Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The other one's I've gamed at (different stores) were unwilling to. And these exact same communities are unwilling to with other games such as Warmachine, Flames of War, or Field of Glory (I keep mentioning them because they're the only other ones I play).
SO different stores had different issues. Ok, are the Players for WM, Flames, Field the same as those for 40k?
No - because they attract different people. In fact, I might be the only one who cross-game plays, now that I think about it. I did give one of the FOW players a mini or two to paint for my marines though.
But I'm in the minority, and would appreciate leaving a game like 40k for us narrative gamers.
40k is NOT a narrative game. 40k has absolutely no rule that promotes or encourages narrative gameplay. Please stop using marketing speal like the words don't have actual meaning...
But I'm in the minority, and would appreciate leaving a game like 40k for us narrative gamers.
40k is NOT a narrative game. 40k has absolutely no rule that promotes or encourages narrative gameplay. Please stop using marketing speal like the words don't have actual meaning...
This. If 40K had an experience system wherein your units gain experience points to spend on upgrades for doing things in battle, then it would be a narrative game.
It is a tabletop wargame which you can create a narrative about.
Ok, I'll stop calling it narrative. What adjective would you have me use?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 17:14:38
So basically, you want the rules as bad as possible, so people are encouraged to not follow them in order to play as many custom games as possible. Because you hate RAW games. And there are two votes for me to GTFO of 40K.
If the BA codex is good, I'm very tempted to sell off my list, I have to be honest. Of course, it will probably be DA-esque, which means I'm still stuck with models no one wants.
No - because they attract different people. In fact, I might be the only one who cross-game plays, now that I think about it. I did give one of the FOW players a mini or two to paint for my marines though.
SO it is entirely possible that these groups of player would have been the same prior to 6th when the game was "simplified" and "more balanced"? And your anecdote has to do with players from different areas and different games. SO that you might have found narrative games before .
Martel732 wrote: So basically, you want the rules as bad as possible, so people are encouraged to not follow them in order to play as many custom games as possible. Because you hate RAW games. And there are two votes for me to GTFO of 40K.
If the BA codex is good, I'm very tempted to sell off my list, I have to be honest. Of course, it will probably be DA-esque, which means I'm still stuck with models no one wants.
Well, I don't want them as bad as possible. My criterion for rules is how closely they follow the fluff I wouldn't call that bad.
No - because they attract different people. In fact, I might be the only one who cross-game plays, now that I think about it. I did give one of the FOW players a mini or two to paint for my marines though.
SO it is entirely possible that these groups of player would have been the same prior to 6th when the game was "simplified" and "more balanced"? And your anecdote has to do with players from different areas and different games. SO that you might have found narrative games before .
Perhaps. But if 40k was well-balanced, it would attract over more of the Warmachine/FoW/FoG crowd (that's their primary complaint about it when I talk to them), and those are very unwilling-to-compromise, RAW-is-god types.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 17:19:19
Breng77 wrote: IT would attract some of them, but if you have a strong group of other players then it would not matter.
Not initially. But I figure the ratio of players who play that way : players who play my way is pretty bad for me - there are many more people who play games as competitive events than as narrative fluffy (seriously what word to use) events.
If my belief about that ratio is true, the narrative fluffy players would get drowned out and overwhelmed by the competitive types - and then where do we go?
Martel732 wrote: "Well, I don't want them as bad as possible. My criterion for rules is how closely they follow the fluff I wouldn't call that bad.
"
So, yeah. You want them as bad as possible. Because that's the net effect of following the fluff for rules. I DO call following the fluff bad.
Fair enough. Your viewpoint is just as valid, and is far more popular, than mine, so if you think the 40k rules are bad, then you should find a game with rules that are good - by your standards.
So, we have yet another thread devolve into Zweischneid's bizzaro world view of 40k vs. the rest of the gaming world. The guy is a textbook troll, don't engage him. This is a game to him. Let him tire himself out.
Good day.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Grimtuff wrote: So, we have yet another thread devolve into Zweischneid's bizzaro world view of 40k vs. the rest of the gaming world. The guy is a textbook troll, don't engage him. This is a game to him. Let him tire himself out.
Good day.
This is exactly what I mean - I know we're in the minority, but I've never encountered such vehement rejection of simply liking something before.
This's like saying:
"So we have yet another thread devolve into BlueIsTheBestColor's bizzaro world view of art vs. the rest of the art world. The guy is a textbook troll, don't engage him. We all know that you must be a troll to like the color blue better than the color red. Good day."
That is to say - what people like for their leisure activity is entirely subjective, and to call someone a troll just because they have a different view on how they would like to spend their time is shocking.
Martel732 wrote: Well, your vision for the game does prevent the rest of us from getting what we want. But, hey, we can go play something else, right?
