GW is pushing 3 ways to play to 40K. But I'm confused by how they are setting them apart from one another.
1) I don't see "Competitive" and "Narrative" as mutually exclusive. I always write fluff for my tournament armies. Some tourneys award points for fluff, most don't, but it is always there. I build armies to win a tourney while also keeping them looking like an army that could plausibly exist in universe, and I think most other tourney attendees do likewise.
2) Narrative games have winners. Narrative campaigns have goals and winners, too. I've never seen a narrative campaign where the outcome of games didn't matter. One thing I see frequently in Narrative play is some amount of "List Tailoring". This can take the form of making sure you are ready for the type of army your opponent brings, or underpowering your own units to give your opponent a chance, or ruthlessly min/maxing to make sure you win. List Tailoring is all about Competition, and making games "Competitive".
3) I don't understand how poorly balanced rules are good for narrative play. I've played in lots, and lots of narrative games. Far more narrative games than competitive games, and I've never found crappy balance to be an asset. When people say, "GW didn't support competitive play until 8th", I think they didn't really support narrative play either. Maybe your average narrative player doesn't speak out as vocally when GW dumps a pile of garbage rules onto their tabletop, but bad rules are just as bad in narrative play as they are in competitive player, right?
4) I don't see how the "Power Levels" are for Narrative Play. One of the challenges for building a Narrative Campaign system is setting up parameters to foster interesting games, as well as mechanics to reward victories, and punish defeats. Points are an excellent way to do that. It's been challenge to make it work in 7th because points were so badly out of balance, but still, points are in my experience the best tool to coordinate a multi-player Narrative Campaign.
5) I don't see why "Power Levels" aren't for Casual gamers. It seems like GW is terrified of vocally supporting Casual Garagehammer types. We all know this type of gamer exists, and I think GW should just support them openly, rather than try to pass something off as "Narrative" that is really about "Casual"
6) I don't understand how army Comp has anything to do with narrative play. Let me be specific with this. I see why narrative games might use their own specially designed army comp. I don't see why they need a special one from GW. Narrative play is much more about missions than armies. When it is about armies, it is about how those armies relate to the narrative, so you can't have a general purpose army comp that works well for narrative play.
7) I don't see how "Open Play" is for anyone. Don't get me wrong, I see many reasons to ignore army comp restrictions, for instance completely new players putting whatever they want on the table to play their 1st games, or an Apoc game where you don't have restrictions on force Org slots. However, that isn't "Open Play". That is "ignoring the army comp." It appears open play has its own rules and restrictions to it just like Unbound did. Nobody ever played unbound, they just ignored the rules for army comp. Sometimes they called it "Unbound", but they weren't actually using the rules and restrictions for unbound, they were just ignoring them. Wouldn't GW be better off just granting permission to ignore the rules, rather than making it a "Way to play"
8) I don't understand GW's ideology when it comes to Open Play. If you listen to their twitch feed, one thing you will hear repeated over and over and over again is "It's Open Play, Stop Me." Which is their argument for building truly dickish, unbalanced, over powered lists, and then challenging an opponent to have fun playing against it. When I think of the sort of players who should ignore army comp rules and restrictions they aren't experienced players looking to kick the crap out of an opponent with a min/maxed dickish list. At the start of 7th we had lots of people we called "Baby Seal Clubbers" that we players that claimed "Unbound" was a viable way to play, and would bring crazy OP lists to try and snag new / casual players into getting stomped. Experienced players knew better, and would just refuse to play them, but Casual / New players didn't think of that as an option. Is this GW's purpose for Open Play?
Can anyone help me better understand what GW is trying to do here?
I'll wait until June 17th before trying to understand the differences between the three kinds of games GW is providing the framework for. The cool thing here? We have the choice.
For GW, Narrative Play isn't really for building stories, but rather reliving existing stories. They're more or less pre-built scenarios with canonical winners; you're just there to experience it. It's sort of like historical re-enactments of sorts. Most likely this train of thought came from the various scenarios that appeared in supplements detailing notable battles from the narrative. In all likelihood Narrative Play will be balanced by the extra rules various factions get, rather than points. Another thing, as I understand it, is that Narrative play will be extremely restrictive in what you can bring, since it should be largely analogous to the event in question. Like say a scenario taking place in Warzone Fenris would likely involve the Thousand Sons and Space Wolves. The Space Wolves, being their planet, might get extra rules in the scenario that gives them an unfair advantage over the Sons if it were a competitive enviroment. To compensate, the Sons might be allowed to bring far more troops to the field and/or the wolves lose access to various units that could use the ability better (say they get assault from deepstrike, but only Wolf Scouts can utilize it).
Matched Play is what we all know and love. And the idea here is that even in pick up games, the two sides should be roughly equal to each other. These battles are suppose to be nondescript skirmishes between forces and to see who is a superior tactical commander when the playing field is even.
Open Play is simply for the kiddies and the compulsive buyers; we've all bought models we liked, only to regret it once we realized we need to build an entire army around them to play. This is the ultimate beer-n-pretzels version of the game, where aside from unit profiles there are no other rules. It's sort of a sandbox playground where as long as you agree with your opponent, anything goes.
Overall, these are merely "authorizations". I see how Narrative Play seems out of place among the two, but I think it's an artifact of GW's love of writing scenarios and wish to encourage that. Open Play, instead, is simply a validation of people wanting to jump straight into the game. We've all played games where we houseruled things just because we didn't want to be bothered to go through FoCs, missions, and so forth. These two "plays" is simply an official validation of the concept.
I know that the validation is merely ceremonial and not necessary, but at least this way it gives the new and casual a chance to at least expect it. Not many other types of games outside of tabletop games uses house rules this much, so newcomers will either think the veteran player is pulling a fast one, or be simply scared of going outside the rules.
Also the "Baby Seal clubbers" will always exist. It's simply a fact of life. No amount of rules will stop them, as they will either continously argue for house rules or simply start bending the rules to their breaking point (Rule-lawyers are infamous for this). GW's acceptance of Open play isn't them catering to that demographic.
Open play is, mostly, for first timers who drop into a store and pick up a few models. They don't necessarily care about how equal in points they are (or points at all), they just want to play. It's more for learning the game then anything. Open play has no real restrictions beyond the base game rules and is the simplest form of the game.
Narrative play is just that. Play a mission or a campaign and have fun with it. Narrative lets you use either form of points but leans more towards Power Levels which is just a quick way for players to figure out what they are bringing with out having to worry about every little point upgrade for their units.
Competitive would be the current form of 40k. Veterans of the game will, mostly, be playing this form of the game. There's no really need to think of it beyond that.
Power Levels are a very simple way to point out your army. It also lets you take different loadouts on units that you might not normally take and try without having to worry about moving points around on a list. I see it as a nice, quick way for a pickup game
Play the game you and your friend want to. House rules are a thing after all. Don't think too hard on it and have fun, it is a game.
