Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 13:43:11


Post by: HaussVonHorne


I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

INB4:


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 13:49:44


Post by: Verviedi


(I don't know the difference between Open and Narrative, they seem the same to me. If that's the case, then they're both DoA.)
The invalidation of reserve-based lists is ridiculous. The cliche "oh play Narrative and BEG AT YOUR OPPONENT'S FEET FOR CONSESSIONS AND HOUSERULES" comment is even worse.


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 13:52:38


Post by: Purifier


If you thought they could balance the game and still leave every single person's netlist as strong as it was before the big remake, you're naive and you need a huge reality check.

Yes, you might have to buy some stuff to get the strongest list again. You're going to have to buck up and live with that. Whining about it is pointless.


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 13:54:59


Post by: Verviedi


"The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 13:56:28


Post by: Yarium


The way I look at it is that if you purchased a bunch of drop pods, then this won't matter to you. Either;

#1 - You bought a bunch because you love the idea of Space Marines falling to the surface to bring sweet death to their enemies. In this case, you care about the fluff, and I'd be absolutely willing to play a Narrative or Open game with you so you can experience that.

#2 - You bought a bunch because you wanted to win. In this case, you probably buy lots of stuff because you want to win. Now you will buy new stuff as you always had and the pods will not be used every time.

Either way, I don't think people that have a lot of pods should really feel bad about not using all of them in tournaments.


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 13:56:37


Post by: Breng77


1.)What armies have been invalidated? What has been confirmed as being invalidated?

2.)When has there been a time where a single list was not potentially invalidated at any time. Every edition change invalidates some lists, every codex release invalidates others.

It is becoming more and more clear that if you want to not get completely screwed by change you have 2 options.

1.) Army hop, always buy the new hotness.
2.) Collect a faction, not a list. That way your "army" can evolve and change with the rules.


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 13:57:25


Post by: Purifier


 Verviedi wrote:
"The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


No they haven't. You just have to field half of them. The only thing stopping you is that it isn't strong


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 13:59:57


Post by: Verviedi


 Purifier wrote:
 Verviedi wrote:
"The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


No they haven't. You just have to field half of them. The only thing stopping you is that it isn't strong

So I need to violate the fluff of my army by deploying ground troops in a list themed around ing paratroopers? Or take half of my army on the ground in a Drop Pod rapid strike list, violating the fluff as well?


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:00:07


Post by: Breng77


 Verviedi wrote:
"The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


We have no idea whether these units will give you exceptions to the rules just like in 6e. Further full reserve lists are a huge advantage in game if they have reliable delivery. All pod armies look cool, but are frequently not a good play experience for the opponent. I'm willing to sacrifice the idea of all pod, to create more enjoyable games for both players.


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:02:14


Post by: BomBomHotdog


Would like to note that Narrative play can still be Matched Play. Narrative simply means you're playing some kind of story or scenario beyond "my guys go here and hold this point for a turn"

Open play lets you play however you want with what ever you want.

That being said, my guess is that given the change to reserves GW is expecting most games to only last between 4-5 games


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:02:16


Post by: Verviedi


Breng77 wrote:
 Verviedi wrote:
"The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


We have no idea whether these units will give you exceptions to the rules just like in 6e. Further full reserve lists are a huge advantage in game if they have reliable delivery. All pod armies look cool, but are frequently not a good play experience for the opponent. I'm willing to sacrifice the idea of all pod, to create more enjoyable games for both players.

My only statement pertaining to that is they'd better. Otherwise you'll be compromising the fluff for "reasons" (I cannot think of a single good reason for forcing half your army to stay on the board).


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:02:23


Post by: the_scotsman


A couple things.

1) Drop pod assault is something they've STRONGLY hinted is going to have some sort of mitigation to the rule. If you need to field a couple land speeder storms and maybe a scout bike in order to field 6-7 drop pod units, or if they have a variant of the current pod assault rule where they don't count towards the limit but have to do the "1/2 come in" rule rather than all showing up at once, your list isn't invalidated. You just have to adjust it a little bit for the new edition, something that most people will have to do.

2) If your army is so shoved into a specific structure that it requires a formation, a character's special rules, a particular relic, and a particular unit special rule to go unchanged for it to function at all, then yeah, expect your army list to be invalidated. The guy who currently plays a full gladius with 10 HB razorbacks is proooooobably going to have a few useless razorbacks, and we don't see someone trying to drum up sympathy for him. I know a guy who really hopes that his Imperial Guard blob+Hunters Eye Cataphractii Terminator Chapter Master+Rad and Psychotroke Inquisitor+Priest with Litanies+Chapter Master Azreal army setup will still work in 8th. It won't. I'm sorry. Something in there's going to change - probably multiple things!



"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:03:47


Post by: Youn


Everyone is going to have to adjust their lists. I am sorry, but that should be the very nature of an edition change. I think it was best said that between 4th and 7th you didn't really have edition changes. You could pretty much use the previous editions codex with the new rules without actually having a huge issue.

I started playing this game under Rogue trader. The jump to 2nd edition resulted in everyone having to learn to use set lists. Then the jump to 3rd required a FOC. This means some armies were invalidated completely.

So, yes, your current army may be invalidated. It doesn't mean your army cannot be reconfigured into the new FOCs. You just like everyone else is going to have to figure out what works for you.

On narrative and open play. Open play is literally a method of teaching someone how to actually play the game. Nothing more then that. You toss some models onto the table and play. Without worrying about points or balance. Narrative play is when you want to play a campaign or story. It's not meant to be a match play. That is why they made match play in the first place.

You won't find tournaments run by narrative play. What you might find though is a campaign run by narrative play involving a large number of people.


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:04:55


Post by: Purifier


 Verviedi wrote:
 Purifier wrote:
 Verviedi wrote:
"The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


No they haven't. You just have to field half of them. The only thing stopping you is that it isn't strong

So I need to violate the fluff of my army by deploying ground troops in a list themed around ing paratroopers? Or take half of my army on the ground in a Drop Pod rapid strike list, violating the fluff as well?


Because it is completely unthinkable that half your army has already paratrooped in and are holding the ground while waiting for the reinforcements of their brothers?
Don't give me that fluff bull. There is nothing stopping you from playing your army, you just want there to be because you can't play it in exactly the one way that you want to play it. I'm sorry, but balancing means things change. Get over it.


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:05:48


Post by: Asmodai


 Verviedi wrote:
 Purifier wrote:
 Verviedi wrote:
"The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


No they haven't. You just have to field half of them. The only thing stopping you is that it isn't strong

So I need to violate the fluff of my army by deploying ground troops in a list themed around ing paratroopers? Or take half of my army on the ground in a Drop Pod rapid strike list, violating the fluff as well?


The game's starting point is where some of the Paratroopers or Drop Pods have already landed on the board.


"Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:08:41


Post by: Verviedi


the_scotsman wrote:
A couple things.

1) Drop pod assault is something they've STRONGLY hinted is going to have some sort of mitigation to the rule. If you need to field a couple land speeder storms and maybe a scout bike in order to field 6-7 drop pod units, or if they have a variant of the current pod assault rule where they don't count towards the limit but have to do the "1/2 come in" rule rather than all showing up at once, your list isn't invalidated. You just have to adjust it a little bit for the new edition, something that most people will have to do.

2) If your army is so shoved into a specific structure that it requires a formation, a character's special rules, a particular relic, and a particular unit special rule to go unchanged for it to function at all, then yeah, expect your army list to be invalidated. The guy who currently plays a full gladius with 10 HB razorbacks is proooooobably going to have a few useless razorbacks, and we don't see someone trying to drum up sympathy for him. I know a guy who really hopes that his Imperial Guard blob+Hunters Eye Cataphractii Terminator Chapter Master+Rad and Psychotroke Inquisitor+Priest with Litanies+Chapter Master Azreal army setup will still work in 8th. It won't. I'm sorry. Something in there's going to change - probably multiple things!


Hinted where? Show me.

Those "super specific character stacking" lists need to die. I have no issue with that. My primary issues with the new edition are this:
  • Failure to mitigate enough randomness. Running and charging is still random. You say "But what about the models with 15" moves?!" I say make a patch in their datasheet that they run an extra/charge an extra X", instead of an extra 15".

  • The blast rules suuuck. Especially for artillery. No more teamkilling with scattered blasts, or hitting multiple bunched enemy units.

  • Depth created by vehicle armor facings, as shallow as it was, is gone. Now, shooting from every angle is equally effective.

  • Death of USRs, now I need to remember a hundred differently worded bespoke rules for my army.

  • Terrible reserve rules that kill fluff lists.




  • Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    "The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


    No they haven't. You just have to field half of them. The only thing stopping you is that it isn't strong

    So I need to violate the fluff of my army by deploying ground troops in a list themed around ing paratroopers? Or take half of my army on the ground in a Drop Pod rapid strike list, violating the fluff as well?


    Because it is completely unthinkable that half your army has already paratrooped in and are holding the ground while waiting for the reinforcements of their brothers?
    Don't give me that fluff bull. There is nothing stopping you from playing your army, you just want there to be because you can't play it in exactly the one way that you want to play it. I'm sorry, but balancing means things change. Get over it.

    Dropped in INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE? Taking away my freedom as a player to move the Valkyries/transports around and drop things where I choose, instead of conforming with gamey garbage?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:11:18


    Post by: Breng77


     Verviedi wrote:
    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    "The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


    We have no idea whether these units will give you exceptions to the rules just like in 6e. Further full reserve lists are a huge advantage in game if they have reliable delivery. All pod armies look cool, but are frequently not a good play experience for the opponent. I'm willing to sacrifice the idea of all pod, to create more enjoyable games for both players.

    My only statement pertaining to that is they'd better. Otherwise you'll be compromising the fluff for "reasons" (I cannot think of a single good reason for forcing half your army to stay on the board).


    "reasons" is having a more fun game. Allowing armies to start off the board, often means that you can deny a meaningful first turn for your opponent, while guaranteeing yourself to always have an alpha strike. So essentially you always get the advantage of going first, while also being able to have the advantage of going second. There is little to know compromising of fluff, just a limited view of it from the standpoint of the player.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:13:12


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    Games Workshop: No more null armies, unless you're Space Marines with Drop Pods! It's all about the fluff and balance.

    Fluffy Player: But what about my Black Legion Speartip with Justaerin converted to stand in as Abaddon's Bringers of Despair.

    Games Workshop: That's what you get for not following Roboute Gulliman as your spiritual liege.

    Fluffy Player: Sod this, I'm going to play X-wing.

    Games Workshop: Enjoy your prepainted miniatures...wait, where'd he go?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:14:45


    Post by: Breng77


     Verviedi wrote:



    Dropped in INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE? Taking away my freedom as a player to move the Valkyries/transports around and drop things where I choose, instead of conforming with gamey garbage?


    This reads like, I don't care about fluff, I care about the neat trick my list had.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:15:06


    Post by: Verviedi


    Breng77 wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Verviedi wrote:
    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    "The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


    We have no idea whether these units will give you exceptions to the rules just like in 6e. Further full reserve lists are a huge advantage in game if they have reliable delivery. All pod armies look cool, but are frequently not a good play experience for the opponent. I'm willing to sacrifice the idea of all pod, to create more enjoyable games for both players.

    My only statement pertaining to that is they'd better. Otherwise you'll be compromising the fluff for "reasons" (I cannot think of a single good reason for forcing half your army to stay on the board).


    "reasons" is having a more fun game. Allowing armies to start off the board, often means that you can deny a meaningful first turn for your opponent, while guaranteeing yourself to always have an alpha strike. So essentially you always get the advantage of going first, while also being able to have the advantage of going second. There is little to know compromising of fluff, just a limited view of it from the standpoint of the player.

    Reserves also allows me to mitigate a devastating alpha strike that would deprive me of my enjoyment in the game, due to my army being annihilated. My Tau suit drop list is severely hurt by this.

    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:



    Dropped in INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE? Taking away my freedom as a player to move the Valkyries/transports around and drop things where I choose, instead of conforming with gamey garbage?


    This reads like, I don't care about fluff, I care about the neat trick my list had.

    This neat trick is fluffy.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:21:54


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    The key defense to an Alphastrike is to Castle or null. If null is mitigated, so is Alphastrike, with betastrike being reduced to piece-trading. Thus the game devolves into bigger castles and bigger gunlines (aka why Free People Gunlines are a thing in AOS, etc)


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:22:36


    Post by: Purifier


     Verviedi wrote:

    This neat trick is fluffy.


    You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

    "DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

    If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:23:19


    Post by: Breng77


     Verviedi wrote:
    Breng77 wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Verviedi wrote:
    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    "The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


    We have no idea whether these units will give you exceptions to the rules just like in 6e. Further full reserve lists are a huge advantage in game if they have reliable delivery. All pod armies look cool, but are frequently not a good play experience for the opponent. I'm willing to sacrifice the idea of all pod, to create more enjoyable games for both players.

    My only statement pertaining to that is they'd better. Otherwise you'll be compromising the fluff for "reasons" (I cannot think of a single good reason for forcing half your army to stay on the board).


    "reasons" is having a more fun game. Allowing armies to start off the board, often means that you can deny a meaningful first turn for your opponent, while guaranteeing yourself to always have an alpha strike. So essentially you always get the advantage of going first, while also being able to have the advantage of going second. There is little to know compromising of fluff, just a limited view of it from the standpoint of the player.

    Reserves also allows me to mitigate a devastating alpha strike that would deprive me of my enjoyment in the game, due to my army being annihilated. My Tau suit drop list is severely hurt by this.

    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:



    Dropped in INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE? Taking away my freedom as a player to move the Valkyries/transports around and drop things where I choose, instead of conforming with gamey garbage?


    This reads like, I don't care about fluff, I care about the neat trick my list had.

    This neat trick is fluffy.


    Reserving half your army also allows you to mitigate an devastating alpha strike. The neat trick is not any more fluffy than saying as was previously noted that part of your force already dropped in pre-game to secure a position. So you want the neat trick of being able to always alpha strike your opponent while always denying the opposing alpha strike. Also else do you fluff justify the pod v pod match up where one guy drops in on nothing, allowing the other to pick him apart. TO me null deploy is actually less fluffy outside of a pre-arranged scenario where one player is a defender.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     MagicJuggler wrote:
    The key defense to an Alphastrike is to Castle or null. If null is mitigated, so is Alphastrike, with betastrike being reduced to piece-trading. Thus the game devolves into bigger castles and bigger gunlines (aka why Free People Gunlines are a thing in AOS, etc)


    Depends on terrain, being able to hide out of LOS with some units while others are reserved is also a means to mitigate alpha strike.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:26:40


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Verviedi wrote:
     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    "The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


    No they haven't. You just have to field half of them. The only thing stopping you is that it isn't strong

    So I need to violate the fluff of my army by deploying ground troops in a list themed around ing paratroopers? Or take half of my army on the ground in a Drop Pod rapid strike list, violating the fluff as well?

    There is a large difference between "air cavalry" and "paratroopers". One operates in tandem with their transports while the others jump out the back and are done.
    And Elysians, fluffwise, have ground based forward elements that scout out insertion points.

    Same thing goes for the Drop Pod rapid strike lists. It's always been a thing, in the fluff, that Astartes Scouts prep the landing zone and survey the enemy's numbers before the actual insertions begin.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    HaussVonHorne wrote:
    I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

    Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

    2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

    Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

    INB4:

    The whole "well you can always play narrative..." thing is less a dismissal of lists being invalidated and more a dismissal of concerns about the game taking a heavy tournament bend.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:29:21


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    "Always alphastrike while denying alphastrike."

    That sounds more like a function of certain units abilities/combos rather than "who gets to reserve". Be it Warp Spiders getting Battle Focus to mitigate Deepstrike and Flickerjump to defend against Intercept, Tau with Rapid Insertion forces and Interceptor, even the fringe Decurion list (Jon Camacho's Living Tomb + Deathmark support).

    Rather than artificially restricting Reserve, perhaps rework Overwatch period?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:31:56


    Post by: Verviedi


    Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    This neat trick is fluffy.


    You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

    "DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

    If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.

    That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    Breng77 wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Verviedi wrote:
    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    "The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


    We have no idea whether these units will give you exceptions to the rules just like in 6e. Further full reserve lists are a huge advantage in game if they have reliable delivery. All pod armies look cool, but are frequently not a good play experience for the opponent. I'm willing to sacrifice the idea of all pod, to create more enjoyable games for both players.

    My only statement pertaining to that is they'd better. Otherwise you'll be compromising the fluff for "reasons" (I cannot think of a single good reason for forcing half your army to stay on the board).


    "reasons" is having a more fun game. Allowing armies to start off the board, often means that you can deny a meaningful first turn for your opponent, while guaranteeing yourself to always have an alpha strike. So essentially you always get the advantage of going first, while also being able to have the advantage of going second. There is little to know compromising of fluff, just a limited view of it from the standpoint of the player.

    Reserves also allows me to mitigate a devastating alpha strike that would deprive me of my enjoyment in the game, due to my army being annihilated. My Tau suit drop list is severely hurt by this.

    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:



    Dropped in INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE? Taking away my freedom as a player to move the Valkyries/transports around and drop things where I choose, instead of conforming with gamey garbage?


    This reads like, I don't care about fluff, I care about the neat trick my list had.

    This neat trick is fluffy.


    Reserving half your army also allows you to mitigate an devastating alpha strike. The neat trick is not any more fluffy than saying as was previously noted that part of your force already dropped in pre-game to secure a position. So you want the neat trick of being able to always alpha strike your opponent while always denying the opposing alpha strike.

    That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:34:52


    Post by: fresus


    Full drop-pod lists are still fluffy and playable. It's just that now the game starts after half of your troops already landed (and landed in your deployment zone, thank-you-very-much).


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:36:16


    Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


    First off, chasing the most powerful army list is always going to cost money after an edition change. Anyone that plays that way should know upfront that is how it works. Player that whine about their super powerful, netlist army becoming invalidated sound like someone who built the most powerful computer last year and now it is not. The best is always going to change and if you want that prepare to always put effort into it.

    Secondly, I am actually going to do my best to stay away from matched play. I am still not convinced that 8th edition is going to a worthwhile venture for a challenging, hard choice on the actual tabletop game. I suspect 8th with be more accessible, but still offer limited actual decision points after the army lists have met and are actually on the table.

    I am planning to mostly play narrative style. Which to me more of a player building army lists for both sides tailored to be as evenly matched to each other for the custom scenario that also tells a story. Which is quite common for historical gaming and works well since the outside variables are controlled better. It also makes the game more about the players decisions at the table rather than at the list building stage.

    I know not every player wants play this way. In fact, few players do, but enough I can get in games. It takes extra work as the scenario designer, game master, has to have a list of both players lists (bonus points if they know what units the other player likes fielding) and very good knowledge of how the game works. I done it many times with other games to include full campaigns. It was some work but worth it to me. I want an interesting (read: close, action packed) game when I play. I also want the game to tell a story.

    I think the OP has it in their mind that narrative play is just push dudes around the table making pew, pew sounds with the outcome pre-determined. Done right, that couldn't be further from the truth. When a narrative game has two balanced [-ish] forces for the scenario mission, it can be some the toughest, no holds barred gaming you can get as you know you and your opponent started the game on relatively equal footing.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:37:04


    Post by: Purifier


     Verviedi wrote:

    That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.


    And what if my narrative is that we're floating in weghtless space so I get to set up anywhere on the map as our models have no control!
    And what if my narrative is that I win the game and you lose it so we just set up and then you lose!

    you don't get to restrict the narrative in matched play to only the exact storyline you want it to be. Unlike what you said from the start, it is fully supported by the fluff that you have half your army on the board so the "fluff"-argument is nonsensical.
    And if you just have to have it be your specific narrative... then just play narrative play.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:37:40


    Post by: Breng77


     MagicJuggler wrote:
    "Always alphastrike while denying alphastrike."

    That sounds more like a function of certain units abilities/combos rather than "who gets to reserve". Be it Warp Spiders getting Battle Focus to mitigate Deepstrike and Flickerjump to defend against Intercept, Tau with Rapid Insertion forces and Interceptor, even the fringe Decurion list (Jon Camacho's Living Tomb + Deathmark support).

    Rather than artificially restricting Reserve, perhaps rework Overwatch period?


    No it is a reserves issue unless they are entirely random. If I can reserve my whole army giving you nothing to shoot at and then come on reliably and get my pick of shots, I always get the alpha strike while denying yours. It has nothing to do with combos of units. It has been this way for a long time. They tried to fix it in 6e with the must deploy unless special rules state other wise, and losing at the end of a game turn if nothing is on the table. Unless you limited reserves to only bad units can reserve then it or make it very random (like 5e or worse) it is always strong. Then things like pods mitigate that randomness, or bonuses to rolls, etc. So if you want full reserves lets have it be, if you have nothing on the table at the end of your turn you lose. Nothing auto arrives. Turn 1 your units come in on a 6+, Turn 2 5+, turn 3 4+ etc. super random, meaning you have no assurance of getting an alpha strike.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:41:18


    Post by: Verviedi


     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.


    And what if my narrative is that we're floating in weghtless space so I get to set up anywhere on the map as our models have no control!
    And what if my narrative is that I win the game and you lose it so we just set up and then you lose!

    you don't get to restrict the narrative in matched play to only the exact storyline you want it to be. Unlike what you said from the start, it is fully supported by the fluff that you have half your army on the board so the "fluff"-argument is nonsensical.
    And if you just have to have it be your specific narrative... then just play narrative play.

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:41:28


    Post by: Breng77


    [quote=Verviedi 726090 9370355 9187351146494ae05f776d6df9ac1224.jpgThat's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.


    Right and what I am suggesting is that it is a poor role for fun games. What is your answer to Pod v pod games? Only one person gets the alpha strike in that case. Also if the strike is so powerful then the game ceases to be enjoyable after that. Almost all my games v pods are like this. either my opponent comes in and does great damage, or they immediately lose the game. That is a bad game.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:44:10


    Post by: Darkagl1


    While I find just play narrative to be a trite response, at the same time just because you could do something in the past doesn't mean that it's a reasonable thing to expect in a more balanced match play game. That said in terms of null deploy lists, I hate them and I don't want them in the game, however I think there is a reasonable solution. The null deploy esque list could start with everything in reserve and be forces to deep strike in half their units pre turn 1.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:45:52


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Verviedi wrote:
    Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    This neat trick is fluffy.


    You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

    "DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

    If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.

    That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

    For Taros, when the Raptors dropped to take out the governor and anti-ship defenses?

    There were a lot more than "one squad of Scouts" on the board. You had at least three or four Scout Squads per target zone.


    That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

    Let's be brutally honest here.
    Drop lists, primarily, weren't used as such because of their "fragility" or the chance that their "effectiveness was lowered after the first turn".

    It was to shut the match down quickly. In a tournament setting, the quicker a game goes? The more games you get in, the more points you can rack up, etc.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:48:55


    Post by: Verviedi


    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.


    Right and what I am suggesting is that it is a poor role for fun games. What is your answer to Pod v pod games? Only one person gets the alpha strike in that case. Also if the strike is so powerful then the game ceases to be enjoyable after that. Almost all my games v pods are like this. either my opponent comes in and does great damage, or they immediately lose the game. That is a bad game.

    That is high risk vs. high reward. Yes, it's brutal, but it's counterable.

    Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    This neat trick is fluffy.


    You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

    "DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

    If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.

    That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

    For Taros, when the Raptors dropped to take out the governor and anti-ship defenses?

    There were a lot more than "one squad of Scouts" on the board. You had at least three or four Scout Squads per target zone.

    Three or four scout squads is what, 300 pts? Still not enough to sate that 50% requirement.


    That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

    Let's be brutally honest here.
    Drop lists, primarily, weren't used as such because of their "fragility" or the chance that their "effectiveness was lowered after the first turn".

    It was to shut the match down quickly. In a tournament setting, the quicker a game goes? The more games you get in, the more points you can rack up, etc.

    And the problem in this case is that tournament players were abusing them, and they should be changed to better fit the fluff, not just get shot behind a barn.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:50:12


    Post by: Purifier


     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?


    We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

    You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:52:57


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.

    I'm gonna be brutally honest here, Verv.

    You don't need "granularity" for the points values to play a proper game in the environment we both play in.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:54:23


    Post by: Verviedi


     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?


    We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

    You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

    I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all damn day.

     Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.

    I'm gonna be brutally honest here, Verv.

    You don't need "granularity" for the points values to play a proper game in the environment we both play in.

    What if I choose to expand my horizons? There are tournaments around, which I've been looking at. Even though we're in a friendly, nice environment, not everybody is as friendly or nice as I am or you are. There will always be that one guy who shows up, trained in some WAAC community, and gets culture-shocked.
    If power levels are proven to function properly, I'll experiment narratively. If not, I'll play Matched to eternity.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:56:14


    Post by: Purifier


     Verviedi wrote:
     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?


    We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

    You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

    I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all day.


    Narrative play is made at its base to throw balance out the window in favour of the narrative. Exactly what you're advocating. Why the HELL would you need the granularity of points when you KNOW you're making unbalanced lists?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:58:18


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Verviedi wrote:

    Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    This neat trick is fluffy.


    You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

    "DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

    If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.

    That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

    For Taros, when the Raptors dropped to take out the governor and anti-ship defenses?

    There were a lot more than "one squad of Scouts" on the board. You had at least three or four Scout Squads per target zone.

    Three or four scout squads is what, 300 pts? Still not enough to sate that 50% requirement.


    Nowhere does that say anything about "50% of your points"

    It's "at least half the total number of units in your army".


    That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

    Let's be brutally honest here.
    Drop lists, primarily, weren't used as such because of their "fragility" or the chance that their "effectiveness was lowered after the first turn".

    It was to shut the match down quickly. In a tournament setting, the quicker a game goes? The more games you get in, the more points you can rack up, etc.

    And the problem in this case is that tournament players were abusing them, and they should be changed to better fit the fluff, not just get shot behind a barn.

    The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:58:34


    Post by: Verviedi


     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?


    We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

    You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

    I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all day.


    Narrative play is made at its base to throw balance out the window in favour of the narrative. Exactly what you're advocating. Why the HELL would you need the granularity of points when you KNOW you're making unbalanced lists?

    What is necessarily overpowered about suit drops, or large amounts of aircraft, or drop pods? I'm not building unbalanced lists, here. I'm building the lists I want to. And currently, looks like my fluffy FSE Crisis Strikeforce list is on the butcher's block for Matched.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:58:54


    Post by: Blacksails


    Did I miss the part where someone had an early release of all the rules and faction rules?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 14:59:25


    Post by: BomBomHotdog


    Holy crap the whole point of Narrative is to play it the way YOU WANT TO. If you want to include Matched Play rules THEN DO IT. This argument is totally banal and meaningless. Heck you can even import 7th ed Reserve rules if you wanted


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:00:19


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Verviedi wrote:
     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?


    We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

    You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

    I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all damn day.

    You wouldn't even try Age of Sigmar with no points.

     Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.

    I'm gonna be brutally honest here, Verv.

    You don't need "granularity" for the points values to play a proper game in the environment we both play in.

    What if I choose to expand my horizons? There are tournaments around, which I've been looking at. Even though we're in a friendly, nice environment, not everybody is as friendly or nice as I am or you are. There will always be that one guy who shows up, trained in some WAAC community, and gets culture-shocked.
    If power levels are proven to function properly, I'll experiment narratively. If not, I'll play Matched to eternity.

    Power levels are for two game types, actually.

    Open and Narrative.

    Also, if you really think that Open or Narrative are going to be the de facto game modes you're deluding yourself. There's so many people in our environment who think they have what it takes to be "tournament" players.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:01:53


    Post by: Verviedi


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    This neat trick is fluffy.


    You have no idea what that means. And he's completely right.

    "DROPPED INTO MY DEPLOYMENT ZONE!?" Because you can't see anything but a gaming table. If you actually thought about it fluffy, why are they there specifically? The deployment zone isn't some magical ground. It's just where your troops happened to be when they saw the enemy and had to scramble into positions to face the threat. Those guys dropped hours ago and have been securing the cityscape. They're one of several such troops moving in different directions. They recently saw the enemy as they were advancing, dug in and called for the support that was in the air for just this scenario, to put more men on the ground where they were needed.

    If you see it as a game board and not as a piece of a larger area, then you're not trying to play fluffy. You're sad that your cool gaming trick isn't fully 100% viable anymore.

    That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.

    For Taros, when the Raptors dropped to take out the governor and anti-ship defenses?

    There were a lot more than "one squad of Scouts" on the board. You had at least three or four Scout Squads per target zone.

    Three or four scout squads is what, 300 pts? Still not enough to sate that 50% requirement.


    Nowhere does that say anything about "50% of your points"

    It's "at least half the total number of units in your army".

    So, I get a maximum of three units in reserve. Pods are units, the squads inside them are units (unless a rule says they aren't). That's a very, very small amount of stuff I get to deep strike in. In fact, that may be even worse for mass deep striking cheap units.


    That's the entire role of most drop lists. Strong alpha strike, fragile, effectiveness is lowered after the first turn. That is how drop lists work in fluff, that's how they work in the books, and that's how they would work ingame if The Sacred GW in their infinite wisdom had not neutered them.

    Let's be brutally honest here.
    Drop lists, primarily, weren't used as such because of their "fragility" or the chance that their "effectiveness was lowered after the first turn".

    It was to shut the match down quickly. In a tournament setting, the quicker a game goes? The more games you get in, the more points you can rack up, etc.

    And the problem in this case is that tournament players were abusing them, and they should be changed to better fit the fluff, not just get shot behind a barn.

    The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

    (Query - in the context your using, does "full null-deploy" mean no units on the board, or just one or two tiny units on the boars?)


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:02:27


    Post by: Purifier


     Verviedi wrote:

    What is necessarily overpowered about suit drops, or large amounts of aircraft, or drop pods? I'm not building unbalanced lists, here. I'm building the lists I want to. And currently, looks like my fluffy FSE Crisis Strikeforce list is on the butcher's block for Matched.


    Or maybe you are. You don't know. And even if you aren't, the tools you're asking for can potentially be used to do that.

    Look, it's easy. Everything you're screaming for is what Narrative play is. The sentence quickly becoming meme "Just play Narrative play" was basically made for you.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:04:24


    Post by: Verviedi


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands?