It's not "my" vision of the game. It's the vision that the GW game designers put on the tin. I simply find that appealing and chose to spend money on it, because it (subjectively for me) happened to be the best wargaming product out there.
It is kind of what people do. If people got a craving for apple, they buy apples. If they got a craving for bananas, they buy bananas.
Except on Dakka, where people expect you to buy bananas and than spend years complaining how they don't taste like apples. If you actually bought the banana because you wanted a banana, you must be a troll
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 18:15:29
Because it benefits the game as a whole if some things are better than others (e.g. if it is imbalanced). I don't care if Eldar are hot and Space Marines are not, or vice versa. The important thing is to have that kind of texture and meta-game. It makes the 40K of today a different game than the one we'll play in 6th months. It keeps things interesting, diverse and changing.
Incorrect. It does not benefit anyone that some factions are better than others. It simply breeds in resentment and frustration on both sides.
You say imbalance is good because the 40k of today will be different to what we'll play in sixth months. I regard this viewpoint as both short sighted and absurd. Why is this scenario superior to the fairly balanced situation I have in warmachine where I can have huge variety now, and can also have huge variety in six months, when they release new stuff which expands and grows the factions, give new, interesting options, but don't sacrifice it on the altar of what's there now. It also allows for both lArge amounts of variety, as well as future proofing in that new unit attachments and solos can be released that patch up currently unappreciated units. With the system in place with 40k, with what is essentially shifting imbalance, someone loses every time. This is doubly compounded by folks' armies being essentially arbitrarily invalidated- one of my friends had three 40k armies made invalid by changing rules sets.
With a game like 40k, built on what is essentially shifting imbalance no one wins. With a game built with balance in mind, everyone wins. And you can still play your narrative focused games. Balanced fangs do not come at the expense of fluff.
Ok, look at Warmachine - there are very few narrative events. The balance is fine, people play competitively and have a blast. But if you don't play like you're in a tournament Every. Single. Damn. Game. then you get told you're playing it wrong and to go play something else (happened to me).
Ok, Flames of War - this is a haven for narrative events. Except that it isn't, partly due to excellent rules-writing from Battlefront (lots of historical scenarios are taken care of) but also partly because of a similar attitude as Warmachine - if you aren't following RAW, you aren't playing FoW.
Ok, Field of Glory - this one is about the same as Flames of War, really, except with even more of an emphasis on tournaments - If I were to turn down a game with my Greek Hoplites against a player playing Polish Knights, he'd probably have a bunch of ???? over his head, because within the rules there's no reason to, and narrative has escaped the majority of the player base.
Warmachine: I know people who would love a narrative campaign. I'd get involved in one myself if I had time. The company focuses on tournaments, at present, but have a lot of campaign ideas and cool stories through their books. Not everyone plays steamroller all the time. Don't label a whole community and simply dismiss it.
Flames of war: my group plays narrative games. If anything, here in Scotland I see more 'narrative'/interesting scenario driven games than I do tournaments. Don't label a whole community and simply dismiss it.
Field of glory: I don't play it, but see above.
Get active, trawl the communities' Facebook pages and forums. Or introduce a like minded narrative liking friend, or group of friends to a new game. With my narrative enjoying friends, we enjoy flames of war, and infinity. I'm running dropzone commander with them when I get my faction starters painted up. I guarantee you they'll be on board.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 18:41:37
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
Or were people just asking too many questions which you couldn't answer without exposing your bizarre stance as the house of cards argument that it is?
Such as
"please explain how the penitent engine being so bad is a good thing for the game, the player experience or narrative play?"
I'm paraphrasing, but I'm sure you've seen it asked often enough that you're more than capable of answering the questions as it was asked by the original poster by now....
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Deadnight wrote: And you can still play your narrative focused games. Balanced fangs do not come at the expense of fluff.
People keep saying that. I have yet to see evidence for that.
If this were true, we'd not have any issues. Indeed, I probably wouldn't be playing 40K (ya know, prices and such) and get my narrative fix elsewhere.
Unfortunately, all other games seem hopelessly infested by the fallacy that the rules trump fun and creativity, stifling the very heart of the hobby.
What about fun and creativity within the confines of rules? Which is what I thought 40K would be back in 1994.
In a similar vein to up above, how is it good that BA are miserable to play with? I'm guessing for GW, it's to get me to buy yet another army. I don't understand for you, though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 18:39:45
What about fun and creativity within the confines of rules? Which is what I thought 40K would be back in 1994.
Not in the "rules = iron-clad" sense many wargames seem to foster these days. Hell, Rogue Trader even still had an RPG-style game-master to narrate the scenarios and adjust the story, an idea only recently brought back as a suggestion in the Crusade of Fire supplement. I hope it'll be given more weight in future editions of 40K.