Matched play is normal play.
Narrative play is for campaigns.
Casual play is for people who only have like 377 points of models or are too drunk to list-build but still want to roll some dice and have some fun.
I think the big difference is in matched play you are stuck with your list. What you have is what you have. The units, points and wargear are all set. If your kitted up for hordes and you fight knights your stuck. If you bring 2k army and someone wants to play 1500 unless you have a list for 1500 you have to rebuild your list on the fly.
Narrative play let's you quickly tailor army. You can quickly swap out wargear or add or subtract units for a particular points level. It helps minimize bad matchups and helps a lot to make pickup games more interesting and easier to play.
That may be a consequence but not the reason. List flexibility as Gloomfang dexcrivbes
Matched play is supposed to put 2 as close to equal in power armies in an envirement to duke it out. To ensure greater equality there are moer limitations and more granular list building (you pay points for everyhting.
Narrative is supposed to be all about the well narrative or story. Inequal scenarios, wonky special rules and in general fluff above gameplay. Powerlevels are meant to give a general rough notion of how powerfull a unit is suppposed to be.
also @op casual has nothing to do with narrative and this toxic attitude shut down the other thread about this.
"Casuals" are mostly people who (for several reasons ) mostly just don't have the time for the game. There is no reason they would gravitate towards the endles discusiions/ less carefully balanced scenarios from narrative. In the thread I mentioned earleir a poster made a very good point why matched and not narrative is the "easier" game. The 'level" of gameplay has little to do with the gmae mode. Matched is easier to get an equal playing field. Theoretically you only have to agree to a points limit with your opponent and the "game" takes care of the rest of the balancing act.
PLS let's kill this narrative= casual/bad player narrrative?
tag8833 wrote: GW is pushing 3 ways to play to 40K. But I'm confused by how they are setting them apart from one another.
1) I don't see "Competitive" and "Narrative" as mutually exclusive. I always write fluff for my tournament armies. Some tourneys award points for fluff, most don't, but it is always there. I build armies to win a tourney while also keeping them looking like an army that could plausibly exist in universe, and I think most other tourney attendees do likewise.
They are not mutually exclusive, but so many players are not interested in one of the other, and are antagonistic to a playstyle that is different than what they like.
2) Narrative games have winners. Narrative campaigns have goals and winners, too. I've never seen a narrative campaign where the outcome of games didn't matter. One thing I see frequently in Narrative play is some amount of "List Tailoring". This can take the form of making sure you are ready for the type of army your opponent brings, or underpowering your own units to give your opponent a chance, or ruthlessly min/maxing to make sure you win. List Tailoring is all about Competition, and making games "Competitive".
To some of us Narrative players, the victory is in playing the game and having a good time, regardless of the outcome on the tabletop. List tailoring is a thing, yes, but the point of a Narrative game is on the story, not the outcome of the battle.
3) I don't understand how poorly balanced rules are good for narrative play. I've played in lots, and lots of narrative games. Far more narrative games than competitive games, and I've never found crappy balance to be an asset. When people say, "GW didn't support competitive play until 8th", I think they didn't really support narrative play either. Maybe your average narrative player doesn't speak out as vocally when GW dumps a pile of garbage rules onto their tabletop, but bad rules are just as bad in narrative play as they are in competitive player, right?
Poorly balanced rules are not good for anyone. But just because a player can break a game in order to win doesn't meant that they should; there is an amount of respect and consideration for your opponents that need to be considered in planning and playing a proper Narrative game.
4) I don't see how the "Power Levels" are for Narrative Play. One of the challenges for building a Narrative Campaign system is setting up parameters to foster interesting games, as well as mechanics to reward victories, and punish defeats. Points are an excellent way to do that. It's been challenge to make it work in 7th because points were so badly out of balance, but still, points are in my experience the best tool to coordinate a multi-player Narrative Campaign.
Power Level is just a rough indicator for a unit's strength, and can be used for any mode of play. Think of it more as a way to build an army without spending several minutes going over points and individual upgrades - you just have your unit and you know how strong it is. Really, Power Levels are for quick pick up games. Points can still be used for Narrative games.
5) I don't see why "Power Levels" aren't for Casual gamers. It seems like GW is terrified of vocally supporting Casual Garagehammer types. We all know this type of gamer exists, and I think GW should just support them openly, rather than try to pass something off as "Narrative" that is really about "Casual"
I agree, GW should openly support all their customers, not just the competitive players that tend to dominate the conversations.
6) I don't understand how army Comp has anything to do with narrative play. Let me be specific with this. I see why narrative games might use their own specially designed army comp. I don't see why they need a special one from GW. Narrative play is much more about missions than armies. When it is about armies, it is about how those armies relate to the narrative, so you can't have a general purpose army comp that works well for narrative play.
It is giving options for players to use. There are many players who are hesitant to come up with anything or use custom, home-brewed rules for their games. Having something published and provided by GW gives those players a sense of validation, that they can start coming up with new ideas and not be shunned for it.
7) I don't see how "Open Play" is for anyone. Don't get me wrong, I see many reasons to ignore army comp restrictions, for instance completely new players putting whatever they want on the table to play their 1st games, or an Apoc game where you don't have restrictions on force Org slots. However, that isn't "Open Play". That is "ignoring the army comp." It appears open play has its own rules and restrictions to it just like Unbound did. Nobody ever played unbound, they just ignored the rules for army comp. Sometimes they called it "Unbound", but they weren't actually using the rules and restrictions for unbound, they were just ignoring them. Wouldn't GW be better off just granting permission to ignore the rules, rather than making it a "Way to play"
Unbound is not the same as Open Play; there are similarities, but even Unbound had some limitations (points values for one). Open Play is for newbies who have just a small force of models, or for someone putting together a demo game to show the basic rules. Or it is a chance to have a no-holds barred mega-Apocalypse-bring-ALL-the-models game and see what happens.
8) I don't understand GW's ideology when it comes to Open Play. If you listen to their twitch feed, one thing you will hear repeated over and over and over again is "It's Open Play, Stop Me." Which is their argument for building truly dickish, unbalanced, over powered lists, and then challenging an opponent to have fun playing against it. When I think of the sort of players who should ignore army comp rules and restrictions they aren't experienced players looking to kick the crap out of an opponent with a min/maxed dickish list. At the start of 7th we had lots of people we called "Baby Seal Clubbers" that we players that claimed "Unbound" was a viable way to play, and would bring crazy OP lists to try and snag new / casual players into getting stomped. Experienced players knew better, and would just refuse to play them, but Casual / New players didn't think of that as an option. Is this GW's purpose for Open Play?
I didn't watch their video, but I will repeat myself: Unbound is not the same as Open Play; there are similarities, but even Unbound had some limitations (points values for one). Open Play is for newbies who have just a small force of models, or for someone putting together a demo game to show the basic rules. Or it is a chance to have a no-holds barred mega-Apocalypse-bring-ALL-the-models game and see what happens.