    We've already gone over this. That's not the case. The fluff supports you having half your army on the ground just fine. Repeating the words "but fluff!" over and over won't make it true. First, your fluff demands nothing of the sort, and second, if the fluff dictated game rules we would have a game where Grey Knight Purifiers were completely immune to spells and a single GK Paladin would stand easily toe to toe with a greater daemon. Your argument is "THE GAME NEEDS TO WRECK WHATEVER BALANCE IT MAY GET TO CATER TO MY WHIMS!" It's not at all unfair to tell you then that Narrative Play does just that.

    You don't want to have to play Narrative play, but you're strongly advocating making matched play into narrative play.

    I don't want to have to play Narrative play because the power level system isn't granular enough. If Narrative had a proper points system, I'd play it all damn day.

    You wouldn't even try Age of Sigmar with no points.

    I've never played AoS, remember? I never got the chance to play an army, except that one time I played a no-points game against some guy who used Khorne, and enjoyed it.
    Also "psuedopoints" =/= "no points".


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    Why should I be forced to play a less-balanced version just to run the list that my army fluff demands? If Narrative had points values, I have no issue with it, but instead it has power levels. And those just aren't granular and precise enough for a proper game.

    I'm gonna be brutally honest here, Verv.

    You don't need "granularity" for the points values to play a proper game in the environment we both play in.

    What if I choose to expand my horizons? There are tournaments around, which I've been looking at. Even though we're in a friendly, nice environment, not everybody is as friendly or nice as I am or you are. There will always be that one guy who shows up, trained in some WAAC community, and gets culture-shocked.
    If power levels are proven to function properly, I'll experiment narratively. If not, I'll play Matched to eternity.

    Power levels are for two game types, actually.

    Open and Narrative.

    Also, if you really think that Open or Narrative are going to be the de facto game modes you're deluding yourself. There's so many people in our environment who think they have what it takes to be "tournament" players.

    I fully believe that Matched will be the default. I'm also upset that Matched features a rule that harms my Suit lists.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:07:45


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    Breng77 wrote:
     MagicJuggler wrote:
    "Always alphastrike while denying alphastrike."

    That sounds more like a function of certain units abilities/combos rather than "who gets to reserve". Be it Warp Spiders getting Battle Focus to mitigate Deepstrike and Flickerjump to defend against Intercept, Tau with Rapid Insertion forces and Interceptor, even the fringe Decurion list (Jon Camacho's Living Tomb + Deathmark support).

    Rather than artificially restricting Reserve, perhaps rework Overwatch period?


    No it is a reserves issue unless they are entirely random. If I can reserve my whole army giving you nothing to shoot at and then come on reliably and get my pick of shots, I always get the alpha strike while denying yours. It has nothing to do with combos of units. It has been this way for a long time. They tried to fix it in 6e with the must deploy unless special rules state other wise, and losing at the end of a game turn if nothing is on the table. Unless you limited reserves to only bad units can reserve then it or make it very random (like 5e or worse) it is always strong. Then things like pods mitigate that randomness, or bonuses to rolls, etc. So if you want full reserves lets have it be, if you have nothing on the table at the end of your turn you lose. Nothing auto arrives. Turn 1 your units come in on a 6+, Turn 2 5+, turn 3 4+ etc. super random, meaning you have no assurance of getting an alpha strike.


    I played in 5th edition when you could start with the entire army off-table, and Blood Angels had army-wide Descent of Angels. I played Orks back then. This was also the edition where Snikrot was used to smuggle Bike Bosses behind enemy lines, or Eldar could do dual-Autarch null-Serpents.

    Such armies could be defeated with castling 101 or counter-reserving for your own beta-strike. And as much as I'd rather say "real overwatch mechanics", those armies were not gamebreakers by a long shot.

    Again, I'd probably promote an overwatch mechanic but that's me.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:08:02


    Post by: Verviedi


     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    What is necessarily overpowered about suit drops, or large amounts of aircraft, or drop pods? I'm not building unbalanced lists, here. I'm building the lists I want to. And currently, looks like my fluffy FSE Crisis Strikeforce list is on the butcher's block for Matched.


    Or maybe you are. You don't know. And even if you aren't, the tools you're asking for can potentially be used to do that.

    Look, it's easy. Everything you're screaming for is what Narrative play is. The sentence quickly becoming meme "Just play Narrative play" was basically made for you.

    Two solutions:
    • Play matched and import Narrative rules. That means I need to negotiate with an opponent, whenever I play a PUG.
    • Play Narrative, with the weaker Power Level system instead of the Points system.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:09:03


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Verviedi wrote:

    So, I get a maximum of three units in reserve. Pods are units, the squads inside them are units (unless a rule says they aren't). That's a very, very small amount of stuff I get to deep strike in.

    So your argument is a hypothetical.
    If pods are units(we've seen that there is now a "Dedicated Transport" pool in the FOCs, so I kinda doubt they count towards the total but I'll play along)...then you'd need 12 units(nothing saying heroes don't count as "units" and you have 1-2 HQs available to you in the "Patrol" FOC) in order to do 3 units in 3 drop pods by your math.

    How, exactly, does that affect your Crisis Suits again? Any time I've seen you run them, you have Drones on the board from the start. So what are your Drones, not units?
    In fact, that may be even worse for mass deep striking cheap units.

    Uh, good?

    We had that crap with the Flesh Tearers taxi pod service and Scions. Good fething riddance.




    The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

    (Query - in the context your using, does "full null-deploy" mean no units on the board, or just one or two tiny units on the boars?)

    It means "full null-deploy".

    The whole reason that Drop Pod lists like that worked was the "Drop Pod Assault" special rule.

    Few armies could do it, but there were some.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:14:09


    Post by: Luciferian


    If you try to play a full Deathwing army in 7th edition you automatically lose on the first turn. Soooo...


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:15:40


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Verviedi wrote:

    I've never played AoS, remember? I never got the chance to play an army, except that one time I played a no-points game against some guy who used Khorne, and enjoyed it.
    Also "psuedopoints" =/= "no points".

    I remember you constantly arguing with me about the fact that AoS was "totally broken with no points" and how "points would have made it better".
    Power levels are literally just a way to have points to shut up people who wouldn't even attempt a pointless game.


    I fully believe that Matched will be the default. I'm also upset that Matched features a rule that harms my Suit lists.

    Yeah, well I'm upset that my way of building armies via Formations is effectively screwed.

    You're allowed one meltdown...but I think you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to say that it's not at least a bit powerful to have alpha striking Suit lists.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:16:33


    Post by: Verviedi


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    So, I get a maximum of three units in reserve. Pods are units, the squads inside them are units (unless a rule says they aren't). That's a very, very small amount of stuff I get to deep strike in.

    So your argument is a hypothetical.
    If pods are units(we've seen that there is now a "Dedicated Transport" pool in the FOCs, so I kinda doubt they count towards the total but I'll play along)...then you'd need 12 units(nothing saying heroes don't count as "units" and you have 1-2 HQs available to you in the "Patrol" FOC) in order to do 3 units in 3 drop pods by your math.

    How, exactly, does that affect your Crisis Suits again? Any time I've seen you run them, you have Drones on the board from the start. So what are your Drones, not units?

    I have four units of Drones on the board (less in the future, because VX1-0 is dying, I'll probably use 2x5 Pathfinders instead). So 2 units... let's put a Broadside unit on the board because they can't deepstrike. So 3 final deepstrike units. My normal list is Commander, 3x3(or 4) Crisis, and 2x Hazard. So I have 5 deepstriking units, and 3 non-deep striking. Now, this is mitigable by adding more Pathfinders, or Drones, or a Riptide/Ghostkeel, but still a bit annoying (although not as bad as I thought, doing the listmaking right now)

    In fact, that may be even worse for mass deep striking cheap units.

    Uh, good?

    We had that crap with the Flesh Tearers taxi pod service and Scions. Good fething riddance.

    Thankfully, Flesh Tearer Taxi Service is dead. And good riddance for that.


    The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.

    (Query - in the context your using, does "full null-deploy" mean no units on the board, or just one or two tiny units on the boars?)

    It means "full null-deploy".

    The whole reason that Drop Pod lists like that worked was the "Drop Pod Assault" special rule.

    Few armies could do it, but there were some.

    Kill it. You should at least require some units on the board.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:17:51


    Post by: AnomanderRake


     Kanluwen wrote:
    ...The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.


    I know "realistic" was stuck in that sentence as a qualifier, but really? The only way to make the game work is to make a whole bunch of OP stuff and then hard-ban a bunch of it? Doesn't that strike you as, I don't know, kind of roundabout?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:18:38


    Post by: Verviedi


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    I've never played AoS, remember? I never got the chance to play an army, except that one time I played a no-points game against some guy who used Khorne, and enjoyed it.
    Also "psuedopoints" =/= "no points".

    I remember you constantly arguing with me about the fact that AoS was "totally broken with no points" and how "points would have made it better".
    Power levels are literally just a way to have points to shut up people who wouldn't even attempt a pointless game.

    I won't argue with that, because it's all true.


    I fully believe that Matched will be the default. I'm also upset that Matched features a rule that harms my Suit lists.

    Yeah, well I'm upset that my way of building armies via Formations is effectively screwed.

    You're allowed one meltdown...but I think you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to say that it's not at least a bit powerful to have alpha striking Suit lists.

    So am I! RIP retaliation cadre... and this isn't a meltdown, this is an expression of disappointment that turned into an unholy argument of doom.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:20:09


    Post by: Kanluwen


     AnomanderRake wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    ...The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.


    I know "realistic" was stuck in that sentence as a qualifier, but really? The only way to make the game work is to make a whole bunch of OP stuff and then hard-ban a bunch of it? Doesn't that strike you as, I don't know, kind of roundabout?

    Not really.


    There were very few actual full, null deploy alpha strike lists but they were the kinds of things that got constantly whined about. Inevitably they were almost all some variation of a Marine list with Skyhammer.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:24:52


    Post by: BunkhouseBuster


     Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
    First off, chasing the most powerful army list is always going to cost money after an edition change. Anyone that plays that way should know upfront that is how it works. Player that whine about their super powerful, netlist army becoming invalidated sound like someone who built the most powerful computer last year and now it is not. The best is always going to change and if you want that prepare to always put effort into it.

    Secondly, I am actually going to do my best to stay away from matched play. I am still not convinced that 8th edition is going to a worthwhile venture for a challenging, hard choice on the actual tabletop game. I suspect 8th with be more accessible, but still offer limited actual decision points after the army lists have met and are actually on the table.

    I am planning to mostly play narrative style. Which to me more of a player building army lists for both sides tailored to be as evenly matched to each other for the custom scenario that also tells a story. Which is quite common for historical gaming and works well since the outside variables are controlled better. It also makes the game more about the players decisions at the table rather than at the list building stage.

    I know not every player wants play this way. In fact, few players do, but enough I can get in games. It takes extra work as the scenario designer, game master, has to have a list of both players lists (bonus points if they know what units the other player likes fielding) and very good knowledge of how the game works. I done it many times with other games to include full campaigns. It was some work but worth it to me. I want an interesting (read: close, action packed) game when I play. I also want the game to tell a story.

    I think the OP has it in their mind that narrative play is just push dudes around the table making pew, pew sounds with the outcome pre-determined. Done right, that couldn't be further from the truth. When a narrative game has two balanced [-ish] forces for the scenario mission, it can be some the toughest, no holds barred gaming you can get as you know you and your opponent started the game on relatively equal footing.
    ^^ QUOTED FOR TRUTH ^^ My best games in 6th and 7th Edition were not pickup games or tournaments, but in custom games with an organizational structure made just for the mission. We had a short story about what was happening (a big campagin battle in several, and then a rematch later with the same players coming back). The fact that GW is encouraging this and openly supporting this is very heartwarming, and makes me eager and excited for the future of the game.


     Verviedi wrote:
    Two solutions:
    • Play matched and import Narrative rules. That means I need to negotiate with an opponent, whenever I play a PUG.
    • Play Narrative, with the weaker Power Level system instead of the Points system.

    Third solution:
    - Play a Narrative game using the Matched Play rules. Yes, it will require you to discuss the game with your opponent beforehand, but is that really so hard to do? Have a backup list in case they don't want to do that.

    Having been playing Age of Sigmar for the past few months, I can tell you that having the 3 ways to play - Open, Matched, and Narrative - is a blessing. The rules are modular and can be picked up quickly. The pre-game discussions we have consist of asking:

    - Relaxed or serious game?
    - How many points?
    - Are we following Battlefield roles? (Troops, HQ requirements, etc.)
    - Which mission table are we rolling on?
    - Are we using Allegiance abilities? (Warlord Traits, faction-specific rules)

    The modular rules and how they are incorporated into the game through the General's Handbook is, to me, the greatest strength of Age of Sigmar. It works there, and I can see it working in 40K just as well without any problems.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:26:16


    Post by: Vaktathi


    Editions come and go, and so do specific lists and strategies.

    If you're married to a specific niche concept for an army, such as a null deployment drop pod army that engages in *every* game and battle as some pinpoint orbital drop, well, expect that it will have issues with edition changes, and I wouldnt expect many to be sympathetic given how absuive drop pods can be and how many other, far less powerful lists have been invalidated countless times in far harder ways.

    That said, Space Marines usually get exceptions because Space Marines, they certainly did with 5th-7th for drop pods, so lets hold out until we see more.

    I'm all for hating on GW for stuff, but we dont have enough information to freak out yet.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:28:11


    Post by: Earth127


    If you have a NARRATIVE for your army in mind you want to work without restrictions or limitations. You are going to play the NARRATIVE game mode. I'm sorry no 2 ways about that.

    If you care about "perfect" balance, that means you accept restrictions to everything: shooting, charging, reserves,summoning etc.. . The only way to have balance in a game the size of 40K is to reduce variables and outliers.

    Can a null deploy list be countered? Yes
    Can just about every list counter a full null deploy list? No
    Matched play is supposed to work like this:
    "So we playing a game on friday of 1850 points Gw rules?" "Yeah sure."
    Both players have a fun time on friday and neither is so hard countered he stops having fun the moment he sees his opponents army.

    Narrative is supposed to require a bit more pre-game discussion and friendlier, not optimised envirement and BOTH PLAYERS having a go at the story. Demanding your full drop elysian army catches mine by complete surpsrise in an organised fashion only Sherlock Holmes can pull off? Yeah you're going to have tell me how that narratively happened.

    In a WAAC enviroment with anything but PERFECT balance ( never going to happen while allowing this variety in 40k). Some lists will dominate others


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:32:20


    Post by: AnomanderRake


     Kanluwen wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    ...The only realistic way to prevent tournament players from abusing them is to do exactly what they did. Don't allow a full null deploy alpha strike list to exist.


    I know "realistic" was stuck in that sentence as a qualifier, but really? The only way to make the game work is to make a whole bunch of OP stuff and then hard-ban a bunch of it? Doesn't that strike you as, I don't know, kind of roundabout?

    Not really.


    There were very few actual full, null deploy alpha strike lists but they were the kinds of things that got constantly whined about. Things like Skyhammer formations alongside Gladius with Pods.


    I'm trying to point out that allowing Drop Pods to be used for null-deploy alpha-strike lists and then banning null-deploy lists after the fact is a pretty dumb way to handle the situation.

    The basic issue with Drop Pods (and Deep Strike in general) is that GW's trying to translate a strategic mechanic into a tactical game; if they were trying to be sensible or fluffy the Drop Pods would be landing over a fairly wide area and units would be linking up on foot and moving towards their objective (this is how paratroops work in the real world and this is how Drop Pods work in the novels). You'd pretty much never see the actual pod in a game of 40k, they wouldn't be appearing in the middle of random firefights to contribute controlled, efficient, and coordinated firepower to the battle from a precise and pre-planned angle, you'd be deploying dudes that arrived via pod.

    To my mind a better solution for Deep Striking units that arrive in the middle of games would be to force them to land near locator beacons attached to models already on the table rather than letting them just go anywhere, to try and counteract the non-interactive alpha-strike-kills-everyone nature of Drop Pods today (more details in a thread over in Proposed Rules); the point is that you'd inhibit null-deploy lists and make Drop Pods less uncounterable by inhibiting null-deploy lists and making Drop Pods less uncounterable instead of making a null-deploy Drop Pod list an incredibly powerful thing to have and then saying "Oh, by the way you can't do that" after writing a set of rules that encourage you to. And still letting you deploy a bunch of plasma guns in rapid-fire range of the enemy turn one.

    TL;DR: I don't like alpha-strike pod lists any more than anyone else who's ever been on the receiving end, I'm ranting at GW's incompetent/lazy writing in dealing with them.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:35:23


    Post by: Marmatag


    Narrative is about creating a story.

    What is wrong with this?

    I plan on running a narrative campaign with the store I play at. I'll draw up a big map, create some planets, and let the battles tell a story.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:37:34


    Post by: Kanluwen


     AnomanderRake wrote:

    TL;DR: I don't like alpha-strike pod lists any more than anyone else who's ever been on the receiving end, I'm ranting at GW's incompetent/lazy writing in dealing with them.

    And I'm simply saying that there isn't really any "null deploy alpha strike" beyond pod lists. I legitimately cannot think of any outside of that criteria.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:40:37


    Post by: MagicJuggler


     Kanluwen wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:

    TL;DR: I don't like alpha-strike pod lists any more than anyone else who's ever been on the receiving end, I'm ranting at GW's incompetent/lazy writing in dealing with them.

    And I'm simply saying that there isn't really any "null deploy alpha strike" beyond pod lists. I legitimately cannot think of any outside of that criteria.


    Mass Warp Spiders and Subterranean Uprising Genestealer Cults?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 15:53:23


    Post by: SilverAlien


    Again, we just don't know. There could be outright exceptions for certain armies, or certain units might not count towards the normal limit. You could possibly take a "unit" of drop pods, with everything inside not counting towards your total number of units, effectively increasing the ratio of ground units to units in reserve. Some versions of deepstrike might give you the option of deploying outside your normal deployment zone, if not held in reserve. Drop Troops might be able to deploy inside flyers, given flyers are likely to use the same rules as FMC this edition, which would certainly still be fluffy.

    It'll likely be harder to field such an army, and you likely will have more limitations and will need to work for it a bit. Null deployment may be right out altogether. Given that deep striking looks to be, in many ways, more reliable/powerful, I don't think that's an awful tradeoff.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 16:07:30


    Post by: NenkotaMoon


    OMG, MY ArMY HAS bEEN INvAlidAteD BeforE I KnOW THey Are InValidATED!!!!


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 16:15:51


    Post by: Desubot


    fresus wrote:
    Full drop-pod lists are still fluffy and playable. It's just that now the game starts after half of your troops already landed (and landed in your deployment zone, thank-you-very-much).
    sounds like they did a good job of securing the front lines about a mile in front of the enemy so they cant advance.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 16:19:42


    Post by: ross-128


    The problem with null-deploy in a tournament setting is that you get to have the benefit of first-turn while also having the benefit of second-turn.

    The benefit of first-turn is you get to alpha strike. The benefit of second-turn is that on the last turn of the game, you get the last chance to secure objectives with no worry about losing them again. If you null deploy and take second turn, you do both. And second turn is easier to get than first turn, because the rules are written with the assumption that first turn is slightly more desirable.

    That's why GW is restricting null-deploy in tournaments, but giving it a pass in casual play.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 17:01:23


    Post by: auticus


    The concept of matched play is balanced play. If your fluffy list is also bent, then adjust it to be balanced for matched play. An entire force of deepstriking alpha striking null deploy army is not balanced, and has no place in an environment where they are trying to focus on balance.

    Otherwise yes play narrative play where the point isn't about balanced play, but telling a story.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 17:40:33


    Post by: Grimgold


    My personal bet is that narrative play will be the default for most areas because matched play by it's nature has to be more restrictive. Rather than trying to fit everyone into a single bucket, they have effectively two styles of game, one where crunch is the most important aspect and one where fluff is most important aspect.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 17:41:32


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Grimgold wrote:
    My personal bet is that narrative play will be the default for most areas because matched play by it's nature has to be more restrictive. Rather than trying to fit everyone into a single bucket, they have effectively two styles of game, one where crunch is the most important aspect and one where fluff is most important aspect.

    You would think that, but AoS regrettably proved that wrong.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 17:50:44


    Post by: Elbows


    I think there's some pretty disingenuous stuff going on here.

    You can literally play 40K any way you want. The only limitations being tournaments - where the hosts have a say in what you can/cannot do. It's likely that most tournaments will be run as matched play (even though that's not entirely necessary). If you can't find someone willing to play a fluffy game based on X, Y or Z...there's something more going on than gaming issues.

    I think a lot of people who want to run first-turn-alpha-strike-drop-assassination armies are masquerading under the banner of fluff. Personally I think armies like that produce terrible games and I'm glad to see them nixed in the more competitive version.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 17:54:31


    Post by: Grimgold


    No AoS proved people want points rather than trying to guess and getting a horrendously uneven battle. Narrative Play is basically AoS generals handbook style matches, points are ballparked rather than being fine grained, and you'll use scenarios for most matches. That has worked pretty well for AoS.

    Matched play will be ultra competitive hyper balanced games like you'd get in Warmachine or X-wing. It's not going to be anything like what 40k has done prior, it will be a living body of rules, that change in response to the meta. There are certainly people who prefer this style of game, but I probably wouldn't go so far as to say it's the majority of 40k players.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 18:05:23


    Post by: BunkhouseBuster


     Grimgold wrote:
    No AoS proved people want points rather than trying to guess and getting a horrendously uneven battle. Narrative Play is basically AoS generals handbook style matches, points are ballparked rather than being fine grained, and you'll use scenarios for most matches. That has worked pretty well for AoS.
    I was the weirdo who wanted Matched Play points for Narrative Play

    But seriously, I was waiting for points to play Age of Sigmar. I did not want to see what the WAAC players in my are would do had they picked up Age of Sigmar at the time. The points values listed in the General's Handbook, along with the many other rules and ideas present for Narrative and Matched Play, gave me everything I was looking for in Age of Sigmar, and then some. I hope that they handle the 3 ways to play for 40K as well as they have for AoS.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 18:06:00


    Post by: Desubot


     Grimgold wrote:
    No AoS proved people want points rather than trying to guess and getting a horrendously uneven battle. Narrative Play is basically AoS generals handbook style matches, points are ballparked rather than being fine grained, and you'll use scenarios for most matches. That has worked pretty well for AoS.

    Matched play will be ultra competitive hyper balanced games like you'd get in Warmachine or X-wing. It's not going to be anything like what 40k has done prior, it will be a living body of rules, that change in response to the meta. There are certainly people who prefer this style of game, but I probably wouldn't go so far as to say it's the majority of 40k players.


    it also doesn't hurt the "majority" of 40k players ether for it to exist.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 18:16:14


    Post by: Grimgold


     Desubot wrote:
     Grimgold wrote:
    No AoS proved people want points rather than trying to guess and getting a horrendously uneven battle. Narrative Play is basically AoS generals handbook style matches, points are ballparked rather than being fine grained, and you'll use scenarios for most matches. That has worked pretty well for AoS.

    Matched play will be ultra competitive hyper balanced games like you'd get in Warmachine or X-wing. It's not going to be anything like what 40k has done prior, it will be a living body of rules, that change in response to the meta. There are certainly people who prefer this style of game, but I probably wouldn't go so far as to say it's the majority of 40k players.


    it also doesn't hurt the "majority" of 40k players ether for it to exist.



    Exactly so.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 18:18:29


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Grimgold wrote:
    No AoS proved people want points rather than trying to guess and getting a horrendously uneven battle.

    Funny how that still happens with points being a thing, huh?

    Putting it rather bluntly, a large portion of the "horrendously uneven battles" that people kept using as examples from AoS were things that would have been invalid(Multiple Celestant-Primes, for example) but wouldn't have been stopped by points.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 18:31:12


    Post by: Lance845


     Verviedi wrote:
    Breng77 wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    "The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition. It's the fluff lists that are hurting, such as Marine drop pod lists and Guard AirCav. The entire Elysian army list has effectively been invalidated by these changes, unless there's a specific consession in their rules that allows unlimited reserves.


    We have no idea whether these units will give you exceptions to the rules just like in 6e. Further full reserve lists are a huge advantage in game if they have reliable delivery. All pod armies look cool, but are frequently not a good play experience for the opponent. I'm willing to sacrifice the idea of all pod, to create more enjoyable games for both players.

    My only statement pertaining to that is they'd better. Otherwise you'll be compromising the fluff for "reasons" (I cannot think of a single good reason for forcing half your army to stay on the board).


    Balance.

    Shadow in the Warp doesn't blanket the entire table top and cause every other players psykers to suffer waking nightmare, go mad, and die. OMG, they invalidated the fluff for "reasons" in the actual game.

    "Reasons" = balance.

    Boo Hoo, you can always explain that half the drop pods landed to establish a base of operations and those forces have now deployed and engaged the enemy while the second batch of drop pods are now incoming. There is no explanation for why SitW only impacts 12 inches around a synapse creature.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 18:36:14


    Post by: Grimgold


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Grimgold wrote:
    No AoS proved people want points rather than trying to guess and getting a horrendously uneven battle.

    Funny how that still happens with points being a thing, huh?

    Putting it rather bluntly, a large portion of the "horrendously uneven battles" that people kept using as examples from AoS were things that would have been invalid(Multiple Celestant-Primes, for example) but wouldn't have been stopped by points.


    You say that, but I dare you to find an AoS Batrep that was published prior to the general handbook that went down to the wire as opposed to one side blowing out the other. I've watched dozens of batreps and there might have been one game I thought could go either way. Also, points don't guarantee you a good fight, they just make it more likely, you can still get outplayed, bring the wrong comp, or get a cold streak on the dice at the wrong time.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 18:48:39


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Grimgold wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
     Grimgold wrote:
    No AoS proved people want points rather than trying to guess and getting a horrendously uneven battle.

    Funny how that still happens with points being a thing, huh?

    Putting it rather bluntly, a large portion of the "horrendously uneven battles" that people kept using as examples from AoS were things that would have been invalid(Multiple Celestant-Primes, for example) but wouldn't have been stopped by points.


    You say that, but I dare you to find an AoS Batrep that was published prior to the general handbook that went down to the wire as opposed to one side blowing out the other. I've watched dozens of batreps and there might have been one game I thought could go either way.

    Because every single time someone played Age of Sigmar, they posted a batrep?

    I'm sorry, but I can't get behind your argument in any regards. A large number of batreps published were also done by people who consistently pushed a narrative of "no points matches always end up being one sided".

    You genuinely had people talking about multi-Nagash armies as if they were going to be a real thing.

    Also, points don't guarantee you a good fight, they just make it more likely, you can still get outplayed, bring the wrong comp, or get a cold streak on the dice at the wrong time.

    Then what is the purpose of points?

    If your army of Dudemans is pointed fairly but someone else's army of Dudebros is pointed fairly as well but can't actually do anything to you because you "brought the wrong comp", what is the purpose of those meticulously( ) mathed out point values?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 18:54:33


    Post by: nekooni


    Matched play tries to balance the game. Yes, that means limiting gameplay. You happen to be affected by that? There's three ways to deal with it
    1) you deal with it as this mode is about the competetive nature of the game and just take it as such.
    2) you ask your opponent to agree to ignore that limitation.
    3) you play narrative or open.

    a competitive mode SHOULD have limitations. Take Overwatch (a team-based shooter with classes like "sniper girl" or "tough guy with a force field") for example - they introduced a "no duplicate heroes/classes in a competitive match in a team" rule after their first competitive season since it fethed up balance. competitive is now a better mode thanks to that, even though you can't play a pure "hero XY 6 times" team anymore there. you still can in arcade mode, but that's not affecting your competitive rating.

    It's the same with null deployment forces. It's a balance issue and on top of that: While YOU might think it's super fun to field a 100% drop pod list, always getting the alpha strike in - I can tell you from experience (from both sides, I'm mostly a SM player myself) that it sucks to waste your first turn because your opponent brought a gimmicky list.
    Let me guess what your responses up till now were when people complained about that: "Deal with it". Wasn't it?

    Oh, and if you haven't noticed: All our armies are going to work different now. We're getting new rules, and I am 100% sure that I won't be able to bring the list I'm going to use this weekend at exactly that point level in 8th edition. I'll have to adapt, so do you.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 18:54:43


    Post by: ERJAK


    If you actually care enough about the fluffiness of your drop pod list that you're genuinely upset that it might be gone than you will end up championing narrative play in your area so that the fluff can be preserved and other like minded players will join you.

    But since the OP claimed narrative will be DOA I assume that the fluff is probably not what he actually cares about.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 19:06:59


    Post by: Apple fox


     Purifier wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:

    That works in one case. What if my narrative is a sudden Apocalypse Now style helicopter assault, or coordinated deep strike with drop pods, or a Mont'ka with two squads of bait Pathfinders on the board and twenty Crisis suits dropping in? Then your argument fails utterly, because AT MOST, only one squad of Scouts would be on the board, providing recon for the strike.


    And what if my narrative is that we're floating in weghtless space so I get to set up anywhere on the map as our models have no control!
    And what if my narrative is that I win the game and you lose it so we just set up and then you lose!

    you don't get to restrict the narrative in matched play to only the exact storyline you want it to be. Unlike what you said from the start, it is fully supported by the fluff that you have half your army on the board so the "fluff"-argument is nonsensical.
    And if you just have to have it be your specific narrative... then just play narrative play.


    This is exactly what narrative play should be for, Some of the fluff army where a joke to bring into 40k under the normal rules. And Stupid to keep, Without all the factions getting a huge redesigning so they have access to similar design and functionality. If people want to use fluff to forward bad design, all the factions would be utilizing similar tactics suited to there own faction.
    Bring the game back down so every faction is playing the same game will be great thing, Rather than some factions getting access to some special snowflake rules to let them do something that all the factions should be getting access to.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 19:19:04


    Post by: Galas


    Matched play, as Auticus said, wants a balance style of gameplay. You can't have a balance style of gameplay and at the same time allow all the "fluffy" things in the Lore of the game. Thats just a fact.


    If I want to play an Army with, I don't know... only special characters up to 1850 points, because they are in some kind of Special mision... that can be totally fluffy, but is obvius that It can't be permited in Matched play.

    If people say "Just play narrative to use your heavy narrative list"... is because THATS why narrative play exist


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 19:22:59


    Post by: Traditio


    The people who are having their lists "invalidated" are power gamers...in particular, power gamers who were committing fluff abomination.

    Meanwhile, here I am with my battle company, and only slightly fewer than half of my squads had rhinos in the first place.