"please explain how the penitent engine being so bad is a good thing for the game, the player experience or narrative play?"
Still waiting for the answer to this too.
I've answered several times. If you don't like the answer, what shall I do?
And I am still waiting for the answer to why a more diverse hobby with games featuring as many different approaches to balance as contemporary 40K, Warmachine, Chess and many more should be inferior to a hobby with less variation and choice for players to pick the level of balance or imbalance they enjoy.
Why is having chocolate and vanilla as options worse than only having vanilla?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 18:45:35
... the game in RT-era required a GM because the GM was the Referee. The GM's job was to make the Word-of-God decisions between RAW and RAI. GW has never gotten better at writing rules, really.
It was GW's way of skirting the fact that their rules are often a steaming pile of contradictory or unclear scenarios by having a (hopefully) impartial Referee declare how a given conflict would be resolved.
A GM helps in a narrative game by providing the generals with the setting and storyline and tracking the results of the campaign (if a campaign it is), but is not required for such a scenario. I'd fething well hope that two reasonably mature children, or any two adults, could play a narrative campaign between themselves without requiring a third-party referee.
And I am still waiting for the answer to why a more diverse hobby with games featuring as many different approaches to balance as contemporary 40K, Warmachine, Chess and many more should be inferior to a hobby with less variation and choice for players to pick the level of balance or imbalance they enjoy.
Why is having chocolate and vanilla as options worse than only having vanilla?
Because it is a logical fallacy to believe that a balanced game presents you only with vanilla.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 18:49:48
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
"please explain how the penitent engine being so bad is a good thing for the game, the player experience or narrative play?"
Still waiting for the answer to this too.
I've answered several times. If you don't like the answer, what shall I do?
No you have not. You continually shift the goalposts and dodge actually answering questions by spewing out meaningless rhetoric. I've never met anyone that writes so much and says so little.
I'm getting a massive sense of deja vu. This thread will get to the same size as the other one and your tangled web will collapse around you just like before.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
No you have not. You continually shift the goalposts and dodge actually answering questions by spewing out meaningless rhetoric. I've never met anyone that writes so much and says so little.
I'm getting a massive sense of deja vu. This thread will get to the same size as the other one and your tangled web will collapse around you just like before.
Which is why I don't want to repeat my answer again to you repeating the same question over and over again. I've answered it. You disgree with what I said, resorting as usual to insults instead of actual argument that would show how my responses would be flawed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 18:53:25
People keep saying that. I have yet to see evidence for that.
.
Indeed. Balanced does do not come at the expense of fluff.
Warmachine. Excellently balanced game. Great fluff that matches it.
Epic butcher. Read his fluff. Read his rules. Play him on the table top. He is a perfect tabletop incarnation of his own fluff. Every aspect is bailed down and represented brilliantly. Look at the model. Friend and foe, butchered at his feet. Perfect, considering all his attacks are indiscriminate. Look at his arcane dementia rule - his arcane ability ebbs and flows, he is incredibly unstable - represented perfectly. Look at his spells - they perfectly capture his inner rage and anger and desire, no, need to close with the enemy. Look at his special rules - homicidal maniac. Look at his feat - perfectly designed to represent his rage literally boiling over and infecting his whole army. Look at the rules where his rage infects and spills over into his warjacks. They're angrier and more aggressive than warjacks controlled by any other caster.
Look at Magnus. His model represents his back story. Look at the brace on his leg, and his artificial arm. Low defense, low speed... Look at his hunted pose, his torn clothes. You can tell he's a guy on the run. Look at his rules. Feign death. Resourceful. Backstab. Perfectly represent his character. Look at his spells. Perfectly represent a former cygnar caster who has then adapted to life on the run. Look at his feat. Perfectly represents his style of guerrilla warfare, where he strikes and retreats, and never gets pinned down.
Two examples zwei. And there are more.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 18:56:08
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
No you have not. You continually shift the goalposts and dodge actually answering questions by spewing out meaningless rhetoric. I've never met anyone that writes so much and says so little.
I'm getting a massive sense of deja vu. This thread will get to the same size as the other one and your tangled web will collapse around you just like before.
Which is why I don't want to repeat my answer again to you repeating the same question over and over again. I've answered it. You disgree with what I said, resorting as usual to insults instead of actual argument that would show how my responses would be flawed.
No, you, much like a politician, answered the question you wanted to, not the one asked. You won't be repeating anything, as you haven't answered the actual question yet.
Don't make me go full Paxman.
EDIT For those who don't get the reference, and because it's amusing, and on re-viewing before posting, soooo familiar!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 18:59:47
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
No you have not. You continually shift the goalposts and dodge actually answering questions by spewing out meaningless rhetoric. I've never met anyone that writes so much and says so little.