Can anyone help me better understand what GW is trying to do here?
I hope this helps. In Age of Sigmar, all three Ways to Play work for players, but not everyone is playing them the same way.
First thing to remember is that Matched Play =/= Competitive games, and Narrative Play =/= to Casual games, and Open =/= Unbound. It will take a bit of effort to figure out just what kind of game you may want to play, but it will be worth it to look at the different game modes and give them a chance. So many people are harping on a single aspect of the different modes of play, and are becoming rude to each other over what boils how some people like to play with their little plastic toys. Let me go into my thinkings, based on my experience with Age of Sigmar...
Competitive play is for players who want to play hard and see who is the best strategist/tactician/player/dice roller. They focus on the game at hand, looking for ways to maximize their score in order to win the battle.
Casual play is for players just wanting to have a relaxing time with friends over a game. They aren't here to win, they are here to wind down, de-stress, and enjoy their gaming time.
Matched Play is a modular set of points values, army composition requirements, and other rules to give players new options on how to play their armies. It is well equipped to handle Competitive play, but that is not the only way it can be used.
Narrative Play is a modular set of rules and guidelines to give players additional ways to come up with scenario games, campaigns, or themed armies. It encourages players to take on the role or GM and organize players together to tell a story, not just focus on winning games.
Open Play is for players who just want to put down models on the table and throw down without any limitations, restrictions, or other things - just the units against other units. This can be down for special occasions or as a way to teach players the game, or even just to try out a new unit against an enemy for practice.
It's a matter of intent and what your desired experiences are from the game. If any of the items I mentioned appeal to you, then you need to look at how to use the 3 Ways to Play to how you can best enjoy your games. Want to use Matched Play points in a narrative campaign? Go for it! Want to teach a newbie how to play with a really small game? Go for it! Want to host a tournament that just uses Power Levels and just assume that everyone will bring their preferred options for the unit's upgrades? Go for it! Want to play strictly within the confines of one play mode? GO FOR IT!
It is going to take a little more effort to figure out exactly what you like, but I recommend giving it a shot. I am speaking from my experience with the 3 Ways to Play in Age of Sigmar, and I can tell you that it works great there, and is in fact my absolutely more favorite aspect of that game. The fact that GW is incorporating it into 40K is a tremendous value to the game, as it gives players more options on how to play, and will hopefully open players's eyes to the fact that there are different ways to play the game than they thought.
A little bit of context. The discussion started when it was anounced that you had to put half your army on the table in matched and people complained it broke the narrrative of their army not to be allowed all drop podding/ flyers from reserve list. OP started a new thread being angry about that.
I maintain that narrative players are filthy casuals because A) I'm a malicious person and B) lord knows that the distinction between "competitive" and "WAAC" ceased to exist on this forum many years ago, so it's only fair.
But to quicky remind people because they seem to forget:There are more differences between narrative and matched than points vs powerlevels. . The scenarios from Cities of death, planetrike, stronghold assault , etc are all narrative scenarios.
Earth127 wrote: But to quicky remind people because they seem to forget:There are more differences between narrative and matched than points vs powerlevels. . The scenarios from Cities of death, planetrike, stronghold assault , etc are all narrative scenarios.
And there are additional balancing rules in matched. Such as the "have to start with half your army on the table."
Matched play is the standard way to play 40k, and how 99.99999% of games will be played. It uses points, standard army construction rules, etc.
Narrative play replaces points with "power levels", which are just a point system that doesn't accurately reflect the value of the unit. Therefore there is no reason to use it. Some missions may in theory be for narrative play, but they will primarily be used with the point system and army construction rules of matched play.
Open play is an idiotic idea that might as well not exist. Each player buys an amount of GW models, and then the player who spent the most money wins. Nobody will ever play this, except possibly a few "casual at all costs" players who consider it a point of pride to masochistically endure the worst possible rules.
I generally agree with the OP. I'm happy for people to do as they please, but I feel the game would have been better if it was Matched only (in that Open was not codified, and the power level system didn't exist), and then support narrative gaming with campaign books like FW does, and have an in depth generic campaign system.
Narrative play replaces points with "power levels", which are just a point system that doesn't accurately reflect the value of the unit. Therefore there is no reason to use it. Some missions may in theory be for narrative play, but they will primarily be used with the point system and army construction rules of matched play.
Why is it that the "negative" crowd on here shouts so loudly about everything, and with such overflowing contempt?
I'm curious what you gained from writing this.
You could literally replace your entire post with "I'm upset!" and it would be more tolerable.
Polonius wrote: There's something to be said about doubling down on being a tool when you're called out. I guess it's a certain consistency.
How about we all agree that Peregrine's e-Peen is mighty, and we can talk about the new 40k like adults?
Nice rule #1 violation there. And how is point out 8th edition's flaws "being a tool" or not "talking about the new 40k like adults"? Pointing out that the power level system is just a worse version of the conventional points system is entirely legitimate criticism even if you don't agree with it, and it's pretty clearly true. The power level system seems to have all of the supposed flaws of conventional points, except with the added flaw that the power level of a unit doesn't account for things like choosing more powerful upgrades, having different numbers of additional models added to the unit, etc. Based on everything we've seen so far it's a badly designed mechanic that should not exist. But apparently only praise and hype are acceptable when discussing 8th...
I really don't get why people can't accept matched is going to be the standard, open is going to get zero traction and narrative used only amongst friends.
Against people you don't know its matched or nothing.
Polonius wrote: There's something to be said about doubling down on being a tool when you're called out. I guess it's a certain consistency.
How about we all agree that Peregrine's e-Peen is mighty, and we can talk about the new 40k like adults?
Nice rule #1 violation there. And how is point out 8th edition's flaws "being a tool" or not "talking about the new 40k like adults"? Pointing out that the power level system is just a worse version of the conventional points system is entirely legitimate criticism even if you don't agree with it, and it's pretty clearly true. The power level system seems to have all of the supposed flaws of conventional points, except with the added flaw that the power level of a unit doesn't account for things like choosing more powerful upgrades, having different numbers of additional models added to the unit, etc. Based on everything we've seen so far it's a badly designed mechanic that should not exist. But apparently only praise and hype are acceptable when discussing 8th...
Do you really want to hide behind rule #1? Do you think, morally, strategically, and philosophically, that deciding to suddenly adopt a concern about polite conversation is a wise choice? Maybe reflect for a minute, look at what you wrote, and think about how people are likely to react to that. Then, see the way they actually did react to it. And then ask yourself... "was what I did polite?"
Anyway,
I think power levels is a fine idea. There are plenty of events for which specific points costs simply don't matter. Slow grow leagues, campaigns, apocolypse battles, and plain old casual pick up games.