    Really, if you didn't want to have your army invalidated, then you should have been "psychic" enough to listen to people like me in the first place when we said: "Thou shalt not power game."


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 19:31:23


    Post by: Desubot


     Traditio wrote:
    The people who are having their lists "invalidated" are power gamers...in particular, power gamers who were committing fluff abomination.

    Meanwhile, here I am with my battle company, and only slightly fewer than half of my squads had rhinos in the first place.

    Really, if you didn't want to have your army invalidated, then you should have been "psychic" enough to listen to people like me in the first place when we said: "Thou shalt not power game."


    to be fair every mtg power gamer/ net deckers know this gak happens literally all the time.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 19:31:46


    Post by: Traditio


     Verviedi wrote:
    "The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition.


    A tactical marine with a multimelta is going to cost 40 ppm.

    You think you'll be able to spam scatter bikes?

    Maybe.

    But I doubt it.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 19:33:34


    Post by: Desubot


     Traditio wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    "The strongest list" is irrelevant. Tau or Eldar armies with 3 Riptides or 90 Scatterbikes or whatever is broken now will work just fine in this edition.


    A tactical marine with a multimelta is going to cost 40 ppm.

    You think you'll be able to spam scatter bikes?

    Maybe.

    But I doubt it.


    people will figure out that sweet spot points limit eventually. 3k might be the new 1500k


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 19:36:06


    Post by: Traditio


    Desubot wrote:people will figure out that sweet spot points limit eventually. 3k might be the new 1500k


    Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that spamming scatter bikes will technically be a thing that you can do.

    I doubt that it's going to be a particularly competitive option, though.

    I'd be surprised to see scatter bikes costing less than 40 ppm.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 19:48:59


    Post by: Desubot


     Traditio wrote:
    Desubot wrote:people will figure out that sweet spot points limit eventually. 3k might be the new 1500k


    Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that spamming scatter bikes will technically be a thing that you can do.

    I doubt that it's going to be a particularly competitive option, though.

    I'd be surprised to see scatter bikes costing less than 40 ppm.



    im fine with it not being a competitive option. then again we wont know if it wont be.

    im honestly excited to see the new meta of there even will be one (there will) depending on how closely balanced the game actually will be.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 20:01:52


    Post by: Verviedi


    Traditio, I'd actually be glad to see a general increase in point values across all armies. Games with 70 dudes on each side in 1500 pts are just tiring. I'd rather use a smaller amount of stuff at the same point value. Even small 1k pt games are still soldier-heavy, I could technically run 100 Skitarii Vanguard in 1k.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 20:03:38


    Post by: Traditio


     Verviedi wrote:
    Traditio, I'd actually be glad to see a general increase in point values across all armies.


    In point of fact, we know that this is not happening.

    Tactical marines actually decreased in cost from 14 ppm to 13 ppm.

    And grav pistols decreased from 15 ppm to 7 ppm.

    What we are seeing appears to be a complete rebalance.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 20:09:19


    Post by: Marmatag


    And I doubt tournaments will go with 3000 points or something. GW mentioned matched play is designed to be played around 2000 points I think.

    Part of a balanced game is the relative cost of each model, to the size of an army. If your army size is 10,000 points, troops will be a tiny piece of it. If your army size is 2,000 points, those units will be more meaningful.

    So I wouldn't expect the tournament community to define this, post release. My *guess* is that they collaborated with GW to set a baseline for matched play.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 20:19:42


    Post by: nateprati


    I struggle with seeing how 1 person not having to deploy or roll off for first turn is balanced


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 20:22:44


    Post by: Luciferian


    nateprati wrote:
    I struggle with seeing how 1 person not having to deploy or roll off for first turn is balanced


    He's not looking for balance, he's looking for fluffiness

    (unless you suggest narrative play, then he is looking for balance)


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 20:25:09


    Post by: Traditio


    Luciferian wrote:He's not looking for balance, he's looking for fluffiness


    Odd.

    Was he looking for fluffiness when he initially made his army?

    Surely, he considered playing orks before he settled on his current list?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 20:29:22


    Post by: EnTyme


    Traditio wrote:
     Verviedi wrote:
    Traditio, I'd actually be glad to see a general increase in point values across all armies.


    In point of fact, we know that this is not happening.

    Tactical marines actually decreased in cost from 14 ppm to 13 ppm.

    And grav pistols decreased from 15 ppm to 7 ppm.

    What we are seeing appears to be a complete rebalance.


    Though most special and heavy weapons seem to have increased in price, in some cases significantly. Multi-meltas are something like 30 points now! It'll be hard to estimate what the scale of the game will look like until we see full points.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 20:31:00


    Post by: Lythrandire Biehrellian


    Narrative has points too, the same system that supposedly saved age of sigmar.

    I know for certain that my local group couldn't care less about matched play, not one person considers it a "kiddie pool"


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 20:43:41


    Post by: Grimgold


     Kanluwen wrote:

    I'm sorry, but I can't get behind your argument in any regards. A large number of batreps published were also done by people who consistently pushed a narrative of "no points matches always end up being one sided".

    You genuinely had people talking about multi-Nagash armies as if they were going to be a real thing.

    Then what is the purpose of points?

    If your army of Dudemans is pointed fairly but someone else's army of Dudebros is pointed fairly as well but can't actually do anything to you because you "brought the wrong comp", what is the purpose of those meticulously( ) mathed out point values?


    How about you go check out the mini wargaming batreps, those guys have street cred on this site (and the 40k community in general) because they try their best to make interesting bat reps, and they are actually pretty good at it. None of their AoS batreps pre-generals handbook turned out well, and they tried fairly hard. They didn't have Nagash or multiple celestant prime, they tried to make interesting battles that were fluffy, and it was a train wreck. They ended up dropping AoS for some time because it was such a steaming pile. I like AoS now, but before generals handbook I wouldn't touch it, and the vast majority of the AoS community is the same way.

    The reason for points is, as I said, to make a good battle more likely, and I think you're being a tad bit dishonest in your expectations if you expect points to make every game great. There are bad games of chess and that is precisely balanced. Beyond that, 40k (and all list/deck building games) have a lot of room for skill in how you put your forces together, and thus it's possible to get a large advantage in the game by being more skilled at list building than your opponent, which is kind of the point. Skill should be rewarded, if not then why have the list building component at all.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 21:08:44


    Post by: Deadnight


    HaussVonHorne wrote:
    I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

    Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

    2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

    Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

    INB4:



    Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

    It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board. You don't even have to talk. You just play a game. Not a fair generalisation, is it? Of either the style of play, or those who play it, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

    Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'? No-nonsense, bare minimum of fuss, etc.

    There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical and pragmatic so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Not everything can fit. Some things need to be sacrificed, and frankly, there are scenarios and army lists that don't and won't work with this style of play. Not everything is either practical or pragmatic. Thing is, Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

    Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

    Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

    Good day sir.




    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 21:19:13


    Post by: nateprati


    Deadnight just won this thread


    Good day sir


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 21:20:28


    Post by: Rippy


    I find it amusing that you think we have enough information to make that claim OP.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Different isnt necessarily invalidating, OP


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 21:24:47


    Post by: MattKing


    nateprati wrote:
    Deadnight just won this thread


    Good day sir


    Boom. Micdrop. Close the thread. I think we're done here.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 21:25:34


    Post by: BunkhouseBuster


    Deadnight wrote:
    HaussVonHorne wrote:
    I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

    Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

    2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

    Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

    INB4:



    Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

    It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board.Not a fair generalisation, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

    Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'?

    There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Thing is. Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

    Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

    Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

    Good day sir.
    By the Emperor, yes! Exalted!


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 21:35:45


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Grimgold wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:

    I'm sorry, but I can't get behind your argument in any regards. A large number of batreps published were also done by people who consistently pushed a narrative of "no points matches always end up being one sided".

    You genuinely had people talking about multi-Nagash armies as if they were going to be a real thing.

    Then what is the purpose of points?

    If your army of Dudemans is pointed fairly but someone else's army of Dudebros is pointed fairly as well but can't actually do anything to you because you "brought the wrong comp", what is the purpose of those meticulously( ) mathed out point values?


    How about you go check out the mini wargaming batreps, those guys have street cred on this site (and the 40k community in general) because they try their best to make interesting bat reps, and they are actually pretty good at it.

    These are the same guys that got blasted last year for supporting Blue Table Painting, and before that for their long-winded videos about how GW "killed" their store.

    They might have "street cred" but they also have been long known to push certain narratives.

    None of their AoS batreps pre-generals handbook turned out well, and they tried fairly hard. They didn't have Nagash or multiple celestant prime, they tried to make interesting battles that were fluffy, and it was a train wreck. They ended up dropping AoS for some time because it was such a steaming pile. I like AoS now, but before generals handbook I wouldn't touch it, and the vast majority of the AoS community is the same way.

    Yeah, they tried so hard and yet got rules wrong fairly consistently.

    The same thing happened/happens with Infinity batreps from them.


    The reason for points is, as I said, to make a good battle more likely, and I think you're being a tad bit dishonest in your expectations if you expect points to make every game great. There are bad games of chess and that is precisely balanced. Beyond that, 40k (and all list/deck building games) have a lot of room for skill in how you put your forces together, and thus it's possible to get a large advantage in the game by being more skilled at list building than your opponent, which is kind of the point. Skill should be rewarded, if not then why have the list building component at all.

    If we're going to be honest, it's more important that players be knowledgeable of their army's capability.

    Not "oh I can make a list with point values!".
    Why?

    Because point values, inevitably, lead to compromise for effectiveness versus what is enjoyable for both parties.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 21:48:44


    Post by: Lythrandire Biehrellian


    Spoiler:
    Deadnight wrote:

    Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

    It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board. You don't even have to talk. You just play a game. Not a fair generalisation, is it? Of either the style of play, or those who play it, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

    Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'? No-nonsense, bare minimum of fuss, etc.

    There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical and pragmatic so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Not everything can fit. Some things need to be sacrificed, and frankly, there are scenarios and army lists that don't and won't work with this style of play. Not everything is either practical or pragmatic. Thing is, Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

    Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

    Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

    Good day sir.




    Brilliantly put good sir, well said.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 21:56:58


    Post by: Verviedi


    Deadnight wrote:
    Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

    It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board. You don't even have to talk. You just play a game. Not a fair generalisation, is it? Of either the style of play, or those who play it, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

    Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'? No-nonsense, bare minimum of fuss, etc.

    There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical and pragmatic so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Not everything can fit. Some things need to be sacrificed, and frankly, there are scenarios and army lists that don't and won't work with this style of play. Not everything is either practical or pragmatic. Thing is, Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

    Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

    Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

    Good day sir.



    Man I wish we had a featured posts feature. Beautifully said.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 22:32:36


    Post by: nedTCM


    Deadnight wrote:
    HaussVonHorne wrote:
    I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

    Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

    2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

    Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

    INB4:





    Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

    It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board.Not a fair generalisation, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

    Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'?

    There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Thing is. Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

    Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

    Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

    Good day sir.




    I think you are blaming players too much and you are skirting over that this is the reality GW has created. There is a connotation that there is no narrative play in 40k because the game was designed against it in the current iterations of the game.

    The issue here is that no care has been made to make even the slightest bit of balance in the game. The result is that there are a lot of units that are bad with rules that don't help their function and then there are a bunch more that are damn worthless. There are armies that are below the power curve and then there are armies that are so pointless they do terrible even if you take only the best options. Then on the other side of the spectrum you have armies like Eldar that have really fluffy units that are OP. Sure they have all their rules that match their fluff, but because there are no balance at all even taking them is putting your army so far head why bother. Then you have formations, armies are now really "fluffy" because GW said so. Really they are just pay to win BS that hands out buffs like candy.

    I believe there isn't really narrative play in 40k because you have to rewrite the game from the ground up to make it function. Then you have to go in again and make units feel like they are supposed to. Then back again to rebalance it. Its like how many changes and conversations do you have to have before the game is fun? If I want to play Green Tide Orks in this edition, how many concessions must my opponent make until the game approaches fair? How about vs IG another army that sucks? Do I drop the Wvyern, nerf the Manticore, nerf priests, and Vultures? This is where that kiddie pool comment probably comes from, at what point does my does that balance out. Is it at the point where every game I play my opponent has a nerfed army and I have 500 points worth of extra models? Everyone has a differing opinion on the subject. Never mind that IG still suck hard. RR are terrible, Ogryns are over priced garbage. Putting sponsons on vehicles is pointless. Nearly every Leman Russ variant is overpriced and die to a wet fart. Commissars are pointless. Neither army feels like it should from the start, neither plays against the other like it should in a narrative game because of the rules, and while not every game has to be equal when everything is one sided the loos of tension and risk basically eliminates the narrative value.

    That is why forge the narrative is such a joke, because GW kept torpedoing that concept by making unbalanced garbage to sell models. When I first started the first piece of advice I got was pick an army with a theme you like. I was having a blast with my fluffy army and took things that they would have. Even when I lost I didn't mind. I feel like if you would start now the first thing people would say is don't play that army because it so bad you will hate it or good luck getting games with that OP crap. The things is, now I don't disagree. Starting certain armies for the fluff will just lead to frustration. Maybe narrative play is harder, but for narrative play to work the game needs to start at a point that is at least close to functional. 40k is nowhere near there and that is why the issue exists. A lot of people have only played 40k and don't even understand that narrative play can even be a thing.

    They way 7 edition codex books have come out are so inconsistent that it down right damages the fluff of the game. There is a hope that this is at least address in 8th. However, when you see Drop Pod armies are now gone, but the Trygon is now fluffy as hell, I don't think they are making the game more friendly to narrative play. I just think so now they are buffing X unit into space and there are the new army to play to sell models. Because people will buy new marines regardless, but gotta make sure to make those expensive kits worth it! I hope I am wrong, but we will just have to wait and see.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 22:45:24


    Post by: Vryce


    Deadnight wrote:
    HaussVonHorne wrote:
    I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

    Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

    2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

    Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

    INB4:



    Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

    It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board. You don't even have to talk. You just play a game. Not a fair generalisation, is it? Of either the style of play, or those who play it, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

    Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'? No-nonsense, bare minimum of fuss, etc.

    There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical and pragmatic so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Not everything can fit. Some things need to be sacrificed, and frankly, there are scenarios and army lists that don't and won't work with this style of play. Not everything is either practical or pragmatic. Thing is, Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

    Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

    Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

    Good day sir.




    We're done here. Deadknight wins the thread. Have yourself an exalt, sir.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 22:46:36


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    nedTCM wrote:
    Deadnight wrote:
    HaussVonHorne wrote:
    I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

    Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

    2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

    Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

    INB4:





    Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

    It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board.Not a fair generalisation, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

    Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'?

    There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Thing is. Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

    Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

    Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

    Good day sir.




    I think you are blaming players too much and you are skirting over that this is the reality GW has created. There is a connotation that there is no narrative play in 40k because the game was designed against it in the current iterations of the game.

    The issue here is that no care has been made to make even the slightest bit of balance in the game. The result is that there are a lot of units that are bad with rules that don't help their function and then there are a bunch more that are damn worthless. There are armies that are below the power curve and then there are armies that are so pointless they do terrible even if you take only the best options. Then on the other side of the spectrum you have armies like Eldar that have really fluffy units that are OP. Sure they have all their rules that match their fluff, but because there are no balance at all even taking them is putting your army so far head why bother. Then you have formations, armies are now really "fluffy" because GW said so. Really they are just pay to win BS that hands out buffs like candy.

    I believe there isn't really narrative play in 40k because you have to rewrite the game from the ground up to make it function. Then you have to go in again and make units feel like they are supposed to. Then back again to rebalance it. Its like how many changes and conversations do you have to have before the game is fun? If I want to play Green Tide Orks in this edition, how many concessions must my opponent make until the game approaches fair? How about vs IG another army that sucks? Do I drop the Wvyern, nerf the Manticore, nerf priests, and Vultures? This is where that kiddie pool comment probably comes from, at what point does my does that balance out. Is it at the point where every game I play my opponent has a nerfed army and I have 500 points worth of extra models? Everyone has a differing opinion on the subject. Never mind that IG still suck hard. RR are terrible, Ogryns are over priced garbage. Putting sponsons on vehicles is pointless. Nearly every Leman Russ variant is overpriced and die to a wet fart. Commissars are pointless. Neither army feels like it should from the start, neither plays against the other like it should in a narrative game because of the rules, and while not every game has to be equal when everything is one sided the loos of tension and risk basically eliminates the narrative value.

    That is why forge the narrative is such a joke, because GW kept torpedoing that concept by making unbalanced garbage to sell models. When I first started the first piece of advice I got was pick an army with a theme you like. I was having a blast with my fluffy army and took things that they would have. Even when I lost I didn't mind. I feel like if you would start now the first thing people would say is don't play that army because it so bad you will hate it or good luck getting games with that OP crap. The things is, now I don't disagree. Starting certain armies for the fluff will just lead to frustration. Maybe narrative play is harder, but for narrative play to work the game needs to start at a point that is at least close to functional. 40k is nowhere near there and that is why the issue exists. A lot of people have only played 40k and don't even understand that narrative play can even be a thing.

    They way 7 edition codex books have come out are so inconsistent that it down right damages the fluff of the game. There is a hope that this is at least address in 8th. However, when you see Drop Pod armies are now gone, but the Trygon is now fluffy as hell, I don't think they are making the game more friendly to narrative play. I just think so now they are buffing X unit into space and there are the new army to play to sell models. Because people will buy new marines regardless, but gotta make sure to make those expensive kits worth it! I hope I am wrong, but we will just have to wait and see.


    Counter-exalted. If the game rules are simple yet expansive/non-restrictive, there isn't horrid disconnect between fluff and gameplay, and there's enough extreme edgewise testing to deal with odd cases...everyone wins.

    Making separate rulesets for narrative versus matched play is just artificially dividing the community further and will only contribute to a more fragile gamer's contract ("LGS" or "Matched" becomes "Narrative, soft matched, hard matched, etc"), thus further Balkanizing neckbeards into spergwars.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 22:56:41


    Post by: dosiere


    I have rarely seen a tabletop game from GW being played close to anything I'd call "narrative". It's a very loose term tossed around a lot recently because GW has used it for AoS and now 40k to describe some sort of soft matched play rules.

    A real narrative game, like a map based campaign, is actually really involved and requires more dedication from its players than any matched play game.

    An example would be the Corellian conflict expansion from FFG for Armada, or the most excellent player vs AI for x wing called heroes of the Aturi cluster. Those are narrative games. A matched play game with no points or a bunch of house rules is just that. It's a word being thrown about way too often I guess just to make it sound like something it often is not IMO.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 22:59:44


    Post by: Galas


    I'll say it again. In a game where all of this can be fighting in the same table at the same time, you have to sacrifice "fluff" representation for a better game balance. Period.

    The people that could do a ruleset that fit all of this things in a proper balanced,fluffy, fun and fast ruleset are out there working to the NASA or the Army of different countrys.
    Spoiler:



    We can arguee about that this is the fault of GW itsellf for losing the scale of its own game. And I'll agree with that. But people want to use their toys. ALL OF THEM. So we have to live with that. Or just go play other games.


    A narrative game by definition is a bad competitive game. If not, just look RPG manuals. Approach them as a "competitive game" and you'll kill them faster than a baby in the Sahara without water. So doing separated rulesets, or packs of rules, for a more competitive game, and a more narrative game, is totally aproppiate to deliver both experiences better.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 23:00:44


    Post by: HANZERtank


    Has anybody mentioned that you can still use the points in narrative play. they dont suddenly just stop existing when you decide on narrative, they still appear in the book and can use them.

    the whole point of narrative is play how you want. Use the power levels, or the points, or throw em both out the window. its basically the Matrix of 8th where you can bend and break the rules to your will because GW said you could.

    also we havent seen any faction specific force org charts that may allow full drop pod armies or air cavalry. youve seen a couple of generic force charts, and a perhaps not even full rules on deepstriking/reserves and now claimed the sky is falling in on us(but not in the fluffy way you want).


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 23:11:11


    Post by: Kanluwen


    dosiere wrote:
    I have rarely seen a tabletop game from GW being played close to anything I'd call "narrative". It's a very loose term tossed around a lot recently because GW has used it for AoS and now 40k to describe some sort of soft matched play rules.

    Speaking for myself, I commonly see it used as a term tossed around to deride people who don't want to have to suffer through playing against the same cookie-cutter tournament styled lists.

    It usually is accompanied by "fluff at all costs" or "casual at all costs".


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 23:11:54


    Post by: Luciferian


    I always thought the point of narrative was to play out specific scenarios. So you get together with your buddy and ask, "what would happen if x amount of dreadnoughts deep strike deployed on a fortress manned by y amount of Deathguard?"

    "I don't know, let's find out."


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 23:13:57


    Post by: Galas


     Luciferian wrote:
    I always thought the point of narrative was to play out specific scenarios. So you get together with your buddy and ask, "what would happen if x amount of dreadnoughts deep strike deployed on a fortress manned by y amount of Deathguard?"

    "I don't know, let's find out."


    Or playing narrative campaings with growing forces where the victorie into a battle (Or lost) affect the outcome of the whole campaing, your force, the rest of the battles, your units/heroes/etc... gain experience, equipement, habilities, mutilations, etc...
    All of those things are inexistant and irrelevant into a "Pure competitive" game. So is totally reasonable to have different rules for competitive and narrative game.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 23:15:41


    Post by: Earth127


    If you start today, most people will still say pick hat you like the looks of and untill you hit a genuine wall you're probably going to have a blast.

    Warhammer 40k is by nature a game that will have a divided community since the biggest common factors are models and hobby. The game aspect has always been to GW a way to sell these miniatures and let people have a fun time. T

    he gap already sort of exists between narrative and matched. Codefying it and aknowledging its existence won't widen the gap. In fact it might even bring players closer together as one of the big issues is the lack of clarity here. From 8th forward we wiul have different rules so using quick and easy questions will be easier.

    PUG games right now usually involve about half an hour or more of agreements if its between people from different FLGS/ clubs.

    If reducing variety improves balance for matched play and pick up games, I am all for it.

    Also WAAC mindset players seem to be more common then FAAC mindset players. The second kind only seems to exist when it comes to deriding people (with or without WAAC mindset).
    Really read some of the first responses in this thread and you'll realise it's a number of people hiding there WAAC mindset surrounding their list under a thin coat of FAAC mindset. I think it's some of the most hypocritical discussion I have seen so far surrounding 8th.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/18 23:22:40


    Post by: GodDamUser


    Sorry didn't read ever post..

    But people getting upset that their current list may not be valid in the new edition... This happens with every rule change. Its nothing new

    But personally I am looking forward to doing some Narrative play, and will likely use it as the main stay when not playing at events.. because it still has a point system, but it isn't going down and costing every single thing, And I have several mates who have only just started playing again after about 10-15years away


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 00:24:31


    Post by: nedTCM


    dosiere wrote:
    I have rarely seen a tabletop game from GW being played close to anything I'd call "narrative". It's a very loose term tossed around a lot recently because GW has used it for AoS and now 40k to describe some sort of soft matched play rules.

    A real narrative game, like a map based campaign, is actually really involved and requires more dedication from its players than any matched play game.

    An example would be the Corellian conflict expansion from FFG for Armada, or the most excellent player vs AI for x wing called heroes of the Aturi cluster. Those are narrative games. A matched play game with no points or a bunch of house rules is just that. It's a word being thrown about way too often I guess just to make it sound like something it often is not IMO.


    Its funny you pointed that out. I remember we did a Bolt action battle based on operation raincoat.

    We had 6 players on three tables pushed together into a line with 2 Germans and 1 Italian on one side and 1 brit with 2 americans (with my Marines very lost in Europe) on the other side. Everyone brought 1000 points and while you were matched with a player across from you everyone could cross board lines. Our lists were mostly independently built. One guy brought a Panther tank which in 40k terms is like bring a super heavy.

    The game unfolded with the panther taking 2 airstrikes (one whiffed) from my American friend and several of my AT gun shots, but no concrete damage being done. Turn three a fighter bomber showed up and the Nazis were 1 missed roll away from making him retreat with their AA. I rolled three 6s for damage and took the panther out. Because that was a good portion of my direct opponents points, the remainder of turn 3 involved multiple German half tracks moving up from the center table to stop my troops from advancing to the victory points, while he held the line with what little he had left. The game ended a draw.

    Bolt Action has an advantage in that it is pretty closely balanced because armies have similar stats. However, there are still some balanced issues especially as this was the first version of the game.

    I mention it because this was actually my 3 actual complete game of Bolt Action. I had only played with one other dude on the table and he wasn't on my team. My army was literally everything I had from the starter box and one other blister I bought. I had said hello to 4 of them from the first time that night. Afterwards we all had fun. Even the guy who lost most of his army to a triple six was laughing about how much fun and also how THEMATIC it was to lose the tank to a clutch airstrike roll. Even if it was a very lost F4U that should have been in the pacific. The guy who pitched the idea, used essentially the same rules as standard mission and just expanded them. Random issues that came up were decided upon in place.

    It was like this because the game was made with balance in mind. We didn't have to wade through a chaotic mess of unbalanced BS or use two different rule sets to make a fun, themed game for a lot of players. The rules facilitate fluffy play because there were army choice structure, good points system, not a lot of over the top rules. The Panther Tank felt like it should. A scary monster that took combined arms to beat. My army has plenty of fluffy rules that make it feel more like it should. There is some stuff that is over the top, but the hard limits on choices means that one unit isn't a game breaker.

    That is what narrative play is all about and it is very possible. I have done plenty of Dropzone, Bolt Action, even Epic 40k community edition games with a narrative focus as well. I feel confident that I could do Infinity this way. I don't feel confident I could do so in 7th. I remember they one time we tried to do so the campaign ended immediately because it was so one sided.

    It would be nice if this was the case with 8th. And I think that is all I am asking; just gives us a balanced start point and show us you care about it. Having to re-write a rulebook isn't what I want to do. We live in an age with a lot of great games so really why bother.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 00:37:27


    Post by: Galas


    To diferent folks different tastes. To me thats not a narrative game, is just competitive play with a nice backstory and "feel". It can be totally fun, don't think I'm saying otherwise.

    But at least, as "narrative" I understand a much more complex post and pre-battle ruleset that makes the battles count to a bigger scene. That push your imagination both from the story standpoint, the gameplay standpoint and the paint and conversion standpoint.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 00:50:44


    Post by: MagicJuggler


     Kanluwen wrote:
    dosiere wrote:
    I have rarely seen a tabletop game from GW being played close to anything I'd call "narrative". It's a very loose term tossed around a lot recently because GW has used it for AoS and now 40k to describe some sort of soft matched play rules.

    Speaking for myself, I commonly see it used as a term tossed around to deride people who don't want to have to suffer through playing against the same cookie-cutter tournament styled lists.

    It usually is accompanied by "fluff at all costs" or "casual at all costs".


    It's also used disparagingly because 6th was considered the worst edition by many while also being the first one with a core rulebook to use the term "Forge the Narrative" so much that it became a memetic euphemism for excusing sloppy rules crunch in favor of randumb gimmicks.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 00:55:51


    Post by: nedTCM


     Galas wrote:
    To diferent folks different tastes. To me thats not a narrative game, is just competitive play with a nice backstory and "feel". It can be totally fun, don't think I'm saying otherwise.

    But at least, as "narrative" I understand a much more complex post and pre-battle ruleset that makes the battles count to a bigger scene. That push your imagination both from the story standpoint, the gameplay standpoint and the paint and conversion standpoint.


    What you are describing is usually considered a campaign, which can be both narrative or competitive.

    When people push the "narrative play" button in 40k, they are mostly referring to playing a theme game using armies with fluffy choices. For example, a Tallarn army with all rough riders and tanks vs Iron Warriors would be a for narrative play. Or an all Thousand Sons army to play against space wolves. In both cases, you would have to take some serious concession on the IW or SW side to give the other one a chance.

    In Bolt Action, they actually help you out with that. For example, I can choose from an army list with my marines that has options from the Guadalcanal campaign or Iwo Campaign, or just a basic any time army. The different time frames limit what options you might have. So you could do an Island Hopping narrative game if you so desired.

    We also talked about doing several famous battles linked starting on D-day, but it never materialized.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 00:59:43


    Post by: Galas


    I can totally understand your point, but thats why to me the pure "narrative" comes from campaings and, at least, conected battles with effect in the nex battles.

    I totally understand that you can have a "narrative" game in hitself, but to me thats like... "narrative lite" you know?

    I'm a 100% narrative player and RPG player, so thats why I prefer more long standing games that allow me to create a feeling and history to my army, and customice my own heroes and units throug the curse of that campaing/Story


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 02:37:42


    Post by: Luciferian


    I would actually like to play some persistent compaigns because I think it would be a lot of fun, but it certainly is a bit more work to try and set it all up with others who want to do the same thing, compared to playing one-off pick up games and the like.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 09:25:36


    Post by: tneva82


    HaussVonHorne wrote:
    I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

    Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

    2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

    Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

    INB4:


    Inferior? I consider narrative gaming to be the truly hard mode gaming requiring more skill from the players.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 09:28:56


    Post by: nateprati


    It also seems like fluff and narrative are being used a bit too interchangeably. There can be a fluffy narrative like recreating the fall of cadia or some specific battle but I don't think the word narrative is restricted to fluff.

    Narrative can just imply a story behind your army that doesn't need a literal write up. For example your army has a lot of tanks; it's a tank battalion or its a horde of foot slogging orks so it's a waaahg warband.

    I don't think gw has a choke hold on what is considered narrative and I don't think narrative play is always a campaign. It could also be a unique deployment. Sisters had awsome missions that told a narrative without needing to know the liststatus (defend the shrine). Even how you set up terrain can make a game narrative. It's just accepting a degree of dynamic ballance that's not always reflected in points


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 09:41:54


    Post by: ERJAK


    nateprati wrote:
    It also seems like fluff and narrative are being used a bit too interchangeably. There can be a fluffy narrative like recreating the fall of cadia or some specific battle but I don't think the word narrative is restricted to fluff.

    Narrative can just imply a story behind your army that doesn't need a literal write up. For example your army has a lot of tanks; it's a tank battalion or its a horde of foot slogging orks so it's a waaahg warband.

    I don't think gw has a choke hold on what is considered narrative and I don't think narrative play is always a campaign. It could also be a unique deployment. Sisters had awsome missions that told a narrative without needing to know the liststatus (defend the shrine). Even how you set up terrain can make a game narrative. It's just accepting a degree of dynamic ballance that's not always reflected in points


    Actually for GW specifically they use narrative rather than fluff because the term 'fluff' came from a different game system, according to rob simes at least.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 09:44:52


    Post by: NivlacSupreme


    Matched play doesn't really interest me. It seems that because the balance trumps the lore we may as well all play the same army. I want epic tales of a handfull of marines repelling entire invasion fleets.