I'm getting a massive sense of deja vu. This thread will get to the same size as the other one and your tangled web will collapse around you just like before.
Which is why I don't want to repeat my answer again to you repeating the same question over and over again. I've answered it. You disgree with what I said, resorting as usual to insults instead of actual argument that would show how my responses would be flawed.
No, you, much like a politician, answered the question you wanted to, not the one asked. You won't be repeating anything, as you haven't answered the actual question yet.
Don't make me go full Paxman.
Cheers me dears. *tags in Azreal*
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Epic butcher. Read his fluff. Read his rules. Play him on the table top. He is a perfect tabletop incarnation of his own fluff. Every aspect is bailed down and represented brilliantly. Look at the model. Friend and foe, butchered at his feet. Perfect, considering all his attacks are indiscriminate. Look at his arcane dementia rule - his arcane ability ebbs and flows, he is incredibly unstable - represented perfectly. Look at his spells - they perfectly capture his inner rage and anger and desire, no, need to close with the enemy. Look at his special rules - homicidal maniac. Look at his feat - perfectly designed to represent his rage literally boiling over and infecting his whole army. Look at the rules where his rage infects and spills over into his warjacks. They're angrier and more aggressive than warjacks controlled by any other caster.
Sounds like a fun guy.
I'll take 5 of him for a little "Butcher's guild" type-list. They could be his brothers. Or a cloning-experiement gone wrong.
Not keen on the Warjacks themselves. Gonna leave those out though.
We could play a scenario on a really small strip of table representing narrow alleys between butcher-shops, kinda like the Oldboy Hallway fight, but in the steampunk-fantasy version. Perhaps with some Zombicide zombies swarming about attacking everyone for extra mayhem.
I'll pitch it the next time I see a Warmachine player. If they take me up on it, I'll happily start looing into Warmachine more heavily.
Epic butcher. Read his fluff. Read his rules. Play him on the table top. He is a perfect tabletop incarnation of his own fluff. Every aspect is bailed down and represented brilliantly. Look at the model. Friend and foe, butchered at his feet. Perfect, considering all his attacks are indiscriminate. Look at his arcane dementia rule - his arcane ability ebbs and flows, he is incredibly unstable - represented perfectly. Look at his spells - they perfectly capture his inner rage and anger and desire, no, need to close with the enemy. Look at his special rules - homicidal maniac. Look at his feat - perfectly designed to represent his rage literally boiling over and infecting his whole army. Look at the rules where his rage infects and spills over into his warjacks. They're angrier and more aggressive than warjacks controlled by any other caster.
Sounds like a fun guy.
I'll take 5 of him for a little "Butcher's guild" type-list. They could be his brothers. Or a cloning-experiement gone wrong.
Not keen on the Warjacks themselves. Gonna leave those out though.
We could play a scenario on a really small strip of table representing narrow alleys between butcher-shops, kinda like the Oldboy Hallway fight, but in the steampunk-fantasy version. Perhaps with some Zombicide zombies swarming about attacking everyone for extra mayhem.
I'll pitch it the next time I see a Warmachine player. If they take me up on it, I'll happily start looing into Warmachine more heavily.
This is why unbalanced rules fail. My BA are now reduced to practice dummies for the Eldar, despite the BA fluff.
Epic butcher. Read his fluff. Read his rules. Play him on the table top. He is a perfect tabletop incarnation of his own fluff. Every aspect is bailed down and represented brilliantly. Look at the model. Friend and foe, butchered at his feet. Perfect, considering all his attacks are indiscriminate. Look at his arcane dementia rule - his arcane ability ebbs and flows, he is incredibly unstable - represented perfectly. Look at his spells - they perfectly capture his inner rage and anger and desire, no, need to close with the enemy. Look at his special rules - homicidal maniac. Look at his feat - perfectly designed to represent his rage literally boiling over and infecting his whole army. Look at the rules where his rage infects and spills over into his warjacks. They're angrier and more aggressive than warjacks controlled by any other caster.
Sounds like a fun guy.
I'll take 5 of him for a little "Butcher's guild" type-list. They could be his brothers. Or a cloning-experiement gone wrong.
Not keen on the Warjacks themselves. Gonna leave those out though.
We could play a scenario on a really small strip of table representing narrow alleys between butcher-shops, kinda like the Oldboy Hallway fight, but in the steampunk-fantasy version. Perhaps with some Zombicide zombies swarming about attacking everyone for extra mayhem.
I'll pitch it the next time I see a Warmachine player. If they take me up on it, I'll happily start looing into Warmachine more heavily.
LOLWUT?
No, they'll just look at you with a confused look as you quite clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
