance you traveled while climbing a latter, i don' know how to do something like that with a template or take terrain in some games the distance you travel in terrain is doubled or tripled depending on how difficult the terrain is, so one inch movement will count as 2 or 3 inch for your maximum move distance which doesn't be so easy to emulate with a template, so I'm really excited how FFG will handle terrain and buildings.

As a data point of disagreement, I'm an old minis guy (started with WFB in 1993, never looked back) and I've got a group of guys just chomping at the bit for this.

We're okay with two starting factions, unpainted, range rulers, and the FFG approach in general. We've all done X-Wing and Armada, so we are familiar with how the company rolls.

As a data point of disagreement, I'm an old minis guy (started with WFB in 1993, never looked back) and I've got a group of guys just chomping at the bit for this.

We're okay with two starting factions, unpainted, range rulers, and the FFG approach in general. We've all done X-Wing and Armada, so we are familiar with how the company rolls.

Gotta throw my hat into this ring.

20 year wargaming vet who's dabbled or dove into pretty much every wargaming system under the sun at SOME point and I'm not only excited for RWM but I've got a group of other guys also pretty riled up at the prospect.

While I don't disagree that the stodgier "veterans" consider any game without a 10+ player tournament every other week to be dead, the fact is that FFG does a wonderful job of supporting organized play, and those tournament scenes won't EVER exist if gamers like us don't take it upon ourselves to build those communities.

I've been the spearhead of building tournament scenes for a number of FFG games now, and man they REALLY make it easy on me as a community organizer. I look forward to doing it again.

I have a smaller requirement myself. I just want to be able to walk into the game store on the designated night and have opponents. That's all, nothing to do with tournaments although I do like to go to one occasionally. I have a 5 year old kid and game nights are a precious commodity for me and I can't afford to waste them sitting around for opponents that don't show up. But even with that there are remarkably few games that qualify. I ended up playing X-Wing because it's on that list of games with a pre-existing community. If Armada had a stronger following I may have ended up playing that instead. It remains to be seem whether this game with an unknown theme will get much traction.

If Star Wars had been a generic space game it probably wouldn't be the #1 minis game. But, the theme is also hugely restrictive. That's why we're stuck without proper factions and FFG's designers have their hands tied because they can't create whatever ships they want to, only the ones Disney will let them. In a generic space game they would have vastly more creative freedom which to me would be great. You still have to solve the theme appeal, but that can be done by hiring some good writers and constructing a cool universe and backstory, were they so inclined. Other games have been successful at dreaming up appealing universes, right?

Gotta throw my hat into this ring.

20 year wargaming vet who's dabbled or dove into pretty much every wargaming system under the sun at SOME point and I'm not only excited for RWM but I've got a group of other guys also pretty riled up at the prospect.

While I don't disagree that the stodgier "veterans" consider any game without a 10+ player tournament every other week to be dead, the fact is that FFG does a wonderful job of supporting organized play, and those tournament scenes won't EVER exist if gamers like us don't take it upon ourselves to build those communities.

I've been the spearhead of building tournament scenes for a number of FFG games now, and man they REALLY make it easy on me as a community organizer. I look forward to doing it again.

Who really thinks that a game is dead without many tournaments? I'm also a wargame player and i have never attended a tournament and i know many players like me, and i have started playing somewhere before 2004 so i als could be called a veteran and i even know tournament players that are normal people and play a normal game in between for fun. ANd if one wants a tournament and there is none he could try to host one himeslef but i think thanks to FFGs organized play there will be enough tournaments.