    I fell like that's a problem with marines in general. Just to be balanced they play like anything else. People regularly take a whole company to a game and lose. In the fluff a company of marines would change the tide of a major war.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 10:47:48


    Post by: Verviedi


    ERJAK wrote:
    nateprati wrote:
    It also seems like fluff and narrative are being used a bit too interchangeably. There can be a fluffy narrative like recreating the fall of cadia or some specific battle but I don't think the word narrative is restricted to fluff.

    Narrative can just imply a story behind your army that doesn't need a literal write up. For example your army has a lot of tanks; it's a tank battalion or its a horde of foot slogging orks so it's a waaahg warband.

    I don't think gw has a choke hold on what is considered narrative and I don't think narrative play is always a campaign. It could also be a unique deployment. Sisters had awsome missions that told a narrative without needing to know the liststatus (defend the shrine). Even how you set up terrain can make a game narrative. It's just accepting a degree of dynamic ballance that's not always reflected in points


    Actually for GW specifically they use narrative rather than fluff because the term 'fluff' came from a different game system, according to rob simes at least.

    Fun fact, the old manager at the local GW (long gone) actually disliked it when you said "fluff" in store because it "diminished its importance". He insisted we called it "backstory" or "narrative". This was before 7th edition.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 12:28:25


    Post by: Kremling


    I'm in the same boat..

    I started a Stormtrooper army (Militarum Tempestusbla, i doubt they will exist anyway in 8th, GW will force me to buy Imperial Guard stuff i dont want..) army half a year ago, and i only started them to have an elite paratrooper army. I never cared on how effective they are (i'm like 1-6 win/loss with em..). All i wanted was well equipped dudes jumping out of their Valks and get their air support.

    Ye i can play narrative, but noone else will play narrative, i think noone will want to play it. The problem will be that i can't equip my dudes the way i want. Narrative play probably restricts you to pre-equipped squads and dont even have points anymore..

    I usually started with 1-2 Taurox scouts or Infantry units on the board before dropping all the gak in 2nd round. I always told my enemy that i have lots of Flyers, and my happy Tau enemy intercepted the gak out of my Stormis anyway. I still had great fun with these games see them die in glory.

    Im just a bit pissed that i can only drop 50% of the army now.
    Yea..! Lets bend the fluff to: 50% of em already dropped and are waiting for backup...

    NO goddamnit! It was the f***in D-Day feeling i want from that list.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 12:41:13


    Post by: Purifier


    Kremling wrote:
    NO goddamnit! It was the f***in D-Day feeling i want from that list.


    There is nothing D-Day about paratrooping into a firefight. That simply wasn't and isn't what paratroopers were or are about. First of all, D-Day paratroopers were faaaaaaaar from the majority of troops landing on D-Day, and second, when they landed, they at least tried to do so in uncontested areas, only to then group up and move on foot in to take an area. They did not drop a few meters from an enemy and then siege their position from where they dropped.

    I get what you're saying. You had some kind of an idea of what it all looked like, and you want to keep that. But don't try to fasten that idea in any kind of realism or any kind of existing warfare tactics, because that's simply not how paratroopers work. The only person to come down in a parachute firing would be someone like Rambo.

    Your idea is a bad 80s action film, and that's fine. But let's not pretend it is anything else.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 12:50:10


    Post by: bullyboy


    If no one will play narrative with you to allow a null deploy drop force (and they can have a dug in defensive force), then it's not a rules issue, it's a friends issue. Those types of games are often the most enjoyable, find someone who will play it with you. I once set up a D-Day game where all my Eldar wraith hosts deployed at sea and just marched up onto the beach. Defender had bunkers, trenches etc. It was a blast.

    The rules changed as null deploy can be unbalanced. Just because you feel that your list ins't doesn't stop the problems that can occur.

    So either find some scout type units to deploy on ground and play matched, or talk a buddy into playing the odd narrative game (you can still used matched points you know) and play a drop game.

    Either way, the rules still look to be vastly improved, even at the expense of your so called enjoyment (which really isn't true).


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 12:52:02


    Post by: Earth127


    Sure but the first wave is already on shore (and the first one to fall).

    I'll say it again and repeat this ad nauseum if I have to : Matched play should restrict extreme scenarios because they have a tendency to break the game.
    Wether It's reserves, powers, unit spam any extreme has the chance to break the rules a bit so it had better be limited.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 12:57:56


    Post by: Kremling


     Purifier wrote:

    I get what you're saying.


    Thats great. Just because i refered to a "d-day feeling" doesn't mean i pulled out my history book and tried to recreate an authentic 101st airborne division deployed in normandy.

    I refered to it, so people get what i'm saying.

    Excuse my bad english articulation.

     Purifier wrote:

    Your idea is a bad 80s action film, and that's fine. But let's not pretend it is anything else.


    Exactly. Suicide surgery strikes in an 80s developed completly over the top dystopia, Warhammer 40k, fits nicely i think. I dont (want to) play Bolt Action.


    I'm just really curious in general on how Stormtroopers will fit in 8th and how i can get my army concept to work.




    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Earth127 wrote:
    I'll say it again and repeat this ad nauseum if I have to : Matched play should restrict extreme scenarios because they have a tendency to break the game.
    Wether It's reserves, powers, unit spam any extreme has the chance to break the rules a bit so it had better be limited.


    Totally agree, gamebreakers should be fixed, although there will be always possibilites to play something to the extreme just to win tournaments. That Drop pod guy maybe sells all his pods for Rhinos or whatever the hotness is soon, who knows..
    While crying, at the same time i dont have any compassion for the drop pod guy. I'd rather laugh at him cause he agaim has to pay more to win more.

    Iam just a crybaby right now because i feel punished for something i did not do (evil exploitation of spamming reserves to win games)
    My poor weak guys had no staying power and are far from OP anyway and now they are not even allowed to do what they like to do

    But its always like that, there will be always people on the wrong side of (under) the nerf.. uh balance hammer.

    Its not like i totally rage at 8th edition, i see alot of improvement. Fun times for Tyranids and people maybe dont give me looks when i say "uh i'd maybe.... like to play my Eldar.. some time.."


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     bullyboy wrote:

    or talk a buddy into playing the odd narrative game (you can still used matched points you know) and play a drop game.
    .


    I haven't fully understand the full difference between narrative and matched play games yet, but i fear that narrative rules will be missing even more detail. How do you know matched points still work? I might have missed some news about the 3 game modes.
    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/

    that one only talks points for Matched. In newer articles they talk about "power levels"...



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 13:32:33


    Post by: BunkhouseBuster


    To me, Narrative is about creating a story, whether by setting up a scenario or campaign and playing in it, or describing what happens afterwards and incorporating it into your personal/campaign/store fluff. People are trying to move the CASUAL VS. SERIOUS-COMPETITIVE gaming argument into MATCHED VS. NARRATIVE play, and that just is not accurate. Competitive games are where the outcome of the game and scoring on objectives is the goal, while casual is about relaxing and chilling out with plastic figures and dice. Matched Play is a recommended rules set that give options for "more balanced" games, while Narrative Play gives story and campaign ideas to have a bigger picture for what your little plastic soldiers are fighting for, the bigger picture to provide context to their actions. In Narrative Play, it's where the story itself is the goal of the game, not to defeat your opponent.

    There are instances in history where people would sacrifice themselves for the bigger picture. The 300 Spartans held the line, knowing that they likely wouldn't survive the entire onslaught of the Persian empire marching upon them. But they held the line long enough for the Greek City-states to unite and hold off Persia better. But that's because the Spartans weren't worried about holding an objective for so many turns or trying to get more kill-points than their opponents, they had a bigger picture to worry about, and through that motivation they were willing to sacrifice themselves. To them, victory is a big picture thing, wanting to win the war, not the battle. The history behind these events are a narrative. If you were to look at the battle itself in a competitive sense, you would think "man, that Greek player handicapped himself by only bringing 900 points of models to the Persian player's 5000, he must have wanted to lose!". But there was more going on behind the scenes of the battle, both before and after, that gives that battle some significance.

    I'm a much bigger Narrative player now than I was before, but that is because I realized it and embraced it. To get others into a Narrative, you have to give it some meaning. I had a D&D campaign years back that had a loose Narrative base of "players go explore in this area for a growing empire" as the hook, but that in itself is not enough. We all contributed to the story, which really grew from how the players reacted to the situations I threw at them. Thanks to their silliness/strategies/rolling, we now share the stories of the Brain-in-a-jar overlord, the insulting of the great Ant-Queen, the taming of Derpy the Griffon, and the Arena rescuse-battle-and-escape. Did we get sidetracked several times? Yes. Who was the winner out of those encounters? All of us were, because winning in D&D cannot be measured in points or objectives being held. Winning in D&D is having a good time. In that same vein, my story and campaign experiences have given me the moments of Guardsman Sgt. Bob being promoted after defeating Dark Eldar Incubi in melee(!), Commisar Thomas felling over a dozen Necron Flayed ones before being overrun, that time a single Ogryn Bone'ead ducked for cover from a Vindicator blast the then wreck it on the charge later, the time my Commissar chased down fleeing Guardsmen and summarily executing nearly every one of them before getting to the table edge, and my personal favorites, The Last Ride of Epidemius, and the Great Stormlord Explosion of Nemesis Tessera.

    My point is that the Narrative is what you make of the game. If you only focus on the standard definition of "winning" the game on objectives or kills, then that is your Narrative, and it is what so many people focus on; they want to win the battles, not the war. To "competitive" players, the game in front of them is the most important thing for their army, not the battles to come, as those haven't happened yet, and not the battles before, though they give tactics and strategy and experience to help with this battle. And that is fine if that is what those players want to focus on.

    There is not a right or wrong way to play the game - these are little plastic toys, after all. But to deride and criticize others for wanting to have a different version of fun is not acceptable. The goal of the game is to have fun, but the objectives are subjective ( ) - are we trying to beat the player or beat his army? To paraphrase some other poster on another forum I have read: Are we playing a game WITH another player? Or AGAINST the other player?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Kremling wrote:
    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     bullyboy wrote:
    or talk a buddy into playing the odd narrative game (you can still used matched points you know) and play a drop game.
    I haven't fully understand the full difference between narrative and matched play games yet, but i fear that narrative rules will be missing even more detail. How do you know matched points still work? I might have missed some news about the 3 game modes.
    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/

    that one only talks points for Matched. In newer articles they talk about "power levels"...
    If it is anything like Age of Sigmar, you have nothing to worry about. In that game, Matched Play rules are basically army construction methods that give you the options for taking the equivalent of Troops, Heavy Support, HQs, etc., in your games, and have the AoS version of Faction-wide "Chapter Tactics" and Warlord Traits, alternative mission types to play out, and the "living" points values for units and formation/Battalions that can be changed from time to time.

    Narrative Play gives you a bunch of ideas and concepts to try out, depending on what kind of campaign of story or scenario-based battle you are wanting to play. Each section is modular in its rules presentation, and you can pretty easily pick out what you want to play with without breaking the rest of the system. To me, that modularity is Age of Sigmar's greatest strength right now.

    "They be more like guidelines than actual rules."


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 20:10:54


    Post by: ZebioLizard2


    The 300 Spartans held the line,
    Along with about 4000 allies.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 20:31:17


    Post by: Galas


     ZebioLizard2 wrote:
    The 300 Spartans held the line,
    Along with about 4000 allies.


    Spartans are the Space Marines of classic greece. They have all the merit, but everyone forgot about the Arcadians/Imperial Guard


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 21:59:15


    Post by: BunkhouseBuster


     ZebioLizard2 wrote:
    The 300 Spartans held the line,
    Along with about 4000 allies.
    I'm aware of that (I majored in Classical studies in college, among other degress). But enough people aren't aware of it, so I figured the 300 would be enough for now.

    Still, the Greeks were severely outnumbered!


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 22:09:08


    Post by: Lythrandire Biehrellian


    Kremling wrote:
    I'm in the same boat..

    I started a Stormtrooper army (Militarum Tempestusbla, i doubt they will exist anyway in 8th, GW will force me to buy Imperial Guard stuff i dont want..) army half a year ago, and i only started them to have an elite paratrooper army. I never cared on how effective they are (i'm like 1-6 win/loss with em..). All i wanted was well equipped dudes jumping out of their Valks and get their air support.

    Ye i can play narrative, but noone else will play narrative, i think noone will want to play it. The problem will be that i can't equip my dudes the way i want. Narrative play probably restricts you to pre-equipped squads and dont even have points anymore..

    I usually started with 1-2 Taurox scouts or Infantry units on the board before dropping all the gak in 2nd round. I always told my enemy that i have lots of Flyers, and my happy Tau enemy intercepted the gak out of my Stormis anyway. I still had great fun with these games see them die in glory.

    Im just a bit pissed that i can only drop 50% of the army now.
    Yea..! Lets bend the fluff to: 50% of em already dropped and are waiting for backup...

    NO goddamnit! It was the f***in D-Day feeling i want from that list.


    Actually I believe the tempestus sections will be their own mini faction after all. The guard will more than likely get a regimental bonus, it wouldn't make sense for the attached sections to also have it. What you can also do is have flyers start on the table. Nowhere has it said they HAD to start in reserves, so the enemy comes upon a mobile insertion point and the game begins. Also note that your valks will probably be able to come in first turn and there is no rolling for reserves.

    Now, if your tau buddy also enjoyed those games and the feeling thereof, why would he deny you the ability to do so? Use the point system and play an open game. Done. You get to play your game style (with a bit more umph, I might add) and there really isn't a reason to complain at that point.

    People act like you aren't ALLOWED to use points and a balanced list in open/narative games...


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 22:24:05


    Post by: EnTyme


     BunkhouseBuster wrote:
     ZebioLizard2 wrote:
    The 300 Spartans held the line,
    Along with about 4000 allies.
    I'm aware of that (I majored in Classical studies in college, among other degress).


    And did that lead to a career at:

    a) Starbuck's

    b) Olive Garden

    c) Best Buy


    My degree was in Middle European History. I went with B and C.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 22:45:16


    Post by: thegreatchimp


    HaussVonHorne wrote:


    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing?


    Absolutely. Narrative games and campaigns are the high point in wargames for me.

    In highly tactical games systems, I enjoy matched play almost as much because winning is a testament to tactical prowess and out-thinking ones opponent. Victory in 40k, on the other hand, largely consists of being proficient in math hammer, building a list with the right mix of the best units and guns (and having the money to procure them). Then hoping your opponent fields the optimum targets for those super killy uints, and that the dice doesn't screw you. I don't meant to come across as condescending, but winning a game based on that is the height of dullness to me, and holds zero appeal.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/19 22:55:04


    Post by: theocracity


    I think the idea that "no one will play narrative" is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Be the change you want to see in the world! If you want to play your fluffy list but can't run it in Matched play, start asking people to play Narrative - you can even use points and forsake scenario rules. Build the gameplay experience you want.

    In my opinion there's always going to be a tension between the idea of narrative fluffiness and competitive balance. Just because an idea is cool doesn't make it healthy for the game as a whole, so in a setting where balance matters then sacrifices have to be made. That's why I think Narrative and Open play should not be regarded as second-class game types - they're there to service a different kind of player who wants their fluffy null-deploy lists or such without impacting the experience of people who care about competitive balance and tournaments.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/20 19:11:58


    Post by: tneva82


    Kremling wrote:
    I'm in the same boat..

    I started a Stormtrooper army (Militarum Tempestusbla, i doubt they will exist anyway in 8th, GW will force me to buy Imperial Guard stuff i dont want..) army half a year ago, and i only started them to have an elite paratrooper army. I never cared on how effective they are (i'm like 1-6 win/loss with em..). All i wanted was well equipped dudes jumping out of their Valks and get their air support.

    Ye i can play narrative, but noone else will play narrative, i think noone will want to play it. The problem will be that i can't equip my dudes the way i want. Narrative play probably restricts you to pre-equipped squads and dont even have points anymore..


    If something will restrict you to pre equipped it's matched play. The less options closer to unarchievable balance it is. Narrative is all about variety. It's about players deciding what's fun for them and creating interesting games with actual story in them.

    And I think you would be surprised how many play it. Remember forums are not that good indicator of players. Tournament inclined players tend to be more vocal than narrative but there ARE lots of players who play narrative games as well.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/20 19:44:35


    Post by: icn1982


    This has been an interesting read.

    Point about Space Marine Drop Pod Assaults. I doubt they actually get much use in pitched battles for the following reason:

    It is very difficult to get you opponent to line up nicely into a battle line that you can assault

    UNLESS

    There is already a force on the ground that the enemy has arrayed against. Now realistically, this can be done very cheaply with Imperial Guardsmen (you need half the number of units, not points). Now, you may loose access to <chapter> specific strategems, but if a Space Marine Force has had to deploy into such a battle via drop pods, chances are they haven't had chance to discuss strategy and tactics with the Imperial Guard Forces before hand. If you really want/need your chapter specific strategims, then take two detachments (Guard and Space Marine Chapter).

    Now, I do agree that Space Marines will often deploy into strategically important locations via drop pod, but the enemy isn't going to be lined up waiting for you, you are likely dropping into the middle of an airbase, on top of a defence laser or some other such location, in which case you are going to want to play a narrative game.

    As for my position, due to the type of player I am, I think I will almost exclusively be playing narrative based games using power levels rather than points. I don't care if I win or loose, I care about having a cool and fun game.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 01:09:06


    Post by: bhollenb


    HaussVonHorne wrote:

    Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

    I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

    Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.



    Amen to that! Its actually sad that it took 4 pages of replies to find one person who pointed this out about the original post. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the original post was pretty insulting and hypocritical towards narrative gamers.

    As for your reply, in my experience it takes a considerable amount of maturity, self confidence, and effort to create, run, and enjoy a narrative game or campaign. To put it another way, I've known many older tournament gamers but have never met a younger narrative gamer (I'm 35). Not that they don't exist but they are undoubtedly rare.

    It takes maturity and perspective to understand that you personally do not have to win every game for it to be enjoyable. You can have fun even though you "lose". You can lose and understand that no one thinks less of you for losing, that you are not 'bad at the game', or need to 'get gud'. As a high school teacher for 12 years, I speak from experience when I say young people rarely show that level of maturity and confidence. So its a good thing that no one expects them to!


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 01:22:17


    Post by: ross-128


    As far as Apocalypse Now stunts go, I think the ability to reliably bring the thunder on turn 1 and grav-chute with no scatter will more than make up for having half your army start on the table.

    The only downside is that the 9" rule will drop the Stormies just barely outside of rapid-fire range unless they end up getting a way around it, or hot-shots get a slight range extension.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 03:18:10


    Post by: ERJAK


    icn1982 wrote:
    This has been an interesting read.

    Point about Space Marine Drop Pod Assaults. I doubt they actually get much use in pitched battles for the following reason:

    It is very difficult to get you opponent to line up nicely into a battle line that you can assault

    UNLESS

    There is already a force on the ground that the enemy has arrayed against. Now realistically, this can be done very cheaply with Imperial Guardsmen (you need half the number of units, not points). Now, you may loose access to <chapter> specific strategems, but if a Space Marine Force has had to deploy into such a battle via drop pods, chances are they haven't had chance to discuss strategy and tactics with the Imperial Guard Forces before hand. If you really want/need your chapter specific strategims, then take two detachments (Guard and Space Marine Chapter).

    Now, I do agree that Space Marines will often deploy into strategically important locations via drop pod, but the enemy isn't going to be lined up waiting for you, you are likely dropping into the middle of an airbase, on top of a defence laser or some other such location, in which case you are going to want to play a narrative game.

    As for my position, due to the type of player I am, I think I will almost exclusively be playing narrative based games using power levels rather than points. I don't care if I win or loose, I care about having a cool and fun game.


    The thing is you're comparing what is realistic for a drop pod assault to accomplish and what is optimal for a drop pod assault and finding the realistic lacking. Which is true.

    What yoi SHOULD be comparing is drop pod assaults and sprinting through a hail of gunfire like a numpty for the 3 turns it takes to hit their lines. Drop pod assault will always be crazy strong for delivering units to combat.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 04:07:26


    Post by: nateprati


    And it should be strong and really cool. The only problem is how to ballance a null deploy.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 05:00:54


    Post by: TheIronCrow


    HaussVonHorne wrote:


    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"


    You didn't need to be psychic. GW is easy to predict. Is it exploitive or overselling over everything else? If yes that's going to change. Deal with it.

    Seriously. You have to redo your army every edition with very few exceptions, that has not changed for over 20 years. That's the reality of GW games. Either adapt to the system, make peace with "narrative land" or the doors always there for quitters to go have daddy GW issues with the warmachine players


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 05:39:16


    Post by: Peregrine


     TheIronCrow wrote:
    You didn't need to be psychic. GW is easy to predict. Is it exploitive or overselling over everything else? If yes that's going to change. Deal with it.

    Seriously. You have to redo your army every edition with very few exceptions, that has not changed for over 20 years. That's the reality of GW games. Either adapt to the system, make peace with "narrative land" or the doors always there for quitters to go have daddy GW issues with the warmachine players


    Ah yes, because not wanting to have to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars (and countless hours of assembly and painting time) on building a new army every time GW puts out a new "change for the sake of change" edition without really improving the game is "daddy GW issues". I swear, 8th is really bringing out the GW white knights...


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 06:00:05


    Post by: Lythrandire Biehrellian


    Or you could just keep playing your army and not be derisive towards the system within the game that allows you to do so?

    Seriously this edition switch has done nothing to invalidate armies and people are still complaining about it as if there were an actual reason to do so.

    You want a fluff reason to have pods on the table. Marines arrived to stop the forward progression of an enemy army. The logistitians failed to accurately count the enemy on the field. The marines send another wave of pods to reinforce the group.

    Done. Fluffy, thematic, perfectly viable tactic in real battle (quick deploy forward positions with emplaced weapons) and you get to play with all of your toys. Now there is also the benefit of simply CHOOSING when your forces arrive from reserve starting on turn one and you got table saturation you would normally have to wait until turn 2-3 to see at the earliest. You'll cover a whole half to 2/3 of the table in overlapping fields of fire at the end of your first movement phase but it doesn't seem like a vice strategy for some reason?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 06:07:27


    Post by: Luciferian


    Hey, my army went from 2+ rerollable saves for almost every model to god knows what. Most likely just a +1 save modifier. Am I mad about it? Not until I get stomped out in a one-sided battle against something else that has become cheesy in its place, and I'm hoping that won't happen.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 13:38:21


    Post by: bladeace


    I'm very glad they're willing to make hard and unpopular calls if they deem it necessary for game balance.

    I sympathise with those losing access to matched play with their army. However, none of us deserve to play in matched games with an army the designers judge unable to be balanced. Robust balance is only going to come if GW forces needed sacrifices on us.

    This is the GW you asked for every time my scatter lasers hurt someone.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 13:40:19


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    bladeace wrote:
    I'm very glad they're willing to make hard and unpopular calls if they deem it necessary for game balance.

    I sympathise with those losing access to matched play with their army. However, none of us deserve to play in matched games with an army the designers judge unable to be balanced. Robust balance is only going to come if GW forces needed sacrifices on us.

    This is the GW you asked for every time my scatter lasers hurt someone.


    I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 13:52:45


    Post by: ClockworkZion


    Frankly after reading the last six pages I have to say I saw a lot of hurt feelings. Now while I understand why some people may be feeling upset, but at the same time I,m not sure if anyone thought that this was unexpected.

    Now I just want to point out that "Matched Play" is for, you know, playing matches. AKA tournaments. And in playtesting they found that allowing alpha strike style deployments was unfair and unbalanced. So it's gone. I know many want to hide behind the shield of fluff on this one, but the fact is they,ve clearly said that if you're looking to play a competetive game matched play is the place for it, and with that come restrictions (just like MtG restricts or bans specific builds in their tournaments even if you can justify the fluff of whatever nonsense you invented).

    For competition purposes this is perfectly fine.

    Now if you aren't looking to play in a competition, try out a new tournament list, or generally don't care about that sort of thing there is narrative play which has looser rules about things like alpha striking. This is because to play narrative games you are expected to come to an agreement with your opponent about what you'll be playing instead of having the format dictated by a third party. You're more involved in how the game is set up and you can make it as beer and pretzels or as hardcore WAAC as you want. You can use power, or stick to points. Whatever you and your opponent agree to goes.

    Now while many want to blast the whole "play narrative" statement, and I can agree at least the tone sometimes is rather overbearing, the point is correct: narrative is your casual/pick up game option going forward. Only if you're playing in an event, or perhaps have a weird fetish for game balance, should match play be your first choice in your casual gaming.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 13:54:25


    Post by: bladeace




    I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.



    Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

    However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

    The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 14:39:16


    Post by: x13rads


    What stops you from deploying half of your drop pod army at the beginning of the game? Yes you would have to do it in your deployment zone, but this proves that your army is not invalidated. It just won't be as good as before, and it still works in matched play.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 15:18:58


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    bladeace wrote:


    I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.



    Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

    However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

    The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.


    There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

    As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

    Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

    So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

    A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 16:04:22


    Post by: Earth127


     MagicJuggler wrote:
    bladeace wrote:


    I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.



    Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

    However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

    The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.


    There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

    As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

    Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

    So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

    A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.


    You are making the exact mistakes GW made for decades. Band aiding the most extremely abusive cases and stacking special rules on tip of eachother like layers of lasagna.
    In the end everything is such a convoluted mess no one can figure anything out.

    Once again the community is already split. It's a divide that is never going to heal because of the variety in ways people play this game. In chess or bridge every player know he's playing a highly competiitive game, in Cards against humanity or superfight no one is stupid enough to think that. In W40K both sides of that coin exist and the bigest issues crop op when you try to have both. Segregate that stuff in the base rules of the game or there will be issues.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 16:26:53


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    Earth127 wrote:
     MagicJuggler wrote:
    bladeace wrote:


    I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.



    Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

    However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

    The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.


    There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

    As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

    Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

    So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

    A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.


    You are making the exact mistakes GW made for decades. Band aiding the most extremely abusive cases and stacking special rules on tip of eachother like layers of lasagna.
    In the end everything is such a convoluted mess no one can figure anything out.

    Once again the community is already split. It's a divide that is never going to heal because of the variety in ways people play this game. In chess or bridge every player know he's playing a highly competiitive game, in Cards against humanity or superfight no one is stupid enough to think that. In W40K both sides of that coin exist and the bigest issues crop op when you try to have both. Segregate that stuff in the base rules of the game or there will be issues.


    Layers of lasagna is a bit generous. A lot of 40k reads like a tangle of spaghetti. A USR is a USR in 40k: Furious Charge is Furious Charge, etc. The problem is there are a lot of rules which "should be USRs" but aren't, USRs that are copies of one another (Stealth vs Shrouded), or those which really don't add a whole lot except slowing the game down (Strikedown, Soul Blaze, etc).

    It's possible to develop an incremental iterative fix to 40k but 8th is performing shotgun surgery with all sorts of bizarre side-effects. Remember Warp Quake from 5th edition? Due to the removal of DS within 9", it's now possible for 4 Rhinos to space out just enough to render an entire table quarter immune to Deep Strike and thensome. Due to the removal of Tank Shock, it's possible for a unit of Gretchin to move-block a Land Raider, Baneblade or other big vehicle, or the inverse where a Land Speeder just bogs down enemy movement/Devastators while everyone else blasts away...

    ...Meanwhile, builds like the aforementioned Spider List work relatively unaffected while armies like Deathwing get the shaft, and you now have the option for Battleforged Triple Tau'nars, or whatever else gets baked up in Apocalypse-Land. Splitting up the game system without fixing the core rules first creates a game that won't work for either playerbase.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 16:28:45


    Post by: Grand.Master.Raziel


    I'm going to jump into the drop pod debate and posit the way drop pods work in game is not fluffy. If you were strategically competent, and had access to that kind of delivery system for super-soldiers, you wouldn't drop them in to wage an even fight vs a company of the enemy's soldiers. You'd drop them in to wipe out an army corps' strategic command post. That wouldn't make much of a game for matched play, so games aren't played that way, but a truly fluffy drop pod assault would have the enemy set up in the middle of the board, probably with fortifications, and the game starting with the drop pod assault coming in Turn 1. The attacking army's objective would be to, say, kill 3-5 characters and their command staff. The defenders' objective would be to fight off the attackers or get the objective characters to escape by falling back off any of the board edges.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 17:22:50


    Post by: TremendousZ


    I want to start by asking the OP, what is your list that's being invalided? We can judge the difference between fluffy and game breaking.

    Second, breathe. Matched play is a strict set of rules that both parties understand before coming to the table. Black and White. Narrative is adding a little story/purpose and trying to have fun. Think of MLB and back yard baseball. Both are fun. MLB has a strict set of rules, where as in back yard baseball the mailbox is second base. Your still hitting a ball and running around either way.

    The ambiguity left by the open CAD is one of the reasons for imbalance. The matched play format is the closest GW can get to balance the game while letting you personalize your army.

    I would recommend you grab 2 players, the first is your favorite opponent/ good friend. The second being one of the most experienced 40k players you know. Let the experienced player GM the game, ie: set the mission, add fun rules, whatever. Your friend is your opponent. Then just let go and enjoy.

    If you don't have many friends in the hobby try to join a local gaming group and play everyone to try to find like minded players.

    I would have more sympathy if the complaint was I can't take my list to LVO! I've worked on this for 3 years! Instead, I'm hearing I can, but won't play.

    If a narrative game of 40k is played in a basement, are dice still rolled and people having fun(tree falling in the forest make a sound?)?





    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 17:56:42


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    TremendousZ wrote:
    I want to start by asking the OP, what is your list that's being invalided? We can judge the difference between fluffy and game breaking.


    Not the OP, but this one is my main list. This is the second time I put a Word Bearers list together (the first time was Codex: Eye of Terror, prior to the Gavdex) and is a mix of "Word Bearers are *the* real Chaos Space Marines" and wanting an unorthodox build. It's fairly Word Bearers as far as I can tell: Mixed marks, lots of cultists, and Daemons. Your call if it's a game-breaker.

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725931.page#9365812


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 17:57:26


    Post by: ERJAK


     MagicJuggler wrote:
    Earth127 wrote:
     MagicJuggler wrote:
    bladeace wrote:


    I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.



    Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

    However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

    The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.


    There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

    As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

    Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

    So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

    A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.


    You are making the exact mistakes GW made for decades. Band aiding the most extremely abusive cases and stacking special rules on tip of eachother like layers of lasagna.
    In the end everything is such a convoluted mess no one can figure anything out.

    Once again the community is already split. It's a divide that is never going to heal because of the variety in ways people play this game. In chess or bridge every player know he's playing a highly competiitive game, in Cards against humanity or superfight no one is stupid enough to think that. In W40K both sides of that coin exist and the bigest issues crop op when you try to have both. Segregate that stuff in the base rules of the game or there will be issues.


    Layers of lasagna is a bit generous. A lot of 40k reads like a tangle of spaghetti. A USR is a USR in 40k: Furious Charge is Furious Charge, etc. The problem is there are a lot of rules which "should be USRs" but aren't, USRs that are copies of one another (Stealth vs Shrouded), or those which really don't add a whole lot except slowing the game down (Strikedown, Soul Blaze, etc).

    It's possible to develop an incremental iterative fix to 40k but 8th is performing shotgun surgery with all sorts of bizarre side-effects. Remember Warp Quake from 5th edition? Due to the removal of DS within 9", it's now possible for 4 Rhinos to space out just enough to render an entire table quarter immune to Deep Strike and thensome. Due to the removal of Tank Shock, it's possible for a unit of Gretchin to move-block a Land Raider, Baneblade or other big vehicle, or the inverse where a Land Speeder just bogs down enemy movement/Devastators while everyone else blasts away...

    ...Meanwhile, builds like the aforementioned Spider List work relatively unaffected while armies like Deathwing get the shaft, and you now have the option for Battleforged Triple Tau'nars, or whatever else gets baked up in Apocalypse-Land. Splitting up the game system without fixing the core rules first creates a game that won't work for either playerbase.


    Except you have no idea if any of the crap you just pulled out of your butt is even true, so let's go point by point shall we? 4 rhinos spacing out to prevent deepstrike is called 'zone control' it's part of this thing called 'tactics' which I know disn't come up much in 7th. No one bothers to move block vehicles because A) it's hilariously impractical, you never get that close with anything that isn't just going kill the vehicle anyway and it's not like a small unit is even that much of a roadblock. Seriously Tank-shock was basically just a fun way to get your tank meltabombed in your movement phase and B) No one gave a gak about blocking vehicles because it was so much easier to just kill them. As for the land speeder thing, charging a land speeder into devs to try and disrupt backline shooting is again, Tactics.

    As for the builds, do they work? Have you seen the dataslates? Point costs? What if warp spiders lost 9 inches of range? Or deepsrike? Or flickerjump? Or are 150 points per? What if the Tau'nar sucks? What if it' 2200pts now? What if deathwing knights have 4 attacks S10 ap -4 and a 3d6 charge after deepstriking? We have no idea how any of those things work. The entire game got rebuilt from the ground up, nothing is the same and comparing them to 7th is apples and oranges.

    7th was broken because it's most basic systems (ap, cover, SvT, AV) were broken. Any 'successful iteration' of 7th would have been drastically different just on the basis of those systems.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 21:51:08


    Post by: Earth127


    Reading you rlist Magic juggler:
    The models aren't being invalidated , no clue on the hqs wargear.
    You do need multiple detachments if we're only going
    All combi weapons are buffed as per GW so that should work.
    Terminators have been given an extra wound.
    Dreadnoughts have gotten a massive increase in durability.
    No clue on cultist.
    You will have to pay points to summon your demons but still be able to control their wargear.



    How is this list nerfed since 7th? It's a fun list but not going to win any WAAC games, my eldar currently laugh you off the table.

    Also lasagna is layered only while your cooking it. It becomes a big mess as soon you try to eat it (or play a game with 40k rules).


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 21:58:50


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    ERJAK wrote:
     MagicJuggler wrote:
    Earth127 wrote:
     MagicJuggler wrote:
    bladeace wrote:


    I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.



    Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

    However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

    The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.


    There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

    As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

    Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

    So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

    A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.


    You are making the exact mistakes GW made for decades. Band aiding the most extremely abusive cases and stacking special rules on tip of eachother like layers of lasagna.
    In the end everything is such a convoluted mess no one can figure anything out.

    Once again the community is already split. It's a divide that is never going to heal because of the variety in ways people play this game. In chess or bridge every player know he's playing a highly competiitive game, in Cards against humanity or superfight no one is stupid enough to think that. In W40K both sides of that coin exist and the bigest issues crop op when you try to have both. Segregate that stuff in the base rules of the game or there will be issues.


    Layers of lasagna is a bit generous. A lot of 40k reads like a tangle of spaghetti. A USR is a USR in 40k: Furious Charge is Furious Charge, etc. The problem is there are a lot of rules which "should be USRs" but aren't, USRs that are copies of one another (Stealth vs Shrouded), or those which really don't add a whole lot except slowing the game down (Strikedown, Soul Blaze, etc).

    It's possible to develop an incremental iterative fix to 40k but 8th is performing shotgun surgery with all sorts of bizarre side-effects. Remember Warp Quake from 5th edition? Due to the removal of DS within 9", it's now possible for 4 Rhinos to space out just enough to render an entire table quarter immune to Deep Strike and thensome. Due to the removal of Tank Shock, it's possible for a unit of Gretchin to move-block a Land Raider, Baneblade or other big vehicle, or the inverse where a Land Speeder just bogs down enemy movement/Devastators while everyone else blasts away...

    ...Meanwhile, builds like the aforementioned Spider List work relatively unaffected while armies like Deathwing get the shaft, and you now have the option for Battleforged Triple Tau'nars, or whatever else gets baked up in Apocalypse-Land. Splitting up the game system without fixing the core rules first creates a game that won't work for either playerbase.


    Except you have no idea if any of the crap you just pulled out of your butt is even true, so let's go point by point shall we? 4 rhinos spacing out to prevent deepstrike is called 'zone control' it's part of this thing called 'tactics' which I know disn't come up much in 7th. No one bothers to move block vehicles because A) it's hilariously impractical, you never get that close with anything that isn't just going kill the vehicle anyway and it's not like a small unit is even that much of a roadblock. Seriously Tank-shock was basically just a fun way to get your tank meltabombed in your movement phase and B) No one gave a gak about blocking vehicles because it was so much easier to just kill them. As for the land speeder thing, charging a land speeder into devs to try and disrupt backline shooting is again, Tactics.

    As for the builds, do they work? Have you seen the dataslates? Point costs? What if warp spiders lost 9 inches of range? Or deepsrike? Or flickerjump? Or are 150 points per? What if the Tau'nar sucks? What if it' 2200pts now? What if deathwing knights have 4 attacks S10 ap -4 and a 3d6 charge after deepstriking? We have no idea how any of those things work. The entire game got rebuilt from the ground up, nothing is the same and comparing them to 7th is apples and oranges.

    7th was broken because it's most basic systems (ap, cover, SvT, AV) were broken. Any 'successful iteration' of 7th would have been drastically different just on the basis of those systems.


    Hey, let's keep it civil. We can disagree about whether certain aspects of 40k are tactical or not (you know, like turbo-boosting Screamers in front of a Gladius train for Death or Glory/hemming the enemy in), but that's besides the point (not to mention that Meltabombs are a "nice-to-have upgrade" rather than a "must-take" like combi-weapons).

    As for point-costs, we know Marines are 13 pts instead of 14, so we have this to work off. I seriously doubt the game will hard-reset the points costs that Assault Marines cost 25 points again, Bikes are 35 points, etc. Again, these are initial guesses grounded in what AOS did, what has been teased at with each trailer, and general trends of point levels gradually going down rather than up as it becomes less of a shock for people to ask "can I bring multiple super-heavies".

    Zones of control exist in 7th too. It's called bubblewrap.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/21 22:23:53


    Post by: Waaargh


    @MagicJugglar in your post about 8th you paint a picture with a limited palette and claim it to cover every nuance. Your point about deep striking vs the LVO16 winner isn't per say wrong, but it assumes the best units in the game remains unchanged. To have a go at balance the elder units needs a thorough combing, and I have faith in the pro scene playtesters to catch this. Rules changes, pointchanges, statchanges will fix warpspiders etc.

    The next step is many others factors needs to be looked at, to build a healthy competitive game. SM, daemons and necrons are high on the list too, right below eldar. We don't need playtesting done for that, it's simply to look through tournament results from 7th ed, which has been done already. Multiple damage weapons and changing vehicles rules to have many more wounds is one way of changing the effect of gauss and grav weapons, as well as scatterlasers.

    Along the way null deployment and daemon summoning got looked at too. To me it sounds good, as daemons all over the place felt odd, and null deployment makes for a dull game start.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 12:56:56


    Post by: kronk


    HaussVonHorne wrote:

    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool.


    Thanks.

    I no longer have to read your BS.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 13:16:48


    Post by: Lord Kragan


     MagicJuggler wrote:
    TremendousZ wrote:
    I want to start by asking the OP, what is your list that's being invalided? We can judge the difference between fluffy and game breaking.


    Not the OP, but this one is my main list. This is the second time I put a Word Bearers list together (the first time was Codex: Eye of Terror, prior to the Gavdex) and is a mix of "Word Bearers are *the* real Chaos Space Marines" and wanting an unorthodox build. It's fairly Word Bearers as far as I can tell: Mixed marks, lots of cultists, and Daemons. Your call if it's a game-breaker.

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725931.page#9365812


    And what exactly are you losing beside hellcult? NOTHING. And the hellcult boons may as well be reinforced by the new legion special rules which we know are going to be a thing in eighth edition.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 13:27:44


    Post by: Purifier


     kronk wrote:
    HaussVonHorne wrote:

    1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool.


    Thanks.

    I no longer have to read your BS.



    I mean, I can sort of understand that sentiment. I consider it a lesser version of the game, as I value balance very highly. But if you think like me, then you have to accept that things will change, and lists will be invalidated. If instead you think playing the narrative is how to really have fun, then that's fine, but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you. It just sounds insane to me that people will argue the narrative play angle and still call the play mode made specifically for them "the kiddy pool." There is just no pleasing you.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 14:12:09


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    Waaargh wrote:
    @MagicJugglar in your post about 8th you paint a picture with a limited palette and claim it to cover every nuance. Your point about deep striking vs the LVO16 winner isn't per say wrong, but it assumes the best units in the game remains unchanged. To have a go at balance the elder units needs a thorough combing, and I have faith in the pro scene playtesters to catch this. Rules changes, pointchanges, statchanges will fix warpspiders etc.

    The next step is many others factors needs to be looked at, to build a healthy competitive game. SM, daemons and necrons are high on the list too, right below eldar. We don't need playtesting done for that, it's simply to look through tournament results from 7th ed, which has been done already. Multiple damage weapons and changing vehicles rules to have many more wounds is one way of changing the effect of gauss and grav weapons, as well as scatterlasers.

    Along the way null deployment and daemon summoning got looked at too. To me it sounds good, as daemons all over the place felt odd, and null deployment makes for a dull game start.


    External balance is one thing, internal balance another. It's not "codex A > codex B" as a whole, so much as a certain subset of units/formations/combos within a codex (or collection thereof) that makes the army that much deadlier. I don't even mean in a "if Eldar are OP then how come Footdar doesn't win" sort of way, so much as there's actually relatively little variance within individual power builds for a given codex.

    If Games Workshop was so keen on fixing Eldar, then how come there was no description about how D-weapons work in the Eldar Faction Focus? We know that Mortal Wounds ignore Invulnerable Saves due to the article about the Psychic Phase. How come there was no discussion about the trouble units besides Scatbikes in the same article that "Mandiblasters now do Mortal Wounds"?
    Why not talk about the army design issues that stem from half the army being stuck in that design phase of "do only one thing", the other half being "(un)reasonably do everything". Why not talk about the fact Eldar armies almost always used Forgeworld to plug holes in their army? For example, I seriously doubt a pure Eldar force would have done as well in many of these events were it not for Hornets with cheap Pulse Lasers, the Skatach Wraithknight providing cover-busting crowd control, or the Warp Hunter providing unparalleled hard target elimination.

    If Games Workshop was as keen on fixing Marines, why simplify Heavy Weapons to be a flat -1 to-hit on the move? The Skyhammer may be gone, but this rule change means that formation won't be needed anymore. GW has had two weapons articles and Q&As to clear up whether Grav will still rule over everything else, but they haven't given any hint that such weapons will be nerfed, and a cap on which units can start on board won't actually stop people from drop-podding Grav-devs when the main penalty is hitting on 4+ instead of 3+, and you no longer have to take an Assault Marine tax. Add additional restrictions to reserves and it will be harder to actually reserve your own guys to protect against said alphastrike. Maybe Grav is prohibitively expensive, maybe it isn't but based on initial speculation it doesn't look as promising.

    If Games Workshop was so keen on fixing Daemons, the first thing they could have focused on was "we noticed every Daemon player uses the Grimoire of True Names" or some other variant of "because the Daemon Army generally doesn't shoot, fight, etc, they won by stacking numerous defensive buffs, stealing objectives and not dying." Turning Tzeentch saves back to 4++ instead of 5++ & reroll all 1s is simpler in the long run and worked fine enough for the 4th ed list (that list had its own issues but that's another story), but focusing on Summoning misses the bigger picture when it's actually debatable based on numerous individual battle reports whether it was summoning that won games (as opposed to Masque movelocking Deathstars, Fateweaver granting really important re-rolls, individual Daemon units just refusing to die, or even the odd "honest mistake" like forgetting that a Soulgrinder does not have It Will Not Die, unlike a Defiler).

    Maybe it's the fact the development was relatively sudden and there wasn't an open beta ("templates: yay or nay", etc), but it's little things like that which make my have my doubts. I am ready to eat my words if in fact things do end up being more playable in the long run, if point costs go back to 3rd ed values for non-infantry units, etc, but most things that have been teased at aren't giving me that much confidence.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Lord Kragan wrote:
     MagicJuggler wrote:
    TremendousZ wrote:
    I want to start by asking the OP, what is your list that's being invalided? We can judge the difference between fluffy and game breaking.


    Not the OP, but this one is my main list. This is the second time I put a Word Bearers list together (the first time was Codex: Eye of Terror, prior to the Gavdex) and is a mix of "Word Bearers are *the* real Chaos Space Marines" and wanting an unorthodox build. It's fairly Word Bearers as far as I can tell: Mixed marks, lots of cultists, and Daemons. Your call if it's a game-breaker.

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725931.page#9365812


    And what exactly are you losing beside hellcult? NOTHING. And the hellcult boons may as well be reinforced by the new legion special rules which we know are going to be a thing in eighth edition.


    Summoning. Movement after psychic powers (and chances are Crusader is also going). Universal Obsec + Crusader. The Scrolls of Magnus. A sufficiently large selection of powers. Palanquin and Disc HQs probably since neither model has an official GW model. Chances are that Chaos Boons (which are actually worth fishing for after with the Chaos Warband, and the FAQ clarifying that it works by killing a character via any means) will be rolled back in the universal interest of streamlining things; the Chaos Faction Focus would have been an excellent place to talk about whether such mechanics would even remain in the game, but all that article gave was "Daemonforged stuff and Berzerkers are going to be great" while we know Tau get 3-weapon Suits with innate Hit and Run.

    It's that omission of detail or concrete enthusiasm that really has me wondering if Reece and Frankie are the right people to showboat factions.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 15:18:42


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    Disregard this post. Accidental double post.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 15:29:08


    Post by: kronk


     Purifier wrote:
    , but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you.


    Where have I done this? Or are you speaking to a generic "you" and not to me specifically?

    I prefer matched play. Most (90%) of my games will be matched. However, I also enjoy a fun/fluffy themed game from time to time. Kill the baneblade, Stop the orks from completing a Stompa, Assault the fortress.

    To call those games and gamers "kiddy pool" in the OP is just BS.

    I just noticed that the Original poster has 13 posts, and hasn't bothered to reply in this troll bait thread. He'll be staying on ignore.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 15:31:01


    Post by: auticus


    To call narrative games "kiddy pool" is to knowingly insult players that enjoy narrative games and is likely trolling.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 15:35:10


    Post by: Purifier


     kronk wrote:
     Purifier wrote:
    , but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you.


    Where have I done this? Or are you speaking to a generic "you" and not to me specifically?

    I prefer matched play. Most (90%) of my games will be matched. However, I also enjoy a fun/fluffy themed game from time to time. Kill the baneblade, Stop the orks from completing a Stompa, Assault the fortress.

    To call those games and gamers "kiddy pool" in the OP is just BS.

    I just noticed that the Original poster has 13 posts, and hasn't bothered to reply in this troll bait thread. He'll be staying on ignore.


    Generic you. I'm agreeing with the specific you.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 15:51:42


    Post by: kronk


     Purifier wrote:

    Generic you. I'm agreeing with the specific you.


    Yay! We're in our own "Club You"!


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 18:56:20


    Post by: Gloomfang


    Actually that warp spider list did take a big Nerf( Assuming you mean Alex Harrison'm list)

    1)Warhost of Pale Courts is gone.
    2) Reserves is half your units max (units not points)
    3) S6 guns took a big Nerf, almost all his guns had it.
    4) 3+ armor took a Nerf.
    5) D. Weapons are gone.

    So yes the list was nerfed to hell and back.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 19:11:36


    Post by: tneva82


     Purifier wrote:
    I mean, I can sort of understand that sentiment. I consider it a lesser version of the game, as I value balance very highly. But if you think like me, then you have to accept that things will change, and lists will be invalidated. If instead you think playing the narrative is how to really have fun, then that's fine, but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you. It just sounds insane to me that people will argue the narrative play angle and still call the play mode made specifically for them "the kiddy pool." There is just no pleasing you.


    Then again narrative is the game mode that you can get closer to the unarchievable balance if you so wish so if you value balance in games you should be looking for narrative games. Takes more time to set up than matched which is quicker for pick up games but allows you to get closer toward the unarchievable you say you value highly.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 19:20:27


    Post by: MagicJuggler


     Gloomfang wrote:
    Actually that warp spider list did take a big Nerf( Assuming you mean Alex Harrison'm list)

    1)Warhost of Pale Courts is gone.
    2) Reserves is half your units max (units not points)
    3) S6 guns took a big Nerf, almost all his guns had it.
    4) 3+ armor took a Nerf.
    5) D. Weapons are gone.

    So yes the list was nerfed to hell and back.


    1) We don't know the other detachments. Whether there are any "one LOW" slots remains to be seen.
    2) I used that list because it specifically had enough MSU scoring units to offset the "half in reserves" requirement. It would be nerfed less compared to, say, Lictorshame.
    3) Debatable. The change to the wounding mechanics mean that the only targets S6 are worst against this edition are T4 models; they're just as effective vs T3, T5 and T7 as last edition, while being even deadlier vs T8. Considering this, you could argue that Deathspinners and Scatpacks will get *better* because let's face it, when was killing T4 an issue?
    4) Debatable, especially with cover involved and a non-binary save system protecting against stuff that normally wouldn't grant saves in the first place.
    5) Destroyer may be gone but Mortal Wounds exist, which are arguably worse. You don't get Deathblow, but you now consistently ignore Invulnerable Saves. GW had the opportunity to explain D-weapon changes, but they didn't.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 19:32:55


    Post by: Purifier


    tneva82 wrote:
     Purifier wrote:
    I mean, I can sort of understand that sentiment. I consider it a lesser version of the game, as I value balance very highly. But if you think like me, then you have to accept that things will change, and lists will be invalidated. If instead you think playing the narrative is how to really have fun, then that's fine, but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you. It just sounds insane to me that people will argue the narrative play angle and still call the play mode made specifically for them "the kiddy pool." There is just no pleasing you.


    Then again narrative is the game mode that you can get closer to the unarchievable balance if you so wish so if you value balance in games you should be looking for narrative games. Takes more time to set up than matched which is quicker for pick up games but allows you to get closer toward the unarchievable you say you value highly.

    ... like... how?
    There's a reason I don't trust random people making up balance: they don't know sh*t.
    Things need to be balanced through playtesting and math. Not through "well I think it'll be pretty balanced if I have three times the amount of points, and you have a stronghold and defensive position."

    No. What you're saying is just straight up wrong. Throwing in a narrative is the opposite to achieving balance. It will always be inferior for balancing and is only there to allow you fun games with a rough balance.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 19:47:00


    Post by: cosmicsoybean


    I'm excited for the changes, no more op full reserve armies unless you are going to be playing a narrative game, should help keep things balanced.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 19:54:18


    Post by: Wayniac


    Honestly, I find what they have shown for "Narrative" in 40k to sound a lot more interesting than Matched. I think, if you had your list invalidated by Matched Play, and choose not to play other formats, then it's only on you. Matched makes extra concessions in the name of "balance" and that to me is fine for a tournament, but when it infests (strong choice of words I know) every game, it becomes a bad thing.

    IMHO: Narrative (by which I really mean "power levels") for casual play. Matched for tournaments and the like. I for one plan to push power levels more, to the point of maybe even turning down games if my opponent insists on fiddly points in the name of perceived balance. IMHO, just shut up and play the game and have fun, so what if someone has a little more or less?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:06:30


    Post by: Purifier


    Wayniac wrote:
    Honestly, I find what they have shown for "Narrative" in 40k to sound a lot more interesting than Matched. I think, if you had your list invalidated by Matched Play, and choose not to play other formats, then it's only on you. Matched makes extra concessions in the name of "balance" and that to me is fine for a tournament, but when it infests (strong choice of words I know) every game, it becomes a bad thing.

    IMHO: Narrative (by which I really mean "power levels") for casual play. Matched for tournaments and the like. I for one plan to push power levels more, to the point of maybe even turning down games if my opponent insists on fiddly points in the name of perceived balance. IMHO, just shut up and play the game and have fun, so what if someone has a little more or less?


    Well, I mean I'd probably turn down most games built on power levels, so in an odd way we'd get along just fine. Because I'm not begrudging you games. I'm just not interested in the same thing as you are. The problem comes when some places will inevitably have a culture that prefers one or the other. If you come in there and want a game in the type that you prefer, you may not be getting any games at all.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:09:47


    Post by: Lance845


    I don't have any particular desire for points or power levels until I see how they all pan out. That being said it looks like the real difference between narrative and matched is game types/missions. I don't see any reason why you couldn't play matched missions building your lists using power levels or narrative missions with a hard points limit. Do what you want.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:10:05


    Post by: Wayniac


    The question, in all honesty, is WHY? Why are you so caught up in "must pay for every little thing" etc? I struggle to understand this in AOS as well. What does it matter? Is fun tied that much to having everything be as close as possible, instead of giving leeway to have a good time? I mean, I really don't get the fear of any sort of perceived imbalance as some awful thing, since most of the time they never happen anyways are are used as boogeymen for "But what if?" scenarios to discredit other forms of play.

    Not picking on you, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this mindset. It seems to stem from the desire to be able to min/max everything, or just outright "fear" that someone (usually your opponent, because in most cases I've seen, the person who is adamant about restrictions and matched play and "balance" would have zero problem if THEY were the one abusing the rules) can get an advantage.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:16:27


    Post by: Lance845


    Wayniac wrote:
    The question, in all honesty, is WHY? Why are you so caught up in "must pay for every little thing" etc? I struggle to understand this in AOS as well. What does it matter? Is fun tied that much to having everything be as close as possible, instead of giving leeway to have a good time? I mean, I really don't get the fear of any sort of perceived imbalance as some awful thing, since most of the time they never happen anyways are are used as boogeymen for "But what if?" scenarios to discredit other forms of play.

    Not picking on you, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this mindset.


    It can be list building efficiency. You don't want 5 more rubric marines. You want 1 or 2 more and then to take those other points and spend them over here for x,y,z.. Squeezing those last few points into place to build a really efficient list can be enjoyable in and of itself and helps to build your personal strategy before you ever hit the table. Instead of the fine details of that strategy with points, power levels is a prebuilt sledgehammer approach. You buying everything in costco style bulk in predetermined prepackaged bundles. It's less home cooked and more off the shelf.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:23:12


    Post by: Purifier


    Wayniac wrote:
    The question, in all honesty, is WHY? Why are you so caught up in "must pay for every little thing" etc? I struggle to understand this in AOS as well. What does it matter? Is fun tied that much to having everything be as close as possible, instead of giving leeway to have a good time? I mean, I really don't get the fear of any sort of perceived imbalance as some awful thing, since most of the time they never happen anyways are are used as boogeymen for "But what if?" scenarios to discredit other forms of play.

    Not picking on you, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this mindset. It seems to stem from the desire to be able to min/max everything, or just outright "fear" that someone (usually your opponent, because in most cases I've seen, the person who is adamant about restrictions and matched play and "balance" would have zero problem if THEY were the one abusing the rules) can get an advantage.


    You clearly wouldn't get it. You mention it like balance is somehow the other side of the coin to fun. Like they are somehow antithesis to eachother. I think balanced games are more fun. They make me feel like I did something skillful when I win, and they make me feel like I had a good game rather than a frustratingly onesided one when I lose. If I win with "power levels" I feel like "well, I won because my power levels happened to favour this setup." and when I lose I feel like "well, doesn't really matter what I would have done differently. I lost because the game was set up for me to lose."

    The more balance I feel there is, the more I enjoy the game, no matter if I'm winning or losing, because I like to match skills with people. I couldn't give less of a toss what happened on Blaxius IV during the Kroot - Protos war. The fluff does not inspire anything in me.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:26:04


    Post by: Wayniac


    Fair points, to each their own as I said was more or less trying to glean why that mentality exists. While I prefer power levels (from what I've seen of course) I really would have no problem going down to Matched, in fact I sometimes lament the fact that you can't buy individual models in units in AOS.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:31:37


    Post by: Elbows


    Then, in turn, I could say that you clearly wouldn't "get it" why I tend to play for the complete opposite reasons you do. You're not any more "right" than I am, or the other poster.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:32:14


    Post by: Purifier


     Elbows wrote:
    Then, in turn, I could say that you clearly wouldn't "get it" why I tend to play for the complete opposite reasons you do. You're not any more "right" than I am, or the other poster.


    That's exactly what I said.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:34:07


    Post by: Deadnight


     Purifier wrote:

    ... like... how?
    .


    Experience.knowledge. Understanding.

    I mean, it stands to reason that if you play a game for long enough, you understand how it works. for example, you can probably look at a codex and instinctively know what's good and what's bad. You can 'eyeball' it. It also Stands to reason that if you play narrative games, and put some of your 'gaming exp's' into game-building, rather than just listbuilding-for-advantage, then this kind of thing becomes a lot more straight forward and intuitive than you imagine.

    This is the done thing amongst legions of historical players, and for what is worth, we've been playing games like flames of war, infinity, and various historical this way for about four years. I actually couldn't tell you the points costs of a single thing in fow. And yet we've only ever had one game I would call 'unbalanced' and that was specifically because we chucked all my mates early war British against all of his early war Italian AND early war Germans, just so we could put it all on the board (let's just say it didn't end well for the British!). Every other time.
    , we've managed to 'eyeball' it pretty well.

     Purifier wrote:

    There's a reason I don't trust random people making up balance: they don't know sh*t.


    Who says people like us are 'making it up' or 'don't know sh*t'. See above. Also of note is that 'Balanced' games can be just as prone to hard counters, whose only shield often is zealous players appealing to scripture and declaring 'well, it was in the rules'.

    At the end of the day, I don't trust random people either, but that goes for official rules too. 'Official rules' are not necessarily a stamp of infallibility No company gets it right all the time, and I don't know any Wargame that doesn't have its share of flaws, issues and problematic balance issues.

    The thing is, you don't do narrative with random people or strangers. This is the kind of play that excels with a tight knit group that understands each other. And like I said, with a bit of knowledge and experience, eyeballing these things gets easier and more intuitive

     Purifier wrote:

    Things need to be balanced through playtesting and math. Not through "well I think it'll be pretty balanced if I have three times the amount of points, and you have a stronghold and defensive position."


    And where do you think that playtesting starts?

    Precisely at that very point that you dismiss.

    And so what if it doesn't work out first time you reset. No different to fielding armies in balanced 'matched play' games either at the end of the day, like, for example warmachine. I enjoy had plenty times where I had my new caster, unit, solo or whatever and 'plugged it in' to a game where's it just didn't work. End result was a Few hours of banging my head against the wall, followed by returning to the drawing board and rebuilding my lists, or even hoping for a different march up. I've also had times where I one-turned my opponents whole army in matched play (and typically, such an event in a 'balanced game' is usually ascribed to excellent tactics, but the same event in an identical 'pointless' gsme is usually ascribed as proof that the whole thing is somehow broken and unfit for play).

    In any case, you miss the point. Sometimes, playing three times the points of attackers (because that's how it works in the 'real' world and through history) versus a well dug in, fortified defender ends up being a bloody good game. Mightn't even have to be balanced to be fun. Ever hear of the doomed last stand? It can be very thematic. I've played those games too where there was no chance for the defender to 'win' any kind of abstract victory as understood by matched play (because hey, everything died), but where the point was to hold out as long as possible - and by God, it was gaming gold.

     Purifier wrote:

    No. What you're saying is just straight up wrong. Throwing in a narrative is the opposite to achieving balance. It will always be inferior for balancing and is only there to allow you fun games with a rough balance.


    Missing the point from the word go. 'Throwing in a narrative' is not how you do narrative. Chucking stuff onto the board without a plan is not how you do narrative. Nor is the idea of game-building and cooperation the opposite of achieving balance. It's just a way of playing that is different to matched play where's you each bring stuff independent of the other.

    I'd also argue it is not necessarily inferior for balancing. The balance in matched play can be just as rough or unbalanced, for example. And we all have examples for that.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:39:38


    Post by: Marmatag


    This is just another place on this forum where people take the standard "bash GW" stance without even thinking about power versus points.

    Adding up all of the weapons and options associated with a unit before your game can be really tiresome. It shouldn't take 1 hour to get set up for a game.

    A lot of people I play with don't even care so much about the points. Not ever game has to be about winning and losing. if you don't understand that, you won't understand power.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 20:49:24


    Post by: tneva82


     Purifier wrote:
    ... like... how?
    There's a reason I don't trust random people making up balance: they don't know sh*t.
    Things need to be balanced through playtesting and math. Not through "well I think it'll be pretty balanced if I have three times the amount of points, and you have a stronghold and defensive position."

    No. What you're saying is just straight up wrong. Throwing in a narrative is the opposite to achieving balance. It will always be inferior for balancing and is only there to allow you fun games with a rough balance.