If we're running a campaign using power levels, it allows for wargear swaps between battles without redoing points, so you can take more appropriate wargear.
I think it will be a small minority of games played, but it's an option that in no way interferes with matched play.
Polonius wrote: Do you really want to hide behind rule #1? Do you think, morally, strategically, and philosophically, that deciding to suddenly adopt a concern about polite conversation is a wise choice? Maybe reflect for a minute, look at what you wrote, and think about how people are likely to react to that. Then, see the way they actually did react to it. And then ask yourself... "was what I did polite?"
I see nothing in my original comment that justifies rudeness and spammy youtube memes. If people can't deal with criticism of 8th without taking it as a personal attack then that's their problem, not mine.
I think power levels is a fine idea. There are plenty of events for which specific points costs simply don't matter. Slow grow leagues, campaigns, apocolypse battles, and plain old casual pick up games.
And I disagree about all of these. All but Apocalypse games benefit from more accurate point costs, or at least gain nothing from having less accurate point costs. I'll grant that Apocalypse games are an exception to the rule, but only because Apocalypse is not a game in any conventional sense of the term. When there's no strategy or gameplay beyond covering a table in models and then putting them back into their boxes of course point costs don't matter. But that's a thing that is much better handled by putting specific army construction rules into the Apocalypse expansion for the few masochists who are interested in them, not by integrating the system into the standard rules.
If we're running a campaign using power levels, it allows for wargear swaps between battles without redoing points, so you can take more appropriate wargear.
Alternatively, you could run the same campaign with point costs under the standard system, and just pay the appropriate points for your wargear swaps. The only time your supposed need for power levels exists is when you have a weird campaign where the units in your army can never change, but you're free to change all of their upgrades however you like and you don't make the correct choices to begin with. And even then you don't need a whole additional system to do this, you can just set the initial lists and then let people go over the point limit later in the campaign as their units get new upgrades.
I think it will be a small minority of games played, but it's an option that in no way interferes with matched play.
Of course it doesn't interfere with matched play, since you can completely ignore the power level system. But that doesn't mean that we should pretend that the power level system is a meaningful or desirable addition to the game, or refrain from criticizing it.
I also think you could play a narrative game just fine using points, or a matched game using power levels.
The way I see it, power level represents the fast way to make lists, while points represents the detailed way to make lists.
I know my Leman Russ Battle Tank is 165 as modeled, and my Leman Russ Tank Commander Vanquisher is 205 per tank.
If I get to the game store and want a pick up game, and my opponent wants to play 2500 instead of 1850 or whatever I have prepped, I go "well, I'll add in a Command Tank for 205, a regular tank for 165, and a Basilisk for 125. Tank plus Gun is just under 300, TC is just over 200, Together they're about 500.
Polonius wrote: Do you really want to hide behind rule #1? Do you think, morally, strategically, and philosophically, that deciding to suddenly adopt a concern about polite conversation is a wise choice? Maybe reflect for a minute, look at what you wrote, and think about how people are likely to react to that. Then, see the way they actually did react to it. And then ask yourself... "was what I did polite?"
I see nothing in my original comment that justifies rudeness and spammy youtube memes. If people can't deal with criticism of 8th without taking it as a personal attack then that's their problem, not mine.
You didn't write a criticism. You wrote a complaint, and made a statement about the balance of power levels without having any real evidence to support it. "I don't like it" isn't a criticism.
I see this on these forums a lot. People make super negative comments and then hide behind "oh it's criticism," like someone saying Narrative was the shallow kiddy pool, and how he was being "critical of 8th." I'm sorry but that dog won't hunt, you have *not* supplied a criticism of 8th, you've just spouted off about how you don't like narrative.
Personally I can count 5 people I play with regularly that are looking forward to the narrative power levels. Faster setup time, easy to vary the same list between games, easier to restrict powerful units, etc. And again, this is a "don't like it, don't use it."
Marmatag wrote: You didn't write a criticism. You wrote a complaint, and made a statement about the balance of power levels without having any real evidence to support it. "I don't like it" isn't a criticism.
What evidence is needed? It's self-evidently obvious that power levels are just a point system with less accuracy, and any criticism of point systems applies just as much to power levels. I don't think every post needs to get into game design 101 explanations of even the most obvious concepts before it can be considered legitimate criticism.
Faster setup time
Only by a tiny amount, only if you regularly bring enough extra models to make a new list each time, and only if you want to make up random lists before each game instead of having standard lists for standard point totals. Most of the time adding up power levels is going to take just as long as adding up point costs. The only time savings would come from using power levels as a rough approximation and not insisting that both players fit within a preset limit, but you can apply that same principle to point costs if you want to.
easy to vary the same list between games
Only in very superficial ways, since you can't swap units for other units without adding up the power levels again. And this is of marginal value, since most people will quickly figure out the optimal way to equip a unit and always bring that configuration. After all, with no difference in point costs for different upgrade choices, there's no reason to take a list where you had to make choices like "I can't afford plasma for this squad so I'm taking flamers instead" and therefore very little incentive to update the squad's equipment if something else in your list changes.
easier to restrict powerful units
Not at all. Any restriction on "no units above X power level" can work just as well as "no units above Y point cost". And that kind of restriction is rarely relevant, the total point cost of a unit is much less important than it's power relative to its point cost and that can only be restricted by imposing limits on specific units. If anything exchanging point costs for power levels makes it harder to restrict powerful units, since a unit's cost no longer represents its actual power as accurately.
Only by a tiny amount, only if you regularly bring enough extra models to make a new list each time, and only if you want to make up random lists before each game instead of having standard lists for standard point totals. Most of the time adding up power levels is going to take just as long as adding up point costs. The only time savings would come from using power levels as a rough approximation and not insisting that both players fit within a preset limit, but you can apply that same principle to point costs if you want to.
I build lists right before I play.
Especially is points are going to be off multiples of 5, then power levels will be far faster. I can know that 205+165+125 is 495 in my head, but not what 187+156+139 is.
My tank is kitted out the same way every time anyway.
I don't really see how either of those is significantly easier, especially once you start adding up a whole army worth of points and can't keep track of everything in your head. Pull out your phone and add up your points on the calculator, it's faster than trying to do it mentally and more accurate. And as a nice bonus you can use conventional points instead of having to use a less-accurate point system.
Also, power levels don't seem to be in nice neat 5-point increments. So it's not 205+165+125 vs. 187+156+139, it's more like 29+13+47 vs. 187+156+139. Adding 100 to each of the numbers you're adding up doesn't make them meaningfully harder to add.
While I agree that there's basically no reason to ever not use points unless you're REALLY in a hurry, power levels are definitely a faster way to get a pick-up-game rolling if you don't have a list handy.
It's not even about the size of the numbers you're adding up, it's how many steps you're using and how many times you're checking the rulebook. Which directly translates into how many times you have to carry, and carrying is the slowest part of doing addition by hand. Even if you're using a calculator you'll get a slight speed boost by using fewer steps, simply because you won't have to push as many buttons.
The PL math for a similar list would just be along the lines of:
CCS - 6
PCS x2 - 6
Inf x10 - 50
Conscript x2 - 20
Vendetta x3 - 14
Commissar x4 - 7
Primaris Psyker - 5
(note that these are all 7th ed numbers rather than 8th ed, the purpose is to illustrate the difference in procedure, not to create an actually valid list)
As you can see the points list has quite a few more steps. Equipment usually results in rulebook checks more often than units as well, the base cost of a unit is easier to remember because it's always relevant.
Of course, the cost of that is that the fight might end up being a good deal less balanced, since those power levels might be hiding a bit more than a few grenade launchers and missile launchers.
Personally I would prefer to still use points if at all possible, and would likely roll with a pre-made list with at most a couple sideboard options to avoid having to do the math on the spot, but if someone has different priorities than me there certainly are tangible advantages to them using power levels instead.
Matched play is the standard way to play 40k, and how 99.99999% of games will be played. It uses points, standard army construction rules, etc.
Narrative play replaces points with "power levels", which are just a point system that doesn't accurately reflect the value of the unit. Therefore there is no reason to use it. Some missions may in theory be for narrative play, but they will primarily be used with the point system and army construction rules of matched play.
Open play is an idiotic idea that might as well not exist. Each player buys an amount of GW models, and then the player who spent the most money wins. Nobody will ever play this, except possibly a few "casual at all costs" players who consider it a point of pride to masochistically endure the worst possible rules.
Wow, this manages to be both hateful AND useless, kudos kido.
Power Levels are exactly the same as the "Points" in Age of Sigmar. You pay for models in fixed "packs".
As I run a lot (And when I say a lot, I say that I run a wargames club where every saturday we have a open day for children, etc...) of games with small girls and boys, I really like this baby-point system to introduce the older ones to list building without launching them to a proper and complete point system.
I strongly disagree with you Peregrine in regard to Narrative play, but everyone can have his oppinion and tastes.
ross-128 wrote: As you can see the points list has quite a few more steps.
It doesn't really, because most of the time you have standard unit choices. You aren't buying an infantry squad at 50 points and then adding weapons, you're paying for a GL/ML squad at 70 points, a melta CCS at 100 points, etc. Once you're at all familiar with your army the number of things to add up is pretty much the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: Wow, this manages to be both hateful AND useless, kudos kido.
In my experience, Matched is for people who approach 40k as a fundamentally adversarial experience. You're there primarily to win the game and demonstrate your superior skill in list building/tactical/dice rolling. Anything that could get in the way of that- discussing changes with your opponent, tactical considerations you can't control, etc.- are inherently bad, because they get in the way of you showing up a stranger.
Narrative is a more community experience, where who wins the game is less important than the fun that's had along the way. So that's where GW has put all the interesting expansions and fun game modes- Cities of Death, the Sabotage or Meat Grinder missions, that kind of thing. Balance is a secondary concern because balance only matters if you're trying to display your comparative skill. When you're expected to work with your opponent to set up a scenario, balance is no longer important- you can ask them to not take unbalanced combos or invent new compensating rules on the fly.
This is why people like Peregrine always insist that "99.9999% of games will be Matched." If all you're looking for is a balanced competitive experience, you're going to automatically dismiss anyone who suggests otherwise. So of course you're going to think that the only people who play the game play Matched- they're the only ones who will talk to you.
Two other things I want to address: yeah, you could already do this in the rules. But having "default" narrative scenarios supported in the core rules lowers the barrier to entry significantly.
Finally, obviously power level is less balanced than points. But again, balance is not a concern in narrative, because the scenario is introducing factors that make the idea of a "balanced fight" already moot.
First I know this is a post about Age of Sigmar from a forum about Age of Sigmar, however it is a discussion that it feel is very relevant to this post. Even more so because its quite clear that nearly every person on DakkaDakka has a simplistic (and condescending) attitude towards Open Play. So read on and perhaps learn something new!
In fact if you'd like to learn more about Narrative and Open Play I'd really check out some posts on The Grand Alliance forum. It seems a little backwards but the AoS Narrative and Open Play community have been exploring this style of gaming for nearly two years and in my opinion, with greater depth and creativity than has existed in 40k for more than a decade.
Formerly Wu wrote: Balance is a secondary concern because balance only matters if you're trying to display your comparative skill.
This is utterly wrong. Balance is important in narrative games because people still expect a narrative game to have a 50/50 chance of winning for each player. It isn't much fun to play a narrative game expecting an exciting battle where the outcome is in doubt until the final heroic actions of the last surviving units, but get a one-sided slaughter where the outcome is obvious by the end of the first turn and the game ends within 2-3 turns. A balanced game makes it a lot more likely that you'll have the first kind of game, throwing out balance makes it a lot more likely that you'll get the second type.
Also, even if you believe that balance isn't as important you still aren't gaining anything by removing balance. A point system (power level) that is less accurate as a guide to a unit's value is not magically better than one that is more accurate (conventional points). Using power levels offers nothing in return for its flaws, so why would you ever want to use it?
This is why people like Peregrine always insist that "99.9999% of games will be Matched."
No, I say this based on the dismal failure of both no-points AoS and unbound 7th edition 40k. Hardly anyone plays unbound in 40k, and no-points AoS nearly killed the game before GW added a point system and more concern for balance. The facts here are obvious, most players want points and balance and have no interest in "take whatever you want" games.
Formerly Wu wrote: Balance is a secondary concern because balance only matters if you're trying to display your comparative skill.
This is utterly wrong. Balance is important in narrative games because people still expect a narrative game to have a 50/50 chance of winning for each player. It isn't much fun to play a narrative game expecting an exciting battle where the outcome is in doubt until the final heroic actions of the last surviving units, but get a one-sided slaughter where the outcome is obvious by the end of the first turn and the game ends within 2-3 turns. A balanced game makes it a lot more likely that you'll have the first kind of game, throwing out balance makes it a lot more likely that you'll get the second type.
You are making a big asssumption here: that people aren't willing to accept 40/60 or even 30/70 games. Player skill can account for that. A multi game narrative campaign can have this happen. If I know beforehand my chances of victory are slim fine, or craft a special scenario where points aren't( equal but neither are objectives. power levels aren't precise because whacky scenario rules/objectives play mmmerry havoc with balance. Also I am happy to throw in the towel on turn 3 if I have only a 10% chance winning. Much more fun to use the time to go another round.
Also, even if you believe that balance isn't as important you still aren't gaining anything by removing balance. A point system (power level) that is less accurate as a guide to a unit's value is not magically better than one that is more accurate (conventional points). Using power levels offers nothing in return for its flaws, so why would you ever want to use it?