    Points are inheritently flawed because they try to account for every variable. Which is impossible. Value of unit will change depending on what other units you have, whom you face, what armies he has, scenario, terrain. Something as simple as building in center of table alters value of each unit.

    Only way you can archieve balance is remove variables. The more variables(like ability for players to set their own terrain, different scenarios per game or players changing army composition) the less balanced the game is.

    With narrative you instead have _absolute_ control. You can actually account for EVERYTHING down to the last inch of a terrain placement.

    Therefore while narrative game is lot harder to set up(unlike matched. X points, list, roll on) it's the only way you can actually get truly balanced end result. Hell of an effort though.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 21:11:48


    Post by: Purifier


    If you've ever read a thread on this forum you know that people here can't balance anything. Everyone thinks their army is the weakest and everyone else's is the strongest.

    No, I wouldn't trust a single point either of you two are trying to make.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 21:34:56


    Post by: Deadnight


     Purifier wrote:
    If you've ever read a thread on this forum you know that people here can't balance anything. Everyone thinks their army is the weakest and everyone else's is the strongest.


    Uh huh, and that proves what, exactly? A bunch of enthusiastic, if sometimes misguided, and often competitive-focused amateurs (often out for their own gain?) make mistakes and don't do a good job? Let's also ask how experienced said people are at wargames. I mean. I don't put much stock in the 40k proposed rules section either, but I don't use it as a metric to judge the creativity of the community as a whole, or my friends ability to eyeball a game. What you're saying g doesn't 'prove' as much as you think.

    let's also point out this is dakkadakka, and it tends to self-select for the more hardcore elements of the hobby, often with an over-selected focus on the competitive scene, rather than the narrative/garage scene. These two scenes don't necessarily mix Which is fair enough. And let's lot mistake the volume for numbers.

    I know a lot of home brewers and narrative gamers and I'm the only one that posts online. Most people that are in to that kind of thing don't really post here. Or online. At all. Like I said, a lot of historical players, and especially older players tend to play this way, since this is how, historically. Wargames were generally organised. Posting online tends to select a particular subset of gamers, and won't necessarily give a new accurate picture of things, and that includes narrative play. So with respect, don't put too much stock into what you've seen here. The reality on the ground is often quite different and exciting

    That said, there are some posters that do post here and have a good grasp of narrative gaming. if you want to get some good pointers and insight on narrative play, you could do worse than talking to the likes of auticus, fenris kitsune or especially mongoose Matt - that guy is gold. Well worth hearing what they're have to say about things.

     Purifier wrote:


    No, I wouldn't trust a single point either of you two are trying to make.


    I was always taught never to close my mind to different ideas, and to always keep an open mind and try new things.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 21:59:09


    Post by: Purifier


    Deadnight wrote:


    I was always taught never to close my mind to different ideas, and to always keep an open mind and try new things.


    I was taught that some things, like sticking your hand in the toilet and eating the contents found there, don't need to be tried to know it's a bad idea. Get off your high horse. You're saying that you know how to balance better than anyone else, like the highly competitive gamers with a lot of background in hosting huge events that GW are now assembling. You do you. But doesn't convince me one bit.

    You say points are flawed, so instead you want to use... other points. Because they're better. Ok. Whatever. Your arguments are bloody weird and not worth my time.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 22:09:24


    Post by: Luciferian


    The idea that people should instinctively know the relative value of each model and its options, and that they should be expected to spontaneously and efficiently organize balanced games based purely on good will and their subjective experience of the game, is frankly ludicrous.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 22:10:05


    Post by: cosmicsoybean


     Marmatag wrote:


    Adding up all of the weapons and options associated with a unit before your game can be really tiresome. It shouldn't take 1 hour to get set up for a game.


    You don't have any lists already made? Even with no list on hand it shouldn't even take you 30 minutes to build a list, let alone an entire hour lol.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 22:11:01


    Post by: Purifier


     Luciferian wrote:
    The idea that people should instinctively know the relative value of each model and its options, and that they should be expected to spontaneously and efficiently organize balanced games based purely on good will and their subjective experience of the game, is frankly ludicrous.


    Thanks, that's a good paraphrasing of what I've been trying to argue.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 22:22:34


    Post by: Wayniac


    I think the point is in narrative, you don't need "balance" to have a fun game. If your opponent has more models than you, work out a situation that gives you a fighting chance (such as a breakthrough, or similar). Often though, the general attitude for the narrative/casual side is "Who cares, let's play" and it's not a big deal if your opponent has 20 more points than you or fields an extra squad, while to the competitive minded person it's "cheating" and a cardinal sin because it's not "even".

    Again, to each their own, but I find my own experience lends itself a lot more to a much more laid back and casual environment, whether using points or not. So you're at 2,003 points instead of 2,000, so what? Hey, you have a cool summon that technically would require points but you don't have them, go ahead, just don't be a jerk and abuse it every turn because you can. You want to field all elites and there is no chart to let you do it? Go ahead, it sounds like you have a cool idea.

    That's the narrative mindset: Less focus on "everything as equal as possible" and more on "That's a cool idea, let's see how it turns out" with the implied "Don't be a jerk" rule thrown in.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 22:24:59


    Post by: Marmatag


     cosmicsoybean wrote:
     Marmatag wrote:


    Adding up all of the weapons and options associated with a unit before your game can be really tiresome. It shouldn't take 1 hour to get set up for a game.


    You don't have any lists already made? Even with no list on hand it shouldn't even take you 30 minutes to build a list, let alone an entire hour lol.


    For an ITC game at 1850 yes i'll come prepared with my list already made, and printed out, built in battlescribe or HQB.

    For random pick up games it's more of a negotiation to try and create a fair game. It would be nice if each unit had a power level assigned to it. "Nothing over 100 power." Much easier than thinking through all of the customization options, and then trying to justify something like, "nothing more than 200 points." Because you can still end up with some bare-bones stuff that's fairly strong and under 200 points.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 22:29:11


    Post by: Luciferian


     Marmatag wrote:


    For random pick up games it's more of a negotiation to try and create a fair game. It would be nice if each unit had a power level assigned to it. "Nothing over 100 power." Much easier than thinking through all of the customization options, and then trying to justify something like, "nothing more than 200 points." Because you can still end up with some bare-bones stuff that's fairly strong and under 200 points.


    Just so happens that they've assigned everything a general power level for exactly this type of purpose.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 22:30:35


    Post by: Marmatag


     Luciferian wrote:
     Marmatag wrote:


    For random pick up games it's more of a negotiation to try and create a fair game. It would be nice if each unit had a power level assigned to it. "Nothing over 100 power." Much easier than thinking through all of the customization options, and then trying to justify something like, "nothing more than 200 points." Because you can still end up with some bare-bones stuff that's fairly strong and under 200 points.


    Just so happens that they've assigned everything a general power level for exactly this type of purpose.


    that's my point


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 22:50:37


    Post by: Deadnight


    Purifier wrote:

    I was taught that some things, like sticking your hand in the toilet and eating the contents found there, don't need to be tried to know it's a bad idea.


    Cute. Here's the thing about anecdotes - anything can be one. Like try a holiday to a foreign country. Try a different show on tv. Try a sport. Different hobby. Play a game a different way...

    Purifier wrote:
    Get off your high horse.


    No high horse here bud and I really my don't appreciate the condescension and 'high horse' comment here. Maybe it's Internet and tone, but for the record I'm not trying to be a jerk to you and I sîncerely hope it's the same from the other end here...

    like I've said. It's Just a different perspective. I play narrative and I play matched play. It's not an abstract concept to me. I appreciate the value in both. I've seen both work, and I've seen both fall apart, so to me it's the implementation that matters more. Both scratch different itches at the end of the day, which is why I try and encourage both..

    Purifier wrote:
    You're saying that you know how to balance better than anyone else,


    Go ahead. Quote me saying that. Or else take that back and stop putting words in my mouth and mischaracterising my arguments.

    I've said we've played narrative games for four years and have had immense amounts of fun from them, and only once have we ever played out something that was truly 'broken' and there was literally from chucking everything 'early war' onto the board.

    Purifier wrote:
    like the highly competitive gamers with a lot of background in hosting huge events that GW are now assembling. You do you. But doesn't convince me one bit.


    Uh huh, and what exactly does this show? Other people can organise events? Well done To them. No, seriously - well done to them. I've put together tournaments in the past. I know how much organisation and work needs to go into those thing s and I don't envy the guys one bit, but again, as has been pointed out before, organising things for 'matched play' and pugs/tournaments is different to narrative play. What works to organise those large events isn't what work said to organise or approach a narrative game. And before you try to strawman me again, let me be clear - I play matched play. I enjoy pick up gsmes and I enjoy tournaments (used to play WMH to a decently high level too - even scalped a former U.K. Masters winner... with mk2 strakhov, of all casters!)immensely. I also value and enjoy narrative play. I really don't have favourites here.

    Purifier wrote:
    But doesn't convince me one bit.


    *shrug* that's a shame - it really is. I'm genuinely not trying to be cheeky or anything purifier, and I really don't appreciate your high horse comments. Myself and my mates have played various wargames this way for about four years now, and we've had a blast all this time. Maybe that doesn't convince you, but it doesn't stop me, or us, or any of the other narrative gamers out there doing the same thing from having fun doing it. Maybe it's something that has to be seen first hand rather than typed up, because a lot of it tends to be rather nebulousness and free-form rather than 'hard coded' in structure... for what it's worth, I'm sure you'd probably enjoy a game or two with our group.

    Like I said, I recommended some people who are far more eloquent than I am at this sort of thing. Speak to them? Mongoosematt especially Or don't. Up to you really. But i think it's a shame that you aren't even giving it a chance-there is a lot of value from also taking a different approach. For what it's worth, it's done nothing but expand my appreciation for table top gaming. But hey, your choice in the end.

    Purifier wrote:
    You say points are flawed, so instead you want to use... other points. Because they're better. Ok. Whatever. Your arguments are bloody weird and not worth my time.


    Quote me saying they're 'better' please. All I've ever said is it's a different way to approach wargames and it's an approach with merit and value, and it's one that I have had a lot of enjoyment out of. That's 'bloody weird'? Ok then...

    Regarding points, I will say this: I like points, for what they are and within the right contexts, theyre perfectly fine. However points on their own are not the answer. Points are a tool. When used right, they are a very effective tool, but they are not the only one (you can't build a house with only a hammer!) Points can only go so far, and can only carry so much weight. Points work within a system where all the other variables are reduced - for example, a unit might be worth its points in one scenario, and overcosted for another (say, the ability to ignore terrain on a terrain heavy board, versus a 'naked' board - solution being to define the amount of terrain, and thereby reduce the variable). Perfectly fine. But raising and lowering the points costs of things isn't the only lever to pull either. Warmachine, for example isn't balanced because the points costs are right (it's points costs are generally pretty robust though). There are enough hard counters and 'silver bullets' in that game that some 75point lists are not the the equal of other 75point lists (and you won't find man you WMH players who will dispute that), but this is largely mitigated by other factors like multiple lists in tournaments, multiple win conditions (scenario. Assassination etc). So when I talk about other things being needed for balance, that's the kind of thing I am talking about.

    Luciferian wrote:The idea that people should instinctively know the relative value of each model and its options, and that they should be expected to spontaneously and efficiently organize balanced games based purely on good will and their subjective experience of the game, is frankly ludicrous.


    I hope you are not suggesting that's people should organise games based on something like nastiness and spite then instead of good will towards their fellows and peers in their community? Personally I always thought it was better to play against like minded fellows, and friends and people whose company I enjoyed but hey, that's probably 'bloody weird', right?

    You're right - I don't expect anyone to 'instinctively know the relative value' of things. I've never even said such a thing. I've always said it's an approach that takes a bit of time, and it requires knowledge and experience, but for what it's worth it's an approach that I have personally found great enjoyment from, hence why I am here trying to encourage it.

    For what it's worth, I don't see it as 'frankly ludicrous' to 'game-build' with my friends and have a go at homebrewed and often assymetric games. If it sounds interesting, I'll consider it. I can meet you half way, I'll make an attempt to accommodate. At the very least, have a chat and see if we are on the same page. You are my opponent, i regard you as an equal, I owe you that at least. If everyone has a subjective view on things, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing either - I just see it as an opportunity for more vairiety.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 23:25:29


    Post by: Waaargh


     MagicJuggler wrote:
    External balance is one thing, internal balance another. It's not "codex A > codex B" as a whole, so much as a certain subset of units/formations/combos within a codex (or collection thereof) that makes the army that much deadlier. I don't even mean in a "if Eldar are OP then how come Footdar doesn't win" sort of way, so much as there's actually relatively little variance within individual power builds for a given codex.

    If Games Workshop was so keen on fixing Eldar, then how come there was no description about how D-weapons work in the Eldar Faction Focus? We know that Mortal Wounds ignore Invulnerable Saves due to the article about the Psychic Phase. How come there was no discussion about the trouble units besides Scatbikes in the same article that "Mandiblasters now do Mortal Wounds"?
    Why not talk about the army design issues that stem from half the army being stuck in that design phase of "do only one thing", the other half being "(un)reasonably do everything". Why not talk about the fact Eldar armies almost always used Forgeworld to plug holes in their army? For example, I seriously doubt a pure Eldar force would have done as well in many of these events were it not for Hornets with cheap Pulse Lasers, the Skatach Wraithknight providing cover-busting crowd control, or the Warp Hunter providing unparalleled hard target elimination.

    If Games Workshop was as keen on fixing Marines, why simplify Heavy Weapons to be a flat -1 to-hit on the move? The Skyhammer may be gone, but this rule change means that formation won't be needed anymore. GW has had two weapons articles and Q&As to clear up whether Grav will still rule over everything else, but they haven't given any hint that such weapons will be nerfed, and a cap on which units can start on board won't actually stop people from drop-podding Grav-devs when the main penalty is hitting on 4+ instead of 3+, and you no longer have to take an Assault Marine tax. Add additional restrictions to reserves and it will be harder to actually reserve your own guys to protect against said alphastrike. Maybe Grav is prohibitively expensive, maybe it isn't but based on initial speculation it doesn't look as promising.

    If Games Workshop was so keen on fixing Daemons, the first thing they could have focused on was "we noticed every Daemon player uses the Grimoire of True Names" or some other variant of "because the Daemon Army generally doesn't shoot, fight, etc, they won by stacking numerous defensive buffs, stealing objectives and not dying." Turning Tzeentch saves back to 4++ instead of 5++ & reroll all 1s is simpler in the long run and worked fine enough for the 4th ed list (that list had its own issues but that's another story), but focusing on Summoning misses the bigger picture when it's actually debatable based on numerous individual battle reports whether it was summoning that won games (as opposed to Masque movelocking Deathstars, Fateweaver granting really important re-rolls, individual Daemon units just refusing to die, or even the odd "honest mistake" like forgetting that a Soulgrinder does not have It Will Not Die, unlike a Defiler).

    Maybe it's the fact the development was relatively sudden and there wasn't an open beta ("templates: yay or nay", etc), but it's little things like that which make my have my doubts. I am ready to eat my words if in fact things do end up being more playable in the long run, if point costs go back to 3rd ed values for non-infantry units, etc, but most things that have been teased at aren't giving me that much confidence.


    As I see it it's finally a real new edition, and lots of rules are changing, hence it doesn't make as much sense to list changes without giving a long explanation to context. GW then chose two enthusiasts and playtesters from the competitive community to serve the teasers for us.

    I would have preferred a more in debt teaser, and/or would have liked to hear the new direction which the factions are heading. As is I can only guess to why eldar are not bend in one way or another, the faction preview didn't tell me much. In particular it didn't tell what has been done about the scatterbikes and other workhorses. Had they ran scatterbikes with BS4+ and -1 to hit from moving, with scatterlasers only wounding Infantry on 3+, whilst shots bounced off dreadnoughts with 3+ saves and 8 wounds? Or was the cost increased to a level where things made sense... or where competitive list just eyeballed and thought that'll do it for todays testing, we sure had fun with wyches vs striking scorpions.

    For the orks, of which I have the least of expectations, now it even seems as if the trukk assault is stopped... For the ork teaser I just want to hear how they are ok. Maybe morkanauts KFFs and painboyz bring aura protection for the horde (5++ and FnP5+), maybe shooting is heavily increased. I don't need to know they roll 80 dice with WS3+ at S4 in melee, if I somehow manage to get there.

    I cannot tell you why GW did as they did, but this is the form of the teasers. All will soon be revealed.

    GW said 8th will be more focused on the competitive game, and when it all arrives there will be plenty of gaming done, and the game will be judged a success in the competitive area or a failure. Personally a failure from GW will remove my focus to elsewhere, maybe CMON, X-wing or AoS. It will partly depend on which active communities are around. I can see playing several different systems are making my head spin (boy, did I mess up activations last time we played Warmachine), and I might as well narrow the focus down.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 23:34:31


    Post by: cosmicsoybean


     Marmatag wrote:
     cosmicsoybean wrote:
     Marmatag wrote:


    Adding up all of the weapons and options associated with a unit before your game can be really tiresome. It shouldn't take 1 hour to get set up for a game.


    You don't have any lists already made? Even with no list on hand it shouldn't even take you 30 minutes to build a list, let alone an entire hour lol.


    It would be nice if each unit had a power level assigned to it. "Nothing over 100 power."
    They already do, they are called points, and they show how strong something is. Want an anti tank gun on that squad? it costs extra points, showing the value of it.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 23:34:55


    Post by: hobojebus


    Good tight rules benefit everyone not just the competitive players there's no such thing as too balanced.

    Nothing puts me off more than an unbalanced fight if its steamroller of a game its not enjoyable even if I'm the winner I get zero satisfaction.

    If both sides don't have a roughly equal chance to win I'm not going to play.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 23:46:43


    Post by: TremendousZ


    MagicJuggler, just read your list. In general, I would guess that 2/3 of your list is going to benefit from the new edition.

    I know the loss of summoning free units is a drag, but let's be real there shouldn't be any free models/units. Now instead for a 2000 point game, you can bring a 1500 list with 4 sides of daemons 500 a piece and choose/summon exactly what you need. The mounts have been here for awhile so i doubt they are going anywhere, and the crusader/boon stuff will get replaced with something else.

    I wouldn't read too much into the faction focus articles. They are intentionally leaving out a lot of details, so let's save our final judgement until we get a final book in our hands. Hey if you really don't like it at that point you can always stick to 7th vs playing narrative. =P


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/22 23:51:20


    Post by: Luciferian


    Deadnight wrote:


    I hope you are not suggesting that's people should organise games based on something like nastiness and spite then instead of good will towards their fellows and peers in their community?


    Of course not. I'm just not the kind of person to put much stock in good intentions - in fact the more that someone appears to rely on the quality of their intentions as a justification or means for what they hope to accomplish, the less I'm able to trust the quality of their end results.

    I'm not trying to argue against narrative style play or play without points at all. If you have a group of friends who enjoy experimenting with different scenarios, then that does sound like fun and I hope you guys have a great time.

    However, there definitely IS a place for matched play as well, even amongst friends.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 00:29:40


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    TremendousZ wrote:
    MagicJuggler, just read your list. In general, I would guess that 2/3 of your list is going to benefit from the new edition.

    I know the loss of summoning free units is a drag, but let's be real there shouldn't be any free models/units. Now instead for a 2000 point game, you can bring a 1500 list with 4 sides of daemons 500 a piece and choose/summon exactly what you need. The mounts have been here for awhile so i doubt they are going anywhere, and the crusader/boon stuff will get replaced with something else.

    I wouldn't read too much into the faction focus articles. They are intentionally leaving out a lot of details, so let's save our final judgement until we get a final book in our hands. Hey if you really don't like it at that point you can always stick to 7th vs playing narrative. =P


    The list I'm using has been a spoiler when I've had the chance to run it, partially because it's unexpected and partially because it's so unassuming for so many little interlocking components.

    Where exactly does one cut 500 points from this list though? Or even 160 points as may be the case. Sure, I could go the easy route and take out the Helbrutes in exchange for running more MSU Hounds...but if I was doing that, why was I summoning in the first place?

    What about Termicide? It's easy to predict that combi-weapons will go up in price, as heavy weapons (the multimelta) are going up in cost, and combis will be able to fire over multiple rounds. The only problem being that Termicide works partially because the combi-weapons are so cheap (5 points a pop), while the units have a relatively low threat profile afterwards.

    How does Obsec work (or standard scenarios for matched play)? You might notice that almost the entire list has it. (The Lord and Sorcerer grant it and Crusader to the Fearless Cultists).

    Boons aren't exactly a thing to replace lightly too; they were an annoyance prior to Traitor's Hate but being able to "roll 2, pick one or both" gives them a surprising deal of traction. I've had games where I'm basically running a discount Smashfucker and numerous mini-champions. The Scrolls I would be OK with just making you a standard Psyker but I'm able to roll with the random powers too. There's a reason for all the little units to run together in a mass like this. Everything is expendable, everything can threaten you in melee, almost everything can steal an objective from you, and I have a comprehensive playbook versus most foes, from Subterranean ambushes to Jetbikes+Void Shields.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 01:11:07


    Post by: Peregrine


    Wayniac wrote:
    The question, in all honesty, is WHY? Why are you so caught up in "must pay for every little thing" etc? I struggle to understand this in AOS as well. What does it matter? Is fun tied that much to having everything be as close as possible, instead of giving leeway to have a good time? I mean, I really don't get the fear of any sort of perceived imbalance as some awful thing, since most of the time they never happen anyways are are used as boogeymen for "But what if?" scenarios to discredit other forms of play.


    Because 99.999999% of the time list-building choices in a "take whatever you want" system are made for power level reasons, not to "have a good time". People don't take mixed squads with a flamer, a sniper rifle, and a power fist, they always take the most powerful option because there's no reason to do anything else when it all costs the same. But let's reverse the question: why is it so important to remove balance? Why are you incapable of having the same amount of fun in a well-balanced game? Does your "fun" depend on exploiting balance problems to take a more powerful list, or are you just one of the "casual at all costs" players who take pride in how bad their game is for competitive play?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Wayniac wrote:
    I think the point is in narrative, you don't need "balance" to have a fun game. If your opponent has more models than you, work out a situation that gives you a fighting chance (such as a breakthrough, or similar). Often though, the general attitude for the narrative/casual side is "Who cares, let's play" and it's not a big deal if your opponent has 20 more points than you or fields an extra squad, while to the competitive minded person it's "cheating" and a cardinal sin because it's not "even".


    Why does this argument always focus on being able to take a few extra points and how it's great sportsmanship/casual gaming/whatever to allow it, and completely ignore the option to remove those extra points from your army? If that extra 20 points isn't a big deal then just remove 20 points of stuff from your list. Playing a "casual" game with less importance given to points only benefits you if you feel compelled to exploit the lack of strict rules to bring a more powerful list, if you're willing to play fair and genuinely don't consider the extra points a big deal then the "casual" game offers you nothing that you can't get from a competitive game with strict points.

    That's the narrative mindset: Less focus on "everything as equal as possible" and more on "That's a cool idea, let's see how it turns out" with the implied "Don't be a jerk" rule thrown in.


    That's nice in theory, but as these threads demonstrate everyone has their own individual idea of what "being a jerk" means in terms of power level. Why waste time negotiating what power level is appropriate when you can just play a game with equal points and let the rules handle the balancing?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 01:55:05


    Post by: Purifier


    Deadnight wrote:
    Purifier wrote:

    I was taught that some things, like sticking your hand in the toilet and eating the contents found there, don't need to be tried to know it's a bad idea.


    Cute. Here's the thing about anecdotes - anything can be one. Like try a holiday to a foreign country. Try a different show on tv. Try a sport. Different hobby. Play a game a different way...

    Purifier wrote:
    Get off your high horse.


    No high horse here bud and I really my don't appreciate the condescension and 'high horse' comment here. Maybe it's Internet and tone, but for the record I'm not trying to be a jerk to you and I sîncerely hope it's the same from the other end here...

    like I've said. It's Just a different perspective. I play narrative and I play matched play. It's not an abstract concept to me. I appreciate the value in both. I've seen both work, and I've seen both fall apart, so to me it's the implementation that matters more. Both scratch different itches at the end of the day, which is why I try and encourage both..

    Purifier wrote:
    You're saying that you know how to balance better than anyone else,


    Go ahead. Quote me saying that. Or else take that back and stop putting words in my mouth and mischaracterising my arguments.

    I've said we've played narrative games for four years and have had immense amounts of fun from them, and only once have we ever played out something that was truly 'broken' and there was literally from chucking everything 'early war' onto the board.

    Purifier wrote:
    like the highly competitive gamers with a lot of background in hosting huge events that GW are now assembling. You do you. But doesn't convince me one bit.


    Uh huh, and what exactly does this show? Other people can organise events? Well done To them. No, seriously - well done to them. I've put together tournaments in the past. I know how much organisation and work needs to go into those thing s and I don't envy the guys one bit, but again, as has been pointed out before, organising things for 'matched play' and pugs/tournaments is different to narrative play. What works to organise those large events isn't what work said to organise or approach a narrative game. And before you try to strawman me again, let me be clear - I play matched play. I enjoy pick up gsmes and I enjoy tournaments (used to play WMH to a decently high level too - even scalped a former U.K. Masters winner... with mk2 strakhov, of all casters!)immensely. I also value and enjoy narrative play. I really don't have favourites here.

    Purifier wrote:
    But doesn't convince me one bit.


    *shrug* that's a shame - it really is. I'm genuinely not trying to be cheeky or anything purifier, and I really don't appreciate your high horse comments. Myself and my mates have played various wargames this way for about four years now, and we've had a blast all this time. Maybe that doesn't convince you, but it doesn't stop me, or us, or any of the other narrative gamers out there doing the same thing from having fun doing it. Maybe it's something that has to be seen first hand rather than typed up, because a lot of it tends to be rather nebulousness and free-form rather than 'hard coded' in structure... for what it's worth, I'm sure you'd probably enjoy a game or two with our group.

    Like I said, I recommended some people who are far more eloquent than I am at this sort of thing. Speak to them? Mongoosematt especially Or don't. Up to you really. But i think it's a shame that you aren't even giving it a chance-there is a lot of value from also taking a different approach. For what it's worth, it's done nothing but expand my appreciation for table top gaming. But hey, your choice in the end.

    Purifier wrote:
    You say points are flawed, so instead you want to use... other points. Because they're better. Ok. Whatever. Your arguments are bloody weird and not worth my time.


    Quote me saying they're 'better' please. All I've ever said is it's a different way to approach wargames and it's an approach with merit and value, and it's one that I have had a lot of enjoyment out of. That's 'bloody weird'? Ok then...

    Regarding points, I will say this: I like points, for what they are and within the right contexts, theyre perfectly fine. However points on their own are not the answer. Points are a tool. When used right, they are a very effective tool, but they are not the only one (you can't build a house with only a hammer!) Points can only go so far, and can only carry so much weight. Points work within a system where all the other variables are reduced - for example, a unit might be worth its points in one scenario, and overcosted for another (say, the ability to ignore terrain on a terrain heavy board, versus a 'naked' board - solution being to define the amount of terrain, and thereby reduce the variable). Perfectly fine. But raising and lowering the points costs of things isn't the only lever to pull either. Warmachine, for example isn't balanced because the points costs are right (it's points costs are generally pretty robust though). There are enough hard counters and 'silver bullets' in that game that some 75point lists are not the the equal of other 75point lists (and you won't find man you WMH players who will dispute that), but this is largely mitigated by other factors like multiple lists in tournaments, multiple win conditions (scenario. Assassination etc). So when I talk about other things being needed for balance, that's the kind of thing I am talking about.

    Luciferian wrote:The idea that people should instinctively know the relative value of each model and its options, and that they should be expected to spontaneously and efficiently organize balanced games based purely on good will and their subjective experience of the game, is frankly ludicrous.


    I hope you are not suggesting that's people should organise games based on something like nastiness and spite then instead of good will towards their fellows and peers in their community? Personally I always thought it was better to play against like minded fellows, and friends and people whose company I enjoyed but hey, that's probably 'bloody weird', right?

    You're right - I don't expect anyone to 'instinctively know the relative value' of things. I've never even said such a thing. I've always said it's an approach that takes a bit of time, and it requires knowledge and experience, but for what it's worth it's an approach that I have personally found great enjoyment from, hence why I am here trying to encourage it.

    For what it's worth, I don't see it as 'frankly ludicrous' to 'game-build' with my friends and have a go at homebrewed and often assymetric games. If it sounds interesting, I'll consider it. I can meet you half way, I'll make an attempt to accommodate. At the very least, have a chat and see if we are on the same page. You are my opponent, i regard you as an equal, I owe you that at least. If everyone has a subjective view on things, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing either - I just see it as an opportunity for more vairiety.


    You MUST be ing me? You're not being condescending? "well you see, I'VE been raised to..." and you start sentences with things like "Cute." It's not like one little thing. Everything is saturated with it.

    And you ask me to quote you on saying that? You need to read back on what you're defending. Tneva82 said "narrative is the game mode that you can get closer to the unarchievable balance"
    I said "how?" and that's where you come in, answering my how. It was what we were talking about. It was what I was asking, and you replied on the how. There is nothing else that you could have been defending, other than the statement that narrative play has better balance than matched play.,


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 02:16:17


    Post by: ross-128


    Narrative definitely cannot have the same delicate balance as matched. There's one simple reason: in Narrative, a bone-stock SM squad with nothing but bolters, and a tricked-out SM squad with heavy weapons, special weapons, and all the fanciest wargear are the same cost!

    Narrative sacrifices balance for speed (you can throw a list together MUCH faster when you don't have to worry about every little detail) and flexibility. It's just a tradeoff you make, and which one you go with is just a matter of what matters more in your group, fluff or crunch.

    Of course, as long as you're just playing with friends, you could always do a sort of Matched Lite: use matched points, but with the looser rules of narrative. Ain't nobody there to stop you. Mixing and matching rules in your garage isn't going to get you a visit from the Adeptus Legatus.

    Full matched rules would only be likely to come into force in a formal setting, like tournaments. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that there are things that are fine in your garage, that absolutely won't fly in a tournament. Tournaments have to use a much higher standard of balance because of the higher stakes, it's just the nature of the thing.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 04:09:14


    Post by: Lythrandire Biehrellian


    Narrative lets me just use what I've modeled. Nobody who is a fan of narrative play has piles of identically maxed out squads kitted with the most expensive option and says "see it's balanced!"