This is why people like Peregrine always insist that "99.9999% of games will be Matched."
No, I say this based on the dismal failure of both no-points AoS and unbound 7th edition 40k. Hardly anyone plays unbound in 40k, and no-points AoS nearly killed the game before GW added a point system and more concern for balance. The facts here are obvious, most players want points and balance and have no interest in "take whatever you want" games.
You are saying 1 in million games will not be matched? I'd challenge you there. Most of the more interesting scenarios are narrative (planetstrike,cities of death,..) so people wil gravitate there. Using matched poins for a game that otherwise follows the narrative ruleset counts toward neither so breaks your 0.000001% assumption. You assume no one plays unbound because of the lack of balance? True: a battleforged list ,especially most decrurions, will trounce an unbound list like it's not even funny. And unexpectedly so.
Earth127 wrote: You are making a big asssumption here: that people aren't willing to accept 40/60 or even 30/70 games.
I'm assuming no such thing. There is no specific win percentage that is unacceptable, it's just preferable that it be closer to 50/50. While people may accept or grudgingly tolerate a 70/30 game I don't think many people will say "I like it when I only have a 30% chance of winning because the rules are poorly balanced". Improving balance improves the game, whether it's narrative or competitive.
power levels aren't precise because whacky scenario rules/objectives play mmmerry havoc with balance.
And, again, nothing is gained by removing this precision. Making the point costs of units less accurate does not improve the game at all, everything that can be done with power levels can be done better by the conventional points system.
You are saying 1 in million games will not be matched? I'd challenge you there. Most of the more interesting scenarios are narrative (planetstrike,cities of death,..) so people wil gravitate there. Using matched poins for a game that otherwise follows the narrative ruleset counts toward neither so breaks your 0.000001% assumption. You assume no one plays unbound because of the lack of balance? True: a battleforged list ,especially most decrurions, will trounce an unbound list like it's not even funny. And unexpectedly so.
Sigh. Is nitpicking the exact number of 9s I wrote with "it's not literally 1 in a million" really the best argument you have? Whether it's 99.999999% or 99.99% or 95% or whatever it happens to be, the unavoidable truth is that no-points AoS and unbound 40k were both overwhelmingly rejected by the players as soon as they were released, and never found any acceptance.
Open play is this thing that doesn't really exist and no one has ever or will ever play. No one really knows why it's talked about and the only people who think it's a thing are GW themselves.
Earth127 wrote: You are making a big asssumption here: that people aren't willing to accept 40/60 or even 30/70 games.
I'm assuming no such thing. There is no specific win percentage that is unacceptable, it's just preferable that it be closer to 50/50. While people may accept or grudgingly tolerate a 70/30 game I don't think many people will say "I like it when I only have a 30% chance of winning because the rules are poorly balanced". Improving balance improves the game, whether it's narrative or competitive.
I beg to differ on Grudgingly Tolerate.
Yes I love being the 300 Spartans vs the 250,000 Persians a lot and we have a few in our local area who do the same thing. This goes with most of Table Top Game Players around here that I play with. After years of playing against Ultra-Competitive and WAAC (and I was one of those WAAC Players) we all sat around one day talking and found we were not having fun playing that way. Currently there is only about 4 of us still living in the area who play, but we went from 'Lets See Who Can Build The Best List' (and by that meaning spending more time making the list that actually playing the game) to 'Lets Just Have Fun And Play What We Want And Not Worry About It'.
What do we do with those who are Ultra-Competitive and WAAC...nothing. They will either quit playing with us because we take the game to Seriously or start to play the way we do, for fun and take the Ultra-Competitive and WAAC attitudes to Competition.
That is not to say we are not competitive is wrong, but the stakes are lower, it is about bragging rights and who takes care of the Pizza Tip. We have not had a rage quit in...a decade so I think we are doing something right.
I've been a narrative player most of my life with the exception of a decade of competitive WAAC play for a decade.
Most of the narrative guys I play with are ok wtih scenarios not being wholly balanced.
The only ones that pitch a fit are the competitive guys.
I find the truly competitive guys are as numerous as the narrative guys. That is - all the minority. The majority I've experienced don't give much of a damn and just want to have a game. The extreme ends of the spectrums are the very vocal ones however.
Earth127 wrote: You are making a big asssumption here: that people aren't willing to accept 40/60 or even 30/70 games.
I'm assuming no such thing. There is no specific win percentage that is unacceptable, it's just preferable that it be closer to 50/50. While people may accept or grudgingly tolerate a 70/30 game I don't think many people will say "I like it when I only have a 30% chance of winning because the rules are poorly balanced". Improving balance improves the game, whether it's narrative or competitive.
"people my accept or grudgingly tolerate" I think you ment to say I in that statement. While I do agree that balane helps it doesn't have to be an exact thing especially when it can be if I want it to be.
power levels aren't precise because whacky scenario rules/objectives play mmmerry havoc with balance.
And, again, nothing is gained by removing this precision. Making the point costs of units less accurate does not improve the game at all, everything that can be done with power levels can be done better by the conventional points system.
It works good for people who don't want to micromanage every point in an army list
You are saying 1 in million games will not be matched? I'd challenge you there. Most of the more interesting scenarios are narrative (planetstrike,cities of death,..) so people wil gravitate there. Using matched poins for a game that otherwise follows the narrative ruleset counts toward neither so breaks your 0.000001% assumption. You assume no one plays unbound because of the lack of balance? True: a battleforged list ,especially most decrurions, will trounce an unbound list like it's not even funny. And unexpectedly so.
Sigh. Is nitpicking the exact number of 9s I wrote with "it's not literally 1 in a million" really the best argument you have? Whether it's 99.999999% or 99.99% or 95% or whatever it happens to be, the unavoidable truth is that no-points AoS and unbound 40k were both overwhelmingly rejected by the players as soon as they were released, and never found any acceptance.
The problem is less that you are pointing out the flaws of open/narrative/power levels and more that you are complaining that they even exist as if their mere existance will force you to us them.
Well, as for myself, part of me is standing with those who prefer Narrative/Open-Play side of the game. This was the method where I started wargaming, and I usually participate on these level game. To support this kind of gaming, there are story-written campaigns, model conversions, mixing real-life battles or warzones into miniatures gaming. Best of what happened this way to me was that I got my Steel Legion army built and painted, mixing with real life colour scheme and some conversion work done with wicked mixture of real weapons etc.
On the other hand, I support tournament gaming, to the certain point of limits. I'm not the fan of those deathstar units, but I do find tournament armies with a good theme very pleasing. For example, when wh40k was at 4th or 5th edition, I tried to play with full company of marines, drop podding with out proper figure for it. And of course it didn't work
Editions come and go, kind of a sad thing, but understood that balance has to maintained.
Anpu42 wrote: Yes I love being the 300 Spartans vs the 250,000 Persians a lot and we have a few in our local area who do the same thing.
Sure, you like being the 300 Spartans, when it is a balanced game. IOW, when the 300 Spartans have enough of an advantage from their defensive position that it's a 50/50 game whether or not they can hold out long enough to accomplish their strategic goal of delaying the Persian force. Nobody has any fun when the 300 Spartans fight the 250,000 Persians on an open field and die in one turn to a barrage of arrows. And balance is what gets you those 50/50 games.
auticus wrote: I've been a narrative player most of my life with the exception of a decade of competitive WAAC play for a decade.
Most of the narrative guys I play with are ok wtih scenarios not being wholly balanced.
The only ones that pitch a fit are the competitive guys.
I find the truly competitive guys are as numerous as the narrative guys. That is - all the minority. The majority I've experienced don't give much of a damn and just want to have a game. The extreme ends of the spectrums are the very vocal ones however.
Sounds about right to me. My group falls in the middle, although we're moving towards narrative based. Playing the game is far more important than winning. And I personally don't have fun if my opponent doesn't have fun. Removing the pressure to win, and a perfectly balanced game, helps people relax.
It's not for everyone. I openly admit that. But it IS for me, and i'm excited, no matter how squarely that fits me into the kiddy pool.
Anpu42 wrote: Yes I love being the 300 Spartans vs the 250,000 Persians a lot and we have a few in our local area who do the same thing.
Sure, you like being the 300 Spartans, when it is a balanced game. IOW, when the 300 Spartans have enough of an advantage from their defensive position that it's a 50/50 game whether or not they can hold out long enough to accomplish their strategic goal of delaying the Persian force. Nobody has any fun when the 300 Spartans fight the 250,000 Persians on an open field and die in one turn to a barrage of arrows. And balance is what gets you those 50/50 games.
So include a defensive position in the scenario? It's not that hard dude.
Formerly Wu wrote: Balance is a secondary concern because balance only matters if you're trying to display your comparative skill.
This is utterly wrong. Balance is important in narrative games because people still expect a narrative game to have a 50/50 chance of winning for each player.
You would know this is not the case if you actually played narrative games, not "matched, but with some fluff." Unequal scenarios- or scenarios where the forces are uneven but the objectives are assymetrical, or where scenario rules make up the difference- are the entire point of narrative play, and they simply cannot be easily squared with a point-based, competitive balance mindset.
This is why people like Peregrine always insist that "99.9999% of games will be Matched."
No, I say this based on the dismal failure of both no-points AoS and unbound 7th edition 40k. Hardly anyone plays unbound in 40k, and no-points AoS nearly killed the game before GW added a point system and more concern for balance. The facts here are obvious, most players want points and balance and have no interest in "take whatever you want" games.
Thus, the power level system. Avoids "take whatever you want," allows an easy way to eyeball the relative strength of armies without the hassle and restrictions of matched play.
ERJAK wrote: So include a defensive position in the scenario? It's not that hard dude.
You're missing the point completely there. Obviously you include a defensive position, but the point is that even when you say "300 Spartans vs. 250,000 Persians" you aren't talking about playing a one-sided massacre where the Persians have a 800:1 advantage in power like playing a 300 points vs. 250,000 points game of 40k. You're talking about a game where the scenario has been designed so that both sides have an equal chance of winning. Whether that's through limiting the number of Persians that can attack at once, giving the Spartans powerful fortification bonuses, etc, the end result is the same. You create a balanced 50/50 game, and the scenario isn't going to be much fun if you fail to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formerly Wu wrote: they simply cannot be easily squared with a point-based, competitive balance mindset.
Then 8th edition's "narrative" mode is going to be a complete failure, because it's a point-based competitive balance system. The only difference between matched play and narrative is that the points are less accurate in matched play. Anything that can be done with power levels can be done better by conventional points.
Playing a forlorn hope can be fun even if it isn't 50/50. Just seeing how long you can last with tactical tricks versus a superior force is entertaining and a challenge.
But regardless, why shouldn't GW suggest a few different ways to play? Might spark something in someone to bump up the enjoyment, even if only 1 of the ways is ever likely to get much playtime.
Flinty wrote: Playing a forlorn hope can be fun even if it isn't 50/50. Just seeing how long you can last with tactical tricks versus a superior force is entertaining and a challenge.
Very much so, but how does having a well balanced point system change that?
You could make a scenario where your opponent has ten times the points you have in your Forlorn Hope. But if the points system is so skewed that your outnumbered force is actually stronger on the table top than your opponents how is that better?
If players are making up their own scenarios in narrative play they can make better choices with a balanced point system. Would you like a system that had those 300 Spartans tabling all 250k Trojans by the end of Turn 2?
Formerly Wu wrote: they simply cannot be easily squared with a point-based, competitive balance mindset.
Then 8th edition's "narrative" mode is going to be a complete failure, because it's a point-based competitive balance system. The only difference between matched play and narrative is that the points are less accurate in matched play. Anything that can be done with power levels can be done better by conventional points.
Peregrine, all respect because I know you're a smart guy, but it reads like you're not actually considering my argument here. Just because you and the people you play with have a certain expectation of what makes a fun game does not make your position the 99% default.
Narrative, as designed, is not a points-based competitive balanced game mode. Appeoaching it like it is is doomed to failure. If you want to stick to Matches, which [i]is[\i]
that, great! But talking down to the many people who don't is rude and unfactual.
Formerly Wu wrote: Narrative, as designed, is not a points-based competitive balanced game mode.
In 40k 8th edition it indisputably is. The power level system is a point system, period. The only difference between power levels and conventional points is that GW has deliberately made power levels a bad point system by ignoring major parts of a unit's value. Any criticism that applies to the conventional point system applies just as much to power levels.
I think people is here discussing about two complete different topics:
The first one is about the Narrative play, caracterized normally for scenarios with more diverse conditions both ambiental and to win or lose, normally for the capacity to make campaings or connect scenarios in a way that the outcome of one affects the other, changing some conditions or units stats, more diverse rules and in general freedom for the players to properly reflect the history of the setting, where variety is more valued than pure balance, etc, etc...
And the second one: Peregrine is arguing about how the Power Level system is just a Point system-little that is objetively worse in everyting besides speed and how easy it is to learn to a proper and complete point system.
I can agree with the second point, but to say that narrative play is inviable because the Power Level, is ignoring completely what is really narrative play, and the fact that it can fuction with a point system, a Power Level system, or with not points at all.
In 40k 8th edition it indisputably is. The power level system is a point system, period. The only difference between power levels and conventional points is that GW has deliberately made power levels a bad point system by ignoring major parts of a unit's value. Any criticism that applies to the conventional point system applies just as much to power levels.
Only if they are used for the same purpose. Which they emphatically are not. Competitive balance is not the purpose of power levels.