    I've got Corsairs and harlequins. I use power swords and splinter rifles,, I use flamers and melta guns. Hell, my heavy weapons teams had mixed splinter cannon and missile launchers.

    In the new eddition I am not wasting points. It isn't a drawback to throw power weapons on all my squads because my barons and felarchs were gifted with blades when they proved their "loyalty" (cause, you know, pirates) with the power level I can just say "my power level is 100" and we can figure out where we are from there. Easy peasy.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 04:49:43


    Post by: theocracity


    Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
    Narrative lets me just use what I've modeled. Nobody who is a fan of narrative play has piles of identically maxed out squads kitted with the most expensive option and says "see it's balanced!"

    I've got Corsairs and harlequins. I use power swords and splinter rifles,, I use flamers and melta guns. Hell, my heavy weapons teams had mixed splinter cannon and missile launchers.

    In the new eddition I am not wasting points. It isn't a drawback to throw power weapons on all my squads because my barons and felarchs were gifted with blades when they proved their "loyalty" (cause, you know, pirates) with the power level I can just say "my power level is 100" and we can figure out where we are from there. Easy peasy.


    Yeah, same. That's why I don't get a lot of the arguments about how Narrative play lets players max out their squads - as a Narrative gamer it's more important that my army looks cool, than that it's good at winning games. I'm not going to equip all my squads with the best weapon in the metagame, because that's boring to build and paint and I don't want to have to buy all those extra boxes for those single bits that don't actually improve what I find interesting about the hobby. I'll just build with a mix of weapons that look cool, regardless if they're competitive.

    I sort of get the idea that Narrative games benefit from Matched play balance. The main problem with that in my mind, though, is that Narrative games are expected to involve scenarios that are inherently unbalanced in some way (and usually with little guidance in terms of point values to compensate for any imbalance). At that point the idea that Points are ensuring a competitive scale for both players has already gone out the window. Why not just let players build their armies how they want without worrying about whether 5 points for a power sword ultimately matters within the variables of a narrative scenario?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 05:48:15


    Post by: Waaargh


    It's cool that you'll get narrative to work. The criticism come, I believe, from people who doesn't get it to eork and maybe who doesnt get W40k to work to a balanced level.

    I find the reason for 40k to have issues is because it IS buildt on a narrative foundation. That's how it has always been presented in White Dwarf. When this is tried to suit competitive games it fares less than great.

    I have one issue with the narrative crowd. In AoS land there has been a lot of asking for ideas to the narrative play, and few have helped out there. Had been nice if peeps with experience could give some advice. There are many ways to get info on netlists, there are not so many ways to find The Good Narrative.

    I guess debate over a grand new edition make the narrative crowd come out of the woodwork.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 06:49:15


    Post by: Deadnight


     Purifier wrote:


    You MUST be ing me? You're not being condescending? "well you see, I'VE been raised to..." and you start sentences with things like "Cute." It's not like one little thing. Everything is saturated with it.
    ,


    No, I'm not 'bleep'ing you, and I really don't appreciate either your tone or your attitude here. I've tried to explain my position repeatedly. And I've tried to be polite and speak with respect, after some of the spiteful and aggressive things you have said to me to belittle and mischaracteris what ive said (like equating 'try something new' with 'sticking your hands in the toilet'), can you blame me for saying things like 'cute'? But fair enough, I will retract that statement.

     Purifier wrote:

    And you ask me to quote you on saying that? You need to read back on what you're defending. Tneva82 said "narrative is the game mode that you can get closer to the unarchievable balance"
    I said "how?" and that's where you come in, answering my how. It was what we were talking about. It was what I was asking, and you replied on the how. There is nothing else that you could have been defending, other than the statement that narrative play has better balance than matched play.,


    So in other words you can't quote me saying it.just because someone comments on a post doesn't necessarily mean they agree with one side or the other. In answer to your assertion my point was that experience, knowledge and understanding were what you used in narrative play to judge what will be a good fit for your games and to endure a good match up.

    Now, you ask What was I defending? I'll be clear. Because maybe there was a mistranslation on my part? I'd rather clear the air here as well. What I was defending was Nothing more than the idea that narrative works (or rather, can work!), and that yes, you can get balanced and interesting games from this approach. Matched play is generally fine and enjoyable but a lot of things get savrificed on the altar to make it a thing. A lot of those things are fun and narrative is an approach that lets you build games you wouldn't necessarily see in matched play. When I answered how, it was with regard to what I've found he you need to make narrative work. Experience. Knowledge. Understanding.because those are things you need to judge what is balanced.

    Regardless, I'm done here. We're talking past each other at this point and I don't see us coming to any understanding. I'm bowing out. Good day sir.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 07:08:39


    Post by: Purifier


    Why did you answer my question with something completely unrelated? I asked how narrative was more balanced, you go into an enormous rant and now you're bragging that you completely misunderstood the question and I can't quote you on actually answering my question. In the future, don't butt into conversations you have not actually read just because you have to have your say. If you didn't actually respond to my question, you just replied to me only to create confusion, and every single post we've had since can be safely deleted, because we're arguing clmpletely different points. Next time, read what you're responding to. You've wasted both our times.

    I have never argued that narrative "can't work," quite the opposite. My only argument was "how the hell can you say narrative is inherently more balanced than matched" and that's where you forced yourself in. Can you see how much we could have avoided, had you cared to know what you were responding to?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 07:23:02


    Post by: Dakka Wolf


    Do people really find list building so painful?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 08:25:43


    Post by: Lythrandire Biehrellian


     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    Do people really find list building so painful?


    No. But with power levels it is now faster and easier to throw models down and play a game.

    I never know what everyone will bring in regards to points for our monthly all day Warhammer get together. A lot of time gets put into "well, let me knock off 500 points..." Or "I only have this selection of minis, do you want a game?"

    Now I can just go, "ok, what's your power level?" And my army can just be thrown together on the table in three to five minutes. Instead of worrying about getting the right number of points I can instead ask what they brought and make an army that will.give them a good game.

    They took a lot of big guns, I'll throw a couple tanks or a wraith construct in there. A flamer or two, I will drop at least one squad of Corsairs on foot to give them viable targets. I can build an army where I ensure I have answers and vice versa without needing to get down the minutia of the more granular points system.

    The power levels let me do this by giving me an estimate to work with in order to keep from overwhelming them on the table. I might want to take my wraithknight, but power level might make me take a lord instead.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 11:46:19


    Post by: Wayniac


     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    Do people really find list building so painful?


    No, I find the attitude that goes along with it painful. The idea to boil everything down to a contest, and often go for as close to pure parity as possible. We each line up across the board from each other, can't have asymmetrical deployments because that's "not fair" to the person who starts off with a small force trapped in the middle, and the rest coming in as reinforcements at a later turn. Can't have different missions, that's "not fair" to the person whose mission is perceived as harder than the other. Basically, the attitude of list building goes right to trying to min-max on purpose to eke out any tiny advantage to win, often including "Mathhammer" of "Well this weapon is 32.333% better in most situations than this other weapon, so there's zero reason to ever take the lesser weapon" kind of stuff. It pushes the game too far to a simulation that might as well be run on a computer instead of with models, because everything is stripped of what makes it interesting and it turns into a straight conflict.

    I see this in AOS a lot. The pitched battle missions are boring as all hell; sure they offer some tactical maneuvers, but they are just abstract objectives with forces deployed across from each other. The narrative scenarios are IMHO much better because they often have different victory conditions for each player, or different deployment zones for each instead of I'm on this side, you're on that side, let's throw down. I find a lot of the mindset comes from people who want to turn everything into a competitive focused game, and who seem to ONLY find enjoyment in the game when they are playing hardball, trying to win at all costs against an opponent trying to do the same, with a min-maxed list designed expressly to be the best it can be. Basically in my experience it devolves the game into pushing everything on list construction trying to gain any advantage as possible.

    I find it no surprise a lot of the competitive people would hate a system wherein you don't pay for every little advantage, because to them there is absolutely zero reason to not take the "best" item in that case, if it's free. These are the same people who would spam Scatter Lasers in 7th edition Eldar because the cost was the same as the Shuriken Cannon but in many cases it was the superior weapon due to volume of shots. The concept of not taking it was lost on these people because it's "better" and every choice has to be something that improves their chance of winning the game, with everything else being secondary or of no concern at all.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 11:51:16


    Post by: auticus


     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    Do people really find list building so painful?


    I reached a point many years ago where min/maxing on a spreadsheet got to be tiresome so I prefer not having to fidget to get every ounce of power out of my list to abuse the game. I'd rather use power levels personally.

    But for me if someone says "why would I never do this if its free, I'm going to take as many as I can then" then I dont' play them outside of a tournament because the point of narrative games eludes them.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 13:15:51


    Post by: theocracity


    Wayniac wrote:
     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    Do people really find list building so painful?


    No, I find the attitude that goes along with it painful. The idea to boil everything down to a contest, and often go for as close to pure parity as possible. We each line up across the board from each other, can't have asymmetrical deployments because that's "not fair" to the person who starts off with a small force trapped in the middle, and the rest coming in as reinforcements at a later turn. Can't have different missions, that's "not fair" to the person whose mission is perceived as harder than the other. Basically, the attitude of list building goes right to trying to min-max on purpose to eke out any tiny advantage to win, often including "Mathhammer" of "Well this weapon is 32.333% better in most situations than this other weapon, so there's zero reason to ever take the lesser weapon" kind of stuff. It pushes the game too far to a simulation that might as well be run on a computer instead of with models, because everything is stripped of what makes it interesting and it turns into a straight conflict.

    I see this in AOS a lot. The pitched battle missions are boring as all hell; sure they offer some tactical maneuvers, but they are just abstract objectives with forces deployed across from each other. The narrative scenarios are IMHO much better because they often have different victory conditions for each player, or different deployment zones for each instead of I'm on this side, you're on that side, let's throw down. I find a lot of the mindset comes from people who want to turn everything into a competitive focused game, and who seem to ONLY find enjoyment in the game when they are playing hardball, trying to win at all costs against an opponent trying to do the same, with a min-maxed list designed expressly to be the best it can be. Basically in my experience it devolves the game into pushing everything on list construction trying to gain any advantage as possible.

    I find it no surprise a lot of the competitive people would hate a system wherein you don't pay for every little advantage, because to them there is absolutely zero reason to not take the "best" item in that case, if it's free. These are the same people who would spam Scatter Lasers in 7th edition Eldar because the cost was the same as the Shuriken Cannon but in many cases it was the superior weapon due to volume of shots. The concept of not taking it was lost on these people because it's "better" and every choice has to be something that improves their chance of winning the game, with everything else being secondary or of no concern at all.


    And to be fair - that kind of competitive perspective is totally valid! If you enjoy testing your skill against an opponent who's doing the same, you want to have complex list building, a statistical perspective on unit efficiency and neutral scenarios. Those give you the maximum chance to utilize your skill against your opponent.

    That kind of play is still supported in 8th, perhaps better than it was before because there's not the expectation that fluffy armies need to be fully represented in Matched rules, regardless if they're potentially problematic from a competitive perspective.

    Personally, though, I'm only playing Narrative from here on out. List building honestly was a chore for me - I'm pretty sure I've spent more time tweaking my list than I've spent playing. Most of the time those tweaks would involve trying to find ways to keep my fun but non-ideal equipment or units while still having a competitive list. It was honestly a drag, and I'm glad Power levels are here to cater to my interests.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 13:21:14


    Post by: Wayniac


     auticus wrote:
     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    Do people really find list building so painful?


    I reached a point many years ago where min/maxing on a spreadsheet got to be tiresome so I prefer not having to fidget to get every ounce of power out of my list to abuse the game. I'd rather use power levels personally.

    But for me if someone says "why would I never do this if its free, I'm going to take as many as I can then" then I dont' play them outside of a tournament because the point of narrative games eludes them.


    Precisely; jumping on "Well its free so nothing stops me from taking as much as I can just because I can" they don't have the right mindset for narrative gaming. I think ultimately I'll just do both (maybe even, gasp! Open Play!). I want to focus on narrative, but if someone is die-hard "points and pay for everything and pretend it's a tournament" then I'll go to Matched. I might even have lists for both, and ask which my opponent wants and say I'd prefer Narrative but am willing to do Matched. In my own social group I'm going to push narrative hard.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 13:43:08


    Post by: Purifier


    [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 13:47:17


    Post by: icn1982


     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    Do people really find list building so painful?


    I find 'competitive' list building tedious. I know that I might want to deploy maybe a couple IG infantry platoons with some artillery support. I really don't care what weapons they have beyond that, just go with WYSIWYG. So grab the models that look cool, or haven't seen much playtime (heavy bolters come to mind) and lets go.

    I think power levels make it easier to build an army that has the 'look' you want. Hell, I have some of the old metal guard models of each of the different regiments that haven't seen play for years (at the time they only came in a box of 10 models including the special weapon and the heavy weapon associated with the regiment), they make a great looking remnants force - the last survivors of several regiments in a warzone.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 14:59:49


    Post by: Wayniac


     Purifier wrote:
    [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]


    If I may, I think it's more the general min-max/powergamer attitudes that seem to go along with it. It's the fact there always ends up a hard divide between both crowds. I realize your post was mod-blammed but still, I think it was a valid concern.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 15:14:52


    Post by: Martel732


    Optimal choices are too tempting for many players.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 15:37:48


    Post by: Wayniac


    Martel732 wrote:
    Optimal choices are too tempting for many players.


    That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 16:08:39


    Post by: Blacksails


    The big issue isn't from the people deliberately picking the best things because they're the best, its the people who just happen to like the powerful things for other reasons, like how cool the model is or the fluff.

    Plus, given the choice between two similar and thematic options, I think most people would steer towards the better of the two.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 16:11:43


    Post by: MagicJuggler


    What about the "three types of players" idea, where you have your Timmies, Johnnys, and Spikes? Non-tournament play can also mean anything from working with willful handicaps so you can adapt if similar scenarios do come up in a tournament, experimenting/playtesting, or even a narrative/map campaign.

    What is best can end up being subjective in many cases after all. Yes, there are ballpark rules like "Bike characters are preferable to infantry characters", or "don't mix and match special weapons in the same unit" (and even that rule has its own edgecase exceptions), but there are also many Gamebreakers that aren't, and many cases where the "best option" isn't as apparent. Sometimes, the right player can even take bad units and make good lists out of them.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 16:23:38


    Post by: dosiere


    I think it might be important to clarify what is meant by narrative. In the current GW bubble, it's a synonym for non-competitive/casual pick up games, and that's about it.

    When I think of narrative games, I'm thinking of cool scenarios, campaigns, alternate game modes (GMs, cooperative), and customtzation. The point is to have a more in-depth experience than your typical matched game. Sometimes that means intentional imbalances, and sometimes not. It certainly doesn't help to start off with imbalances when trying to figure out how to realize your ambitions. Generally the tighter, more balanced ruleset is actually going to be easier to fiddle with, which is why I don't understand why GW narrative is designed to be the less accuarate point system. It should be the other way around, if anything.

    Check out your local neckbeard historical fans. The guys and girls who are really invested in those systems usually have the most expereince running real narrative events. I took part in a Bolt Action D-Day game with 5 people and it was awesome. It is ultimately all about the spectacle, the awesome terrain and painted models (which sadly is often lacking in your typical game of AoS/40K), but having a tight ruleset with points helped a great deal to figure out what would make for an engaging game while you're enjoying it.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 16:29:08


    Post by: theocracity


     Blacksails wrote:
    The big issue isn't from the people deliberately picking the best things because they're the best, its the people who just happen to like the powerful things for other reasons, like how cool the model is or the fluff.

    Plus, given the choice between two similar and thematic options, I think most people would steer towards the better of the two.


    Keep in mind we're mostly talking about wargear here. If a player likes a powerful model like a Knight, they're still paying for it via Power level. Loading up on extra wargear is nice, but I don't think there's that big of a list of units that become truly broken from being kitted out (and most of those are just because of the number of models in the unit who have access to specials).

    Besides, the scenario can always be shifted to balance things out. If you're truly playing Narrative with only powerful units because you think they're cool, and not because you're there to crush your opponent, a scenario-based handicap shouldn't be a big deal.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 16:34:10


    Post by: BunkhouseBuster


    dosiere wrote:
    I think it might be important to clarify what is meant by narrative. In the current GW bubble, it's a synonym for non-competitive/casual pick up games, and that's about it.

    When I think of narrative games, I'm thinking of cool scenarios, campaigns, alternate game modes (GMs, cooperative), and customtzation. The point is to have a more in-depth experience than your typical matched game. Sometimes that means intentional imbalances, and sometimes not. It certainly doesn't help to start off with imbalances when trying to figure out how to realize your ambitions. Generally the tighter, more balanced ruleset is actually going to be easier to fiddle with, which is why I don't understand why GW narrative is designed to be the less accuarate point system. It should be the other way around, if anything.

    Check out your local neckbeard historical fans. The guys and girls who are really invested in those systems usually have the most expereince running real narrative events. I took part in a Bolt Action D-Day game with 5 people and it was awesome. It is ultimately all about the spectacle, the awesome terrain and painted models (which sadly is often lacking in your typical game of AoS/40K), but having a tight ruleset with points helped a great deal to figure out what would make for an engaging game while you're enjoying it.
    Well said. Narrative is far more than what so many players think it is. A Narrative game can use Matched Play points, and a Competitive tournament can have a story emerge from how the games are played or won.

    Matched Play =/= Competitive Play

    And at the same time:

    Narrative Play =/= Casual Play.

    Two different game modes, two different playstyles. Sure, there are some aspects about the different modes and playstyles that mesh well together, but they are not exclusive to those playstyles. You can have a Casual tournament using Matched Play rules, and you can have a Competitive Narrative campaign with a prize at the end of it.

    In my experiences with Age of Sigmar, you can mix and match the various aspects of Matched and Narrative Play. To stick with one version for your desired playstyle is fine. But keep in mind that others are going to want different kinds of games from you, and that is okay. Different is not wrong, especially when it comes to playing with plastic toys. I had issues when I was a new kid in a new school, that when I tried to play with them, I couldn't do what they were doing. "You can't do dropkicks in kickball, but we can!" "You have to stay still in freeze-tag, but I can move!" That same mindset is starting to pop in 40K now. We need to not be like those kids who won't let others play differently, and instead focus on having fun and enjoying the game.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 16:35:46


    Post by: icn1982


    dosiere wrote:
    I think it might be important to clarify what is meant by narrative. In the current GW bubble, it's a synonym for non-competitive/casual pick up games, and that's about it.

    When I think of narrative games, I'm thinking of cool scenarios, campaigns, alternate game modes (GMs, cooperative), and customtzation. The point is to have a more in-depth experience than your typical matched game. Sometimes that means intentional imbalances, and sometimes not. It certainly doesn't help to start off with imbalances when trying to figure out how to realize your ambitions. Generally the tighter, more balanced ruleset is actually going to be easier to fiddle with, which is why I don't understand why GW narrative is designed to be the less accuarate point system. It should be the other way around, if anything.


    I disagree about it being the other way around. While I agree that Narrative should be story driven, when deciding a force for such games, I would describe the forces as "a company of Imperial Guard holding back the tide of Orks while the planets VIPs can escape." You have a power level for the Imperial Guard (just go by the IG fluff for the number of units in a company), and you build an Ork hoard to match.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 22:25:28


    Post by: Earth127


    They've already said most scenarios as well as planetstrike and cities of death are narrative. So they should have interesting scenarios more or less covered.

    They've also in one the articles said that in matched play both players have the same objectives to ensure an equal playing field. I get the feeling matched is more limited then some people seem to think.

    @dosiere more scenarios make precise points impossible. If you scenario is all about killing armor banshees are gna be worth way less than in a kill that horde of tyranids scenario. so powerlevels being less precise doesn't matter.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 23:16:19


    Post by: Humble Guardsman


    I'd always dreamed of developing a full AirCav IG list. I guess it's still possible, but I'll have to use them in tandem with my existing infantry guard in larger matches.



    Didn't GW say that 8th will include rules for Planetstrike? I suppose deep-strike armies could use that as a way of getting around it.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 23:18:42


    Post by: Elbows


    There's also nothing stopping you from playing how you want, with what you want - just find an opponent willing to do so. If you wanted to rock a full air cavalry IG force - I'd let you. I'd make up some sweet freakin' scenario for it too...and you could even use Matched points, who cares.

    I don't understand the "we're hemmed in by THE RULE BOOK" mentality. And if you're a tournament going player - that should be the case, because hopefully they managed some form of balance.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 23:20:32


    Post by: Martel732


    Wayniac wrote:
    Martel732 wrote:
    Optimal choices are too tempting for many players.


    That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.


    For me, everything might as well be a tournament.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/23 23:36:34


    Post by: ERJAK


    Martel732 wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Martel732 wrote:
    Optimal choices are too tempting for many players.


    That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.


    For me, everything might as well be a tournament.


    I have this issue after a while because I tend not to purchase anything that isn't tournament caliber.

    I actually had a moment when 8th was announced when I looked at my SM and said, 'do I even like space marines?' I actually had to take a good few days to figure out what in the SM range I actually liked vs what I played because it was good.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 00:16:44


    Post by: Dakka Wolf


    Go figure.
    I was playing MtG before I started 40k and my tabletime is horribly limited, so sadly I average about ten lists for every game I get to play.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 00:20:39


    Post by: Martel732


    I'd prefer to use jump BA, but bikes are so much better in 7th I had no choice.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 00:24:48


    Post by: GodDamUser


    I intend to play mainly Narrative especially at the start, until I know what is good and not for tourney then play a bit more matched.

    But I do see a lot of Narrative being played.

    But if you like to min/max matched is where it is at, if you just want to play fun lists Narrative will be great


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 00:37:14


    Post by: Dakka Wolf


    Martel732 wrote:
    I'd prefer to use jump BA, but bikes are so much better in 7th I had no choice.


    You might enjoy the new jumping Terminators...I mean Intercep..that's not right...Inceptors?
    Not sure why they call them "starters" but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
    They got awesome ski/shovel booties for...reasons.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 02:34:13


    Post by: Peregrine


    Wayniac wrote:
    That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.


    Optimizing a list is fun, and weaker lists are not magically more fun than powerful ones. The argument here is essentially that, because your opponent refuses to bring a powerful list of their own, you need to take all those weaker options (including buying and painting the models to do so if WYSIWYG is expected) and modify your own list.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 02:45:51


    Post by: Dakka Wolf


     Peregrine wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.


    Optimizing a list is fun, and weaker lists are not magically more fun than powerful ones. The argument here is essentially that, because your opponent refuses to bring a powerful list of their own, you need to take all those weaker options (including buying and painting the models to do so if WYSIWYG is expected) and modify your own list.


    Magnets.
    Magnets make life so much easier.

    On the other hand they mean you need to carry a few pairs of plastic tweasers and thick sponges.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 03:08:03


    Post by: theocracity


     Peregrine wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.


    Optimizing a list is fun


    For some.

    and weaker lists are not magically more fun than powerful ones.


    The reverse is true as well.

    The argument here is essentially that, because your opponent refuses to bring a powerful list of their own, you need to take all those weaker options (including buying and painting the models to do so if WYSIWYG is expected) and modify your own list.


    ...no? You don't need to do anything in particular to your own list, besides take a similar power level. If the armies are seriously unbalanced just from wargear options, you can always do some small handicaps with a narrative scenario.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 03:31:10


    Post by: Cephalobeard


    Just play narrative, then. This attitude may not be the reason why it exists, but it existing certainly is a reason to say perhaps you should stick to pretend 40k.

    Edit: Before my comment throws someone into a blind fury for daring to insinuate that the methods of play that don't use points, or structure are "pretend" do note that this was a general statement and not to anyone in particular.

    I play DND to set a story, and make things up as I go. There's nothing wrong with that, same for 40k. However, arguing back and forth is rediculous. Hobby how you want to play, but at least acknowledge that there are multiple set of "matched" rules, and then a way for you to play however you want. Just pick one and leave people alone about it.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 04:24:18


    Post by: BrianDavion


     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    Martel732 wrote:
    I'd prefer to use jump BA, but bikes are so much better in 7th I had no choice.


    You might enjoy the new jumping Terminators...I mean Intercep..that's not right...Inceptors?
    Not sure why they call them "starters" but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
    They got awesome ski/shovel booties for...reasons.


    perhaps because the Inceptor squads are Intended to be a high speed first strike unit?


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 05:55:56


    Post by: Dakka Wolf


    BrianDavion wrote:
     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    Martel732 wrote:
    I'd prefer to use jump BA, but bikes are so much better in 7th I had no choice.


    You might enjoy the new jumping Terminators...I mean Intercep..that's not right...Inceptors?
    Not sure why they call them "starters" but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
    They got awesome ski/shovel booties for...reasons.


    perhaps because the Inceptor squads are Intended to be a high speed first strike unit?


    I bet there's better ways of getting first turn charges.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 06:34:39


    Post by: Waaargh


    Dakkawolf, you are posting your complaints in the wrong thread.

    Now about the narrative... I might be damaged by my environment, being raised on White Dwarf where folks took mixed armies, where orks with their random equipment tables and Jervis Johnson wrote articles on how a deployed force might be equipped, with a focus on the background. In the real world and on Dakka I met min/maxers (or better list analysts), for whom the game was about the lists.

    Anyways, regarding the fun of a less than perfectly tuned list: Seeing a spammy tournament list doesn't do much for me, while seeing a list with mixed units and weapons makes my head start to think how and where each should be positioned, and what role against that particular opponent each should be given. That won't hold long against a superior list, but really, why would my opponent even bring a tuned list? Yes, I believe I belong in the narrative crowd when writing lists.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 07:08:50


    Post by: Dakka Wolf


    This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 07:40:22


    Post by: tneva82


     Purifier wrote:
    If you've ever read a thread on this forum you know that people here can't balance anything. Everyone thinks their army is the weakest and everyone else's is the strongest.

    No, I wouldn't trust a single point either of you two are trying to make.


    Lol what I'm describing is time honoured tradition. That's how wargames have been played and funnily enough it's actually worked pretty well outside 40k.

    And instead you trust company that has shown itself to be crap at making balance and vested interest in ensuring balance shifts all the time. Yup yup.

    You know just because your group isn't able to work out things by talking doesn't mean everybody are incapable. Widen group of players you play with to include people who don't care one wiff who wins as long as game is fun.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Purifier wrote:
    Deadnight wrote:


    I was always taught never to close my mind to different ideas, and to always keep an open mind and try new things.


    I was taught that some things, like sticking your hand in the toilet and eating the contents found there, don't need to be tried to know it's a bad idea. Get off your high horse. You're saying that you know how to balance better than anyone else, like the highly competitive gamers with a lot of background in hosting huge events that GW are now assembling. You do you. But doesn't convince me one bit.

    You say points are flawed, so instead you want to use... other points. Because they're better. Ok. Whatever. Your arguments are bloody weird and not worth my time.


    You are claiming it's possible to have perfect balance in flawed system.

    How you factor in point value for tactical for every scenario? 8th ed tactical is 13 pts. HOWEVER value of tactical marine changes based on many factors. If opponent is actually predator company value changes. If scenario involves defending fort it's another. You need to get to other side of board? Again value changes.

    Matched points are based on averaging different situations and trying to figure correct value.

    When seeking for perfect balance THAT IS FLAWED! You cannot get point value that is correct for every situation. Even if you had god himself that cannot make mistakes doing it he couldn't do it. It's the nature of the beast.

    It's not a question about skill. It's about what's possible. There's too many variables that changes to make one fixed point value be correct in every situation.

    Opponent puts in unit X instead of unit Y. This has immediately effect that point value of your every unit actually changes...

    This is why if you want to have as balanced as possible you need to have control of every variable. This is what matched play cannot do as it's not designed for that. It's only approximation of balance but there's limit it cannot exceed.

    Narrative however by it's nature(2 players working out scenario they are going to play) has meanwhile has more freedom to multiple ways in terms of balance. It can go from quick&very rough estimation to as close to 100% as players in question have skill and willingness to put in effort(you don't get that on one go but by repeated playtesting). The limit toward 100% is much higher than matched can have. It obviously is not easy and is hell of an effort but if how close to 100% balance you want to get is your priority then sooner or later you have to go to narrative. Or accept there's limit toward that 100% you can go for.

    Maybe you should read what people are saying before going on with rude insulting "get off your high horse". Only one here with high horse is you...I'm not saying I'm better game designer. However if I'm willing to put in effort I'm sure our group can get closer to 100% balance for a game with narrative because we can use playtesting to sort out balance _for exact variables involved_. How can GW assign fixed point value for unit that accounts the terrain we use? Huh? We don't even use GW terrain so they can't even try to use that and amount and locations are most definitely not on their knowledge.

    Whatabout what models we have in collection? Do they know what my space marines will be facing? That will alter my units value.

    It's less about skill and more about what it's possible. Point values in game with fluid variables are always just best guesses. They aren't absolute values.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 09:17:31


    Post by: icn1982


     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.


    Seriously?

    Anyone from an RPG background (you know, a storytelling game) is going to be looking at narrative play and will be thinking this is going to be cool.

    Why wont *a lot* of RPGer be as interested in Matched/Competative play, because the game by its very nature is unbalanced (the units you have available are limited by factions). Those from an RPG background who are more interested in Min/Maxing (and believe me, RPGers can do it with the best of them) will play games like competitive MTG. Its because the game rules are balanced and every player has the same choice of cards to choose from.

    I also think you will find older/long term players jumping into narrative play simply because they will have a lot of un-optimised units and models sat on their shelves that haven't been used in years because the unit was underpowered for the 7th ed meta.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 09:25:38


    Post by: Peregrine


     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.


    Exactly. Perhaps 8th will finally change this, but in the past "narrative" has been a smug way of talking about how superior you are for taking a weak list that can't win in tournaments, not anything to do with telling a story. It's just presumed that if you're not playing competitively then you must be doing something else well (because it's impossible to accept that you might be bad at 40k), and "narrative" is the default option. The armies are boring and often unpainted trash, there's no story behind the game, no character development over time, etc. It's just two weak armies playing the same standard missions on the same bland terrain as the competitive players.

    And no, your list with a bunch of random units and weapons is not fluffier than a spam list. Spam lists are fluffy, because standardization is how real armies operate.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 09:34:29


    Post by: BrianDavion


     Peregrine wrote:
     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.