You can use points in Narrative play if you want. But because Narrative features inherent and un-anticipatable imbalances based on the whims and strange rules interactions of its format, you're going to encounter situations where a points system is unwieldy, too granular, or inhibiting to the kind of story you want to tell. Thus, power levels.
This is my last post on the subject, because otherwise I feel we're going in circles. If I haven't convinced you, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Galas wrote: I can agree with the second point, but to say that narrative play is inviable because the Power Level, is ignoring completely what is really narrative play, and the fact that it can fuction with a point system, a Power Level system, or with not points at all.
You're making the mistake of confusing narrative play in the sense of playing story-based games with Narrative Play, one of the three modes of playing 8th edition rules-wise. And you can't ignore the power level issue because the primary defining attribute of Narrative Play compared to matched play is the use of power levels.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formerly Wu wrote: Only if they are used for the same purpose. Which they emphatically are not. Competitive balance is not the purpose of power levels.
You're making the mistake of assuming that competitive balance is some special form of balance. It isn't. Balance is balance, period. The same balance that makes competitive play better is also good for narrative/casual games.
You can use points in Narrative play if you want. But because Narrative features inherent and un-anticipatable imbalances based on the whims and strange rules interactions of its format, you're going to encounter situations where a points system is unwieldy, too granular, or inhibiting to the kind of story you want to tell. Thus, power levels.
And the point you keep missing is that power levels are a point system. Don't buy the GW hype that power levels are somehow a new way of building armies, they're just a badly-designed point system that fails to give an accurate evaluation of a unit's power. Any situation where power levels can be used can be done better by conventional points, and any criticism of conventional points applies just as strongly to power levels. Absolutely nothing is gained by going from conventional points to power levels.
Here's the thing-a balanced system is better, EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT A BALANCED GAME. Because, in a balanced system, you can identify and plan for intentional imbalances. In an unbalanced system, you just have to hope.
Then 8th edition's "narrative" mode is going to be a complete failure, because it's a point-based competitive balance system. The only difference between matched play and narrative is that the points are less accurate in matched play. Anything that can be done with power levels can be done better by conventional points.
According to the manager of my FLGWS, the narrative mode isn't designed *for* you.
It's been designed for persons who struggle with the concept of matched play entirely, as a consequence of physical or mental impairments. This is a non-trivial demographic of GW customers, at least in the UK. GW stores are often venues that carers bring their charges. The example he cited was an AS spectrum chap who was entirely incapable of grasping the concept of not following the CAD despite having bought the wrong models by following someone else's advice on what to buy, and refusing to acknowledge the staff's attempt to correct his information.
Now you're free to withhold your participation based on disability (which at times is entirely appropriate), but in the UK at least there are some fairly strict laws which limit GW's ability to do so. That they're taking an actual pro-active step in designing a component of 40k specifically for the impaired in response to customer and manager feedback should probably be commended - if that's actually true.
So i'd suggest bitching about narrative is the same as bitching about closed captions for the hearing impaired. It's not for you so just turn it off
Hmm, I had been scratching my head over "why are they making a big deal out of formalizing something that people who didn't care for points probably already houseruled?"
It didn't occur to me that they might want to offer an option for people who couldn't handle the math of points and couldn't understand the idea of a houserule, whether due to age or disability. Could be useful for, say, a parent playing a game with their kids. (Just tell the spouse it's an educational game, you're teaching them math!)
I will say though, the "what if I WANT the game to be unbalanced?" argument is kind of silly. If you really want to be at a disadvantage, just let your opponent bring more points than you.
ross-128 wrote: Hmm, I had been scratching my head over "why are they making a big deal out of formalizing something that people who didn't care for points probably already houseruled?"
It didn't occur to me that they might want to offer an option for people who couldn't handle the math of points and couldn't understand the idea of a houserule, whether due to age or disability. Could be useful for, say, a parent playing a game with their kids. (Just tell the spouse it's an educational game, you're teaching them math!)
I will say though, the "what if I WANT the game to be unbalanced?" argument is kind of silly. If you really want to be at a disadvantage, just let your opponent bring more points than you.
Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
ross-128 wrote: Hmm, I had been scratching my head over "why are they making a big deal out of formalizing something that people who didn't care for points probably already houseruled?"
It didn't occur to me that they might want to offer an option for people who couldn't handle the math of points and couldn't understand the idea of a houserule, whether due to age or disability. Could be useful for, say, a parent playing a game with their kids. (Just tell the spouse it's an educational game, you're teaching them math!)
I will say though, the "what if I WANT the game to be unbalanced?" argument is kind of silly. If you really want to be at a disadvantage, just let your opponent bring more points than you.
Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
My point was that people in the "can handle the math but just don't want it" category likely already houseruled the math away, so it was a bit odd for GW to roll out the carpet and fanfare for "We're officially endorsing house rules!"
ross-128 wrote: Hmm, I had been scratching my head over "why are they making a big deal out of formalizing something that people who didn't care for points probably already houseruled?"
It didn't occur to me that they might want to offer an option for people who couldn't handle the math of points and couldn't understand the idea of a houserule, whether due to age or disability. Could be useful for, say, a parent playing a game with their kids. (Just tell the spouse it's an educational game, you're teaching them math!)
I will say though, the "what if I WANT the game to be unbalanced?" argument is kind of silly. If you really want to be at a disadvantage, just let your opponent bring more points than you.
Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
My point was that people in the "can handle the math but just don't want it" category likely already houseruled the math away, so it was a bit odd for GW to roll out the carpet and fanfare for "We're officially endorsing house rules!"
Why is it odd? Isn't that sort of a big deal? Making every possible iteration of 40k officially endorsed by GW?
Anpu42 wrote: Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
So, to avoid dealing with the math you embrace a point system (power levels) with the same kind of math, just with less accurate numbers to add up. Makes sense to me...
Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
And if you think about it, this was the approach Apocalypse took anyway.
I look at it like Stairs, Wheelchair Ramp, Elevator, as someone without mobility impairments:
Unless there's a reason not to, i'll take the stairs - Matched Play
There are days when it's too hot to get all fussed and bothered climbing up a flight of stairs in blazing heat, so i'll take the ramp - Power Levels
There are days when I have a crate of stuff to move up 5 floors so i'll take the elevator - Narrative, also apocalypse to stretch the metaphor a bit.
They're opening it up to people who could not otherwise get into 40k by offering them 3 different ways to *access* the core of the game we enjoy, which is moving models and rolling dice. Seeing as with the assistance of a carer, and indeed by an accommodating opponent, mobility impairments preventing those two can be mitigated. The intellectual component was the last remaining hurdle for making 40k and its derivatives open to literally anyone who could see and comprehend the position of models and the outcome of dice.
Consider also that they've been trying to accomodate everyone, at the same time, with the same equipment, whilst seeking a profit. I'd suggest it's why we ended up with the mess we got.
My point was that people in the "can handle the math but just don't want it" category likely already houseruled the