    Exactly. Perhaps 8th will finally change this, but in the past "narrative" has been a smug way of talking about how superior you are for taking a weak list that can't win in tournaments, not anything to do with telling a story. It's just presumed that if you're not playing competitively then you must be doing something else well (because it's impossible to accept that you might be bad at 40k), and "narrative" is the default option. The armies are boring and often unpainted trash, there's no story behind the game, no character development over time, etc. It's just two weak armies playing the same standard missions on the same bland terrain as the competitive players.

    And no, your list with a bunch of random units and weapons is not fluffier than a spam list. Spam lists are fluffy, because standardization is how real armies operate.


    depends on how it works. if I take 2 squads of scouts, and space centurions, thats not terriably fluffy. thats actually one thing I DID like about some of the formations out there. the Gladius was (when used as part of a full battle company) broken. but at the same time it was a VERY fluffy list.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 09:52:11


    Post by: Earth127


     Peregrine wrote:
     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.


    Exactly. Perhaps 8th will finally change this, but in the past "narrative" has been a smug way of talking about how superior you are for taking a weak list that can't win in tournaments, not anything to do with telling a story. It's just presumed that if you're not playing competitively then you must be doing something else well (because it's impossible to accept that you might be bad at 40k), and "narrative" is the default option. The armies are boring and often unpainted trash, there's no story behind the game, no character development over time, etc. It's just two weak armies playing the same standard missions on the same bland terrain as the competitive players.

    And no, your list with a bunch of random units and weapons is not fluffier than a spam list. Spam lists are fluffy, because standardization is how real armies operate.


    I feel pretty confident when predicting that the people you are describing won't be playing narrative in 8th, they will probably be playing matched. The use of the word narrative in your example is a misuse (and not even by GW).


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 10:20:57


    Post by: Dakka Wolf


    icn1982 wrote:
     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.


    Seriously?

    Anyone from an RPG background (you know, a storytelling game) is going to be looking at narrative play and will be thinking this is going to be cool.

    Why wont *a lot* of RPGer be as interested in Matched/Competative play, because the game by its very nature is unbalanced (the units you have available are limited by factions). Those from an RPG background who are more interested in Min/Maxing (and believe me, RPGers can do it with the best of them) will play games like competitive MTG. Its because the game rules are balanced and every player has the same choice of cards to choose from.

    I also think you will find older/long term players jumping into narrative play simply because they will have a lot of un-optimised units and models sat on their shelves that haven't been used in years because the unit was underpowered for the 7th ed meta.


    Because the half decent storytellers from RPG backgrounds are usually poached to become GMs/DMs.
    RPG guys in my area will make very tempting offers to entice good storytellers.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 10:38:04


    Post by: icn1982


     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    icn1982 wrote:
     Dakka Wolf wrote:
    This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.


    Seriously?

    Anyone from an RPG background (you know, a storytelling game) is going to be looking at narrative play and will be thinking this is going to be cool.

    Why wont *a lot* of RPGer be as interested in Matched/Competative play, because the game by its very nature is unbalanced (the units you have available are limited by factions). Those from an RPG background who are more interested in Min/Maxing (and believe me, RPGers can do it with the best of them) will play games like competitive MTG. Its because the game rules are balanced and every player has the same choice of cards to choose from.

    I also think you will find older/long term players jumping into narrative play simply because they will have a lot of un-optimised units and models sat on their shelves that haven't been used in years because the unit was underpowered for the 7th ed meta.


    Because the half decent storytellers from RPG backgrounds are usually poached to become GMs/DMs.

    RPG guys in my area will make very tempting offers to entice good storytellers.


    Whilst that is often true (as a DM myself its not uncommon to get people wanting me to DM their games or join mine), being a DM a lot of bloody work, and often work I don't get to immerse myself in as a character. 40k allows me to put as much effort as I wish to, and actually enjoy being part of the progression of the fluff. Also, when creating it for yourself, you wont put hours of time into areas of the fluff that will never be explored (trying to get players to follow plot lines is like herding cats)


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 11:49:14


    Post by: Wayniac


    I only tend to see "narrative" to mean "not tournament" or more specifically "not bringing a list suitable for a tournament to a casual game" or to put it another way "not bringing a gun to knife fight".

    Typically the only people I see disparage narrative are the folks like Peregrine who tend to go on venom-laden rants against anything that isn't trying to game the system and bring the most optimal thing just because you are allowed to, including constantly talking about "making bad lists" "being bad at the game" and such to sound superior to the non-competitive players and put them down for NOT powergaming. A narrative player will bring mainly tactical squads (without that Gladius nonsense) because they have a fluffy army made up of a Battle Company. A competitive player will be all "Tactical Squads are garbage" or "They are a tax" and take the minimum possible to satisfy requirements, and then load up on the "most powerful" units and laugh at anyone who cares about the fluff and backstory; they approach the game solely as a competition between two people, and the setting or backstory means squat to them in most cases. I think that's normally where the disconnect ends up being; the narrative player wants to have a story about the game, while the competitive player just wants to play with minimal talk involved beyond announcing what they are doing.

    I've read Sirlin's "Playing to Win", so while I get the notion of "playing the game to win" I find that Warhammer, probably more than any other game bar historical wargaming, tends to want you to experience the entire depth of the setting not just the list building portion of it. Unlike say Warmahordes where it seems to be (or at least felt like) the opposite, in that most people don't give a hoot about the lore and only care about the balanced rules and tactically complex gameplay.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 12:16:05


    Post by: Apple fox


    Wayniac wrote:
    I only tend to see "narrative" to mean "not tournament" or more specifically "not bringing a list suitable for a tournament to a casual game" or to put it another way "not bringing a gun to knife fight".

    Typically the only people I see disparage narrative are the folks like Peregrine who tend to go on venom-laden rants against anything that isn't trying to game the system and bring the most optimal thing just because you are allowed to, including constantly talking about "making bad lists" "being bad at the game" and such to sound superior to the non-competitive players and put them down for NOT powergaming. A narrative player will bring mainly tactical squads (without that Gladius nonsense) because they have a fluffy army made up of a Battle Company. A competitive player will be all "Tactical Squads are garbage" or "They are a tax" and take the minimum possible to satisfy requirements, and then load up on the "most powerful" units and laugh at anyone who cares about the fluff and backstory; they approach the game solely as a competition between two people, and the setting or backstory means squat to them in most cases. I think that's normally where the disconnect ends up being; the narrative player wants to have a story about the game, while the competitive player just wants to play with minimal talk involved beyond announcing what they are doing.

    I've read Sirlin's "Playing to Win", so while I get the notion of "playing the game to win" I find that Warhammer, probably more than any other game bar historical wargaming, tends to want you to experience the entire depth of the setting not just the list building portion of it. Unlike say Warmahordes where it seems to be (or at least felt like) the opposite, in that most people don't give a hoot about the lore and only care about the balanced rules and tactically complex gameplay.


    One of the problems is GW have just sucked so much at fostering a narrative game. There is a lot of Fluff army that outside of being told they are Supposed to be a common tactic int he universe they are just kinda dumb, and when put into a game end up degrading the narrative rather than supporting it.
    I actually think the narrative play structure sounds awesome, and Is the first time in a long while GW have really started to support it meaningfully. But i also think that GW needs to actually think about what Narrative is under the normal game.
    An army that is only suited for a special mission should not even be considered under the rules for the standard, and they need to make sure all the different factions have a realistic base to start from.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 12:24:21


    Post by: auticus


    Wouldn't it be nice if we could accept that there are those that enjoy min/max play, and those that aren't interested in min/max play. Not because they don't know how to "git gud" or know how to break the game, but simply because its not interesting for them to do so.

    And then we could all go into our corners of the realm and play against people that are cool with that.

    Instead of trying to parade around "git gud" and calling people "bad".



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:03:14


    Post by: Elbows


    I think the real difference lies in how people enjoy the game. The sad part is that a lot of people in the gaming community assigning such a large value on winning, and that if you take poor army lists or don't crush-all-before-you that it's somehow a bad thing. In short, that not being good at a wargame actually matters (to the point of insult often, particularly here in Dakka). You can see it eking out in a few of the post above.

    i.e. "Why should I listen to you - you're not even good at the game!" kind of approach.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:20:56


    Post by: Luke_Prowler


    Both above posts are about how everyone enjoys the game in different ways, and then immediately puts the blame on competitive players. Good Job.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:31:38


    Post by: Elbows


    If that's how you read that...there's not a lot I can do for ya.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:32:05


    Post by: Backspacehacker


    True, "narrative" Is just, as said, "The kiddie pool." To be god honest, if your looking to put story into a warhammer 40k game, your not going to be playing a standard 40k Game, you either want to do a kill team, or even better a Heralds of Ruin Game. Where you are actually encouraged to make a team that has fluff and a story. The most engaging and "Role play" 40k games i played was playing a deathwing strike force of like 4 terminators and some tac marines.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:32:41


    Post by: auticus


    Not really. Calling people "bad" refers to calling competitive players "bad". Nothing is putting blame on competitive players. Its giving an instance of competitive players that do deserve to have some blame put on them though, just like the followup describes a non competitive player who deserves some blame put on them.

    Anyone calling "narrative gaming" == "kiddie pool" is trolling.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:35:26


    Post by: Backspacehacker


     auticus wrote:
    Not really. Calling people "bad" refers to calling competitive players "bad". Nothing is putting blame on competitive players. Its giving an instance of competitive players that do deserve to have some blame put on them though, just like the followup describes a non competitive player who deserves some blame put on them.

    Anyone calling "narrative gaming" == "kiddie pool" is trolling.


    Simply dismissing an argument by saying its trolling, a good point does not make.

    Narrative play, imo is going to be the same as unbound, hardly ever played, and only there for the kid that just collected models and painted them, has no idea how the game works but just wants to play with his models and make up rules on the fly.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:40:44


    Post by: auticus


    The point being that insulting a group of people is trolling. No matter how clever your response. Yes... I will dismiss a troll post.

    There are plenty of groups playing narrative play for AOS to dismiss your argument outright that no one will be using anything but matched play. There's an entire NEO group that focuses entirely on narrative event organization.

    Your echo chamber may be nothing but tournament games but that doesn't mean that there isn't a world outside of your echo chamber.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:42:17


    Post by: theocracity


     Backspacehacker wrote:


    Simply dismissing an argument by saying its trolling, a good point does not make.


    Good point. So what's your argument again?

    Narrative play, imo is going to be the same as unbound, hardly ever played, and only there for the kid that just collected models and painted them, has no idea how the game works but just wants to play with his models and make up rules on the fly.


    Oh, it's trolling.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:43:33


    Post by: hobojebus


    You have plenty of games that are co-op like zombicide but 40K is about two armies meeting and one coming out victourious.

    competative games are about winning, thats their entire point if they were not there would be no victory conditions would there?

    And people dislike weak lists because it ends in the game being a steamrolling sesion thats no fun for either side, if both sides dont have a roughly equal chance to win you can't really take any satisfaction from winning.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:46:45


    Post by: auticus


    You can easily play 40k in a more co-op version and storytelling way. Just because someone wants it to only be competitive and about min/max lists does not mean that it will always be competitive or about min/max lists.

    I've been playing narrative 40k forever. It can easily be both. And is both no matter how much someone may not want people playing in a way that they don't approve (from either side).



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:47:57


    Post by: Backspacehacker


     auticus wrote:
    The point being that insulting a group of people is trolling. No matter how clever your response. Yes... I will dismiss a troll post.

    There are plenty of groups playing narrative play for AOS to dismiss your argument outright that no one will be using anything but matched play. There's an entire NEO group that focuses entirely on narrative event organization.

    Your echo chamber may be nothing but tournament games but that doesn't mean that there isn't a world outside of your echo chamber.


    AoS != 40k albeit it does a bit more now.

    But AoS was not based upon the tournament scene as much as 40k was. When AoS was formed, its was practically a dead game so they could do what ever which if you recall the original rules to AoS was "narrative rules" IE Bring what ever you what, which practiclly shot the game in the foot at launch and resulted in GW needing to do a mad scramble to get points into the game and a matched play system because the community openly rejected the game. 40k has been established for a long LONG time and has deep roots in the competitive scene IE look up the tournaments and their draw compared to that of AoS.

    The proof that Narrative play is hardly going to be used is already evident in my response. Narrative play is going to be what unbound is now, which virtually no one plays, and the only time Narrative play was used was by people who had no structured army and just wanted to use their models.

    So, if you are assuming that do i think lesser of armies that show up that dont follow the rules of army building? That have no structure to the laid out rules? yeah i do because the rules exist for a reason. Im not going to put my matched list up against your "narrative list" of like 7 flyers because its a fluffy, and im not going to play your list of just cultists because thats now how the game was designed.

    Again, calling something a troll post does not wave a magic wand and magically make their points invalid.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:50:17


    Post by: theocracity


    hobojebus wrote:
    You have plenty of games that are co-op like zombicide but 40K is about two armies meeting and one coming out victourious.

    competative games are about winning, thats their entire point if they were not there would be no victory conditions would there?

    And people dislike weak lists because it ends in the game being a steamrolling sesion thats no fun for either side, if both sides dont have a roughly equal chance to win you can't really take any satisfaction from winning.


    If you can't find satisfaction in a hard fought but thematically appropriate loss, then Narrative gaming might not be your bag. And that's fine! Competitive gaming where both sides are trying to test their skill against each other and win is great for people who enjoy that. But understand that there are people out there who find it entertaining to play even if they're not favored to win.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:52:33


    Post by: Backspacehacker


    theocracity wrote:
    hobojebus wrote:
    You have plenty of games that are co-op like zombicide but 40K is about two armies meeting and one coming out victourious.

    competative games are about winning, thats their entire point if they were not there would be no victory conditions would there?

    And people dislike weak lists because it ends in the game being a steamrolling sesion thats no fun for either side, if both sides dont have a roughly equal chance to win you can't really take any satisfaction from winning.


    If you can't find satisfaction in a hard fought but thematically appropriate loss, then Narrative gaming might not be your bag. And that's fine! Competitive gaming where both sides are trying to test their skill against each other and win is great for people who enjoy that. But understand that there are people out there who find it entertaining to play even if they're not favored to win.


    And i agree 100% with this because i am infact one of them.

    Played ravenwing deathwing, loved my terminators but man where they ass. Still loved playing them, but i still played in matched play because thats where everyone else was playing and thats the rules that were established, and thats how i was going to play.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:52:51


    Post by: auticus


    Again, calling something a troll post does not wave a magic wand and magically make their points invalid.


    Well its kind of like finding out someone is racist or a bigot. It makes whatever comes out of that person's mouth garble. So if you insist on posting troll posts belittling others that don't share your viewpoint, feel free.

    And your viewpoints will continue to be dismissed.

    As is your echo chamber viewpoint of the world where you are trying to claim knowledge of every club that plays 40k on the globe.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:55:56


    Post by: theocracity


     Backspacehacker wrote:
     auticus wrote:
    The point being that insulting a group of people is trolling. No matter how clever your response. Yes... I will dismiss a troll post.

    There are plenty of groups playing narrative play for AOS to dismiss your argument outright that no one will be using anything but matched play. There's an entire NEO group that focuses entirely on narrative event organization.

    Your echo chamber may be nothing but tournament games but that doesn't mean that there isn't a world outside of your echo chamber.


    AoS != 40k albeit it does a bit more now.

    But AoS was not based upon the tournament scene as much as 40k was. When AoS was formed, its was practically a dead game so they could do what ever which if you recall the original rules to AoS was "narrative rules" IE Bring what ever you what, which practiclly shot the game in the foot at launch and resulted in GW needing to do a mad scramble to get points into the game and a matched play system because the community openly rejected the game. 40k has been established for a long LONG time and has deep roots in the competitive scene IE look up the tournaments and their draw compared to that of AoS.

    The proof that Narrative play is hardly going to be used is already evident in my response. Narrative play is going to be what unbound is now, which virtually no one plays, and the only time Narrative play was used was by people who had no structured army and just wanted to use their models.

    So, if you are assuming that do i think lesser of armies that show up that dont follow the rules of army building? That have no structure to the laid out rules? yeah i do because the rules exist for a reason. Im not going to put my matched list up against your "narrative list" of like 7 flyers because its a fluffy, and im not going to play your list of just cultists because thats now how the game was designed.


    Nobody's making you play against Narrative lists. The whole separation of Matched and Narrative is designed to enable that - if you enjoy Matched play only and think Narrative is stupid, then only play against people who want to play Matched.

    Again, calling something a troll post does not wave a magic wand and magically make their points invalid.


    Then maybe you should phrase your argument as 'I don't enjoy Narrative play for these reasons', not 'people who play Narrative are idiot children who can't play correctly and I pity them.' Because doing the latter is trolling and will be called out as such.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:57:02


    Post by: Backspacehacker


     auticus wrote:
    Again, calling something a troll post does not wave a magic wand and magically make their points invalid.


    Well its kind of like finding out someone is racist or a bigot. It makes whatever comes out of that person's mouth garble. So if you insist on posting troll posts belittling others that don't share your viewpoint, feel free.

    And your viewpoints will continue to be dismissed.

    As is your echo chamber viewpoint of the world where you are trying to claim knowledge of every club that plays 40k on the globe.


    Tell you what then, which part of my post was a troll post?

    The calling of narrative play the "kiddie pool"? If so then im sorry you took offense to that but being offended does not remove the point of the argument. Narrative play, which equates to unbound is just that, its lower tier version of the game because it removes rules from the established core rules. Same as unbound. The game was designed with a set of formation rules and requirments as to what you needed to bring, if you choose not to follow that, then you are choosing to partake in a dumbed down version of the game.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:58:02


    Post by: kronk


     Backspacehacker wrote:


    Narrative play, imo is going to be the same as unbound, hardly ever played, and only there for the kid that just collected models and painted them, has no idea how the game works but just wants to play with his models and make up rules on the fly.


    Matched play is for that neck beard that hangs around the shop all day, disparages people's purchases, and smells of cheetos.

    Hopefully this helped you learn to post harder and not smarter.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:58:24


    Post by: auticus


    Yep by all means continue posting insulting posts trying to hammer your point home like a rabid git-gud bruh.

    "dumber". lol.

    When you learn how to communicate without the need to flex your e-peen around we can have a proper discussion. Until then I'll just say I'm glad you are proud of your little e-jimmy. We're all impressed. I'll blog about how much I'm impressed tonight.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 13:59:22


    Post by: kronk


     Backspacehacker wrote:

    The calling of narrative play the "kiddie pool"? If so then im sorry you took offense to that but being offended does not remove the point of the argument.


    All I read was "Sorry, not sorry."

    Allow me to respond in kind.







    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:01:38


    Post by: Backspacehacker


    theocracity wrote:
     Backspacehacker wrote:
     auticus wrote:
    The point being that insulting a group of people is trolling. No matter how clever your response. Yes... I will dismiss a troll post.

    There are plenty of groups playing narrative play for AOS to dismiss your argument outright that no one will be using anything but matched play. There's an entire NEO group that focuses entirely on narrative event organization.

    Your echo chamber may be nothing but tournament games but that doesn't mean that there isn't a world outside of your echo chamber.


    AoS != 40k albeit it does a bit more now.

    But AoS was not based upon the tournament scene as much as 40k was. When AoS was formed, its was practically a dead game so they could do what ever which if you recall the original rules to AoS was "narrative rules" IE Bring what ever you what, which practiclly shot the game in the foot at launch and resulted in GW needing to do a mad scramble to get points into the game and a matched play system because the community openly rejected the game. 40k has been established for a long LONG time and has deep roots in the competitive scene IE look up the tournaments and their draw compared to that of AoS.

    The proof that Narrative play is hardly going to be used is already evident in my response. Narrative play is going to be what unbound is now, which virtually no one plays, and the only time Narrative play was used was by people who had no structured army and just wanted to use their models.

    So, if you are assuming that do i think lesser of armies that show up that dont follow the rules of army building? That have no structure to the laid out rules? yeah i do because the rules exist for a reason. Im not going to put my matched list up against your "narrative list" of like 7 flyers because its a fluffy, and im not going to play your list of just cultists because thats now how the game was designed.


    Nobody's making you play against Narrative lists. The whole separation of Matched and Narrative is designed to enable that - if you enjoy Matched play only and think Narrative is stupid, then only play against people who want to play Matched.

    Again, calling something a troll post does not wave a magic wand and magically make their points invalid.


    Then maybe you should phrase your argument as 'I don't enjoy Narrative play for these reasons', not 'people who play Narrative are idiot children who can't play correctly and I pity them.' Because doing the latter is trolling and will be called out as such.


    Your assuming i pity them.

    I dont enjoy narrative play you are right. My whole point of this is that the OP is saying that narrative play is just a way of pushing people off into a "lesser" category, is true, narrative play is that, a lesser for of the game, for the added benefit of "immersion" but again i use that lightly because majority of the time its just people who dont want to follow the normal rules and use the guise of it being "fluffy" to bring what ever they want. So not pitty, more or less irate, because it is a lesser form of the game to choose to ignore rules.

    HOWEVER!

    this is with the unbound rules which is pretty much just "Hey eye ball your points." To GW actually putting in power levels, which is what narrative play now is not as bad, since it plays more jus AoS where you dont pay for upgrades you just pay for the unit, and take what ever so it prevents the foremetioned example of someone running stupid stuff against armies that have no chance.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     kronk wrote:
     Backspacehacker wrote:

    The calling of narrative play the "kiddie pool"? If so then im sorry you took offense to that but being offended does not remove the point of the argument.


    All I read was "Sorry, not sorry."

    Allow me to respond in kind.







    Exalted good sir.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:02:26


    Post by: Luke_Prowler


     Elbows wrote:
    If that's how you read that...there's not a lot I can do for ya.

    I mean, you post DOES seems to be leveling anger at people who play the game as a game rather than as a narrative experience. Maybe I'm just projecting.

    ----

    I personally think the casual/"fluffy" players are not faultless. Sure, both players should be willing to change their list to get a game they'll enjoy, but the key words there are "both players". If the casual player refuses to change their own list and puts the onus entirely on the other guy then not negotiating, that's making demands, regardless of how willing they are to make them. And if the casual does not grow as a player or expand their interests, you can just as easily have that situation where you're seeing the same list over and over that people don't want to play anymore. This is especially true if they come to expect you to hand hold their army, then when you do beat them the accusations of OP start flying.

    That kind of behavior gets you called a scrub any almost any other gaming community. It's one thing to self limit yourself or to play with challange/fluff in mind, but don't force that on other people.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:05:37


    Post by: Backspacehacker


     auticus wrote:
    Yep by all means continue posting insulting posts trying to hammer your point home like a rabid git-gud bruh.

    "dumber". lol.

    When you learn how to communicate without the need to flex your e-peen around we can have a proper discussion. Until then I'll just say I'm glad you are proud of your little e-jimmy. We're all impressed. I'll blog about how much I'm impressed tonight.


    Welp im sorry that you feel that way, was hoping it did not need to drop down to just out right insulting each other.

    You feel your way and i feel mine i suppose.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:07:11


    Post by: auticus


    Oh jesus I just died laughing. You start off by insulting people and then end with hoping we didn't need to drop down to insulting each other.

    lmao.

    HAHAHAHA.

    Thanks for the smiles between builds. That was worth it for the entire week.



    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:09:43


    Post by: hobojebus


    Oh the militant casual is far from innocent in such a debate it's disengenuous to pretend only one side is guilty of insults toward the other.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:10:51


    Post by: theocracity


     Backspacehacker wrote:
     auticus wrote:
    Again, calling something a troll post does not wave a magic wand and magically make their points invalid.


    Well its kind of like finding out someone is racist or a bigot. It makes whatever comes out of that person's mouth garble. So if you insist on posting troll posts belittling others that don't share your viewpoint, feel free.

    And your viewpoints will continue to be dismissed.

    As is your echo chamber viewpoint of the world where you are trying to claim knowledge of every club that plays 40k on the globe.


    Tell you what then, which part of my post was a troll post?

    The calling of narrative play the "kiddie pool"? If so then im sorry you took offense to that but being offended does not remove the point of the argument. Narrative play, which equates to unbound is just that, its lower tier version of the game because it removes rules from the established core rules. Same as unbound. The game was designed with a set of formation rules and requirments as to what you needed to bring, if you choose not to follow that, then you are choosing to partake in a dumbed down version of the game.


    The trolling part was when you called people who enjoy Narrative play kids who don't know the rules. I shouldn't have to point that out.

    And guess what? In 8th edition it's the Narrative rules set and points system that's in the Core rules and presented on all the base unit data sheets, and you have to buy a separate book for Matched play points. So if anything the Narrative game is now more Core than Matched play. So there (I hope that's understood as a joke).


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:10:54


    Post by: Backspacehacker


    hobojebus wrote:
    Oh the militant casual is far from innocent in such a debate it's disengenuous to pretend only one side is guilty of insults toward the other.


    I suppose its how you take what someone else says, either by being offended by it or not is a personal issue.



    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    theocracity wrote:
     Backspacehacker wrote:
     auticus wrote:
    Again, calling something a troll post does not wave a magic wand and magically make their points invalid.


    Well its kind of like finding out someone is racist or a bigot. It makes whatever comes out of that person's mouth garble. So if you insist on posting troll posts belittling others that don't share your viewpoint, feel free.

    And your viewpoints will continue to be dismissed.

    As is your echo chamber viewpoint of the world where you are trying to claim knowledge of every club that plays 40k on the globe.


    Tell you what then, which part of my post was a troll post?

    The calling of narrative play the "kiddie pool"? If so then im sorry you took offense to that but being offended does not remove the point of the argument. Narrative play, which equates to unbound is just that, its lower tier version of the game because it removes rules from the established core rules. Same as unbound. The game was designed with a set of formation rules and requirments as to what you needed to bring, if you choose not to follow that, then you are choosing to partake in a dumbed down version of the game.


    The trolling part was when you called people who enjoy Narrative play kids who don't know the rules. I shouldn't have to point that out.

    And guess what? In 8th edition it's the Narrative rules set and points system that's in the Core rules and presented on all the base unit data sheets, and you have to buy a separate book for Matched play points. So if anything the Narrative game is now more Core than Matched play. So there


    Which i do agree in a later post that yes with the introduction of power points, narrative is lessened, and acts more like a second point system.

    its understood as a joke so you are guuci mang

    If someone is offended by something i say, thats their own prerogative, i have yet to come out and point fingers saying this guy right here is <what ever insult you want> i just think the playing of narrative or unbound is a lesser form of the game, if someone wants to take that as an insult thats their problem not mine.

    realistically we are bitching over toy soldiers and playing make pretend lol, so in the grand scheme of things.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:14:09


    Post by: theocracity


    hobojebus wrote:
    Oh the militant casual is far from innocent in such a debate it's disengenuous to pretend only one side is guilty of insults toward the other.


    Oh, sure. The internet's full of no matter what opinions they have.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:15:12


    Post by: kronk


    Let's not get heated here and fling stuff.

    Some people like narrative, some people like competitive, and some people like both. Indeed, narrative can even be competitive.

    I would like to point out that HaussVanHorne, the guy that started this thread in a very insulting manner, has not returned to post in it. Truly, he's the most narrative of all.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:16:58


    Post by: Backspacehacker


     kronk wrote:
    Let's not get heated here and fling stuff.

    Some people like narrative, some people like competitive, and some people like both. Indeed, narrative can even be competitive.

    I would like to point out that HaussVanHorne, the guy that started this thread in a very insulting manner, has not returned to post in it. Truly, he's the most narrative of all.


    WOAH WOAH WOAH! HEY! He is just role playing a troll, dont RP shame him!


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:22:19


    Post by: Luciferian


    I shouldn't be so surprised that in ten pages people still haven't figured out that their way of playing the game isn't objectively the best, as opposed to a matter of personal preference.


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:26:18


    Post by: theocracity


     Backspacehacker wrote:
    hobojebus wrote:
    Oh the militant casual is far from innocent in such a debate it's disengenuous to pretend only one side is guilty of insults toward the other.


    I suppose its how you take what someone else says, either by being offended by it or not is a personal issue.



    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    theocracity wrote:
     Backspacehacker wrote:
     auticus wrote:
    Again, calling something a troll post does not wave a magic wand and magically make their points invalid.


    Well its kind of like finding out someone is racist or a bigot. It makes whatever comes out of that person's mouth garble. So if you insist on posting troll posts belittling others that don't share your viewpoint, feel free.

    And your viewpoints will continue to be dismissed.

    As is your echo chamber viewpoint of the world where you are trying to claim knowledge of every club that plays 40k on the globe.


    Tell you what then, which part of my post was a troll post?

    The calling of narrative play the "kiddie pool"? If so then im sorry you took offense to that but being offended does not remove the point of the argument. Narrative play, which equates to unbound is just that, its lower tier version of the game because it removes rules from the established core rules. Same as unbound. The game was designed with a set of formation rules and requirments as to what you needed to bring, if you choose not to follow that, then you are choosing to partake in a dumbed down version of the game.


    The trolling part was when you called people who enjoy Narrative play kids who don't know the rules. I shouldn't have to point that out.

    And guess what? In 8th edition it's the Narrative rules set and points system that's in the Core rules and presented on all the base unit data sheets, and you have to buy a separate book for Matched play points. So if anything the Narrative game is now more Core than Matched play. So there


    Which i do agree in a later post that yes with the introduction of power points, narrative is lessened, and acts more like a second point system.

    its understood as a joke so you are guuci mang

    If someone is offended by something i say, thats their own prerogative, i have yet to come out and point fingers saying this guy right here is <what ever insult you want> i just think the playing of narrative or unbound is a lesser form of the game, if someone wants to take that as an insult thats their problem not mine.

    realistically we are bitching over toy soldiers and playing make pretend lol, so in the grand scheme of things.


    I figured we were always talking about the new iteration of Narrative play with power levels. Previously most Narrative players would use the points system, even though it was ill suited for the task. I think most of us agree that power levels are a fine compromise.

    And while I don't want to drag out an argument about something off topic, I do want to say that it really irks me when people try to abdicate responsibility for their words by treating people's reactions as something wholly separate from the statement that provoked it.

    Not that I'm pointing fingers, mind you. (see how that works? )


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:27:17


    Post by: Luke_Prowler


    Honestly, the real victim is the semi competative player, who's stuck between the choice of playing against either the soul crushing Dangle and Wolfwolf super friends list or timmy's all ogryn army :V


    "Just play Narrative..." @ 2017/05/24 14:29:12


    Post by: Janthkin


    And that's quite enough of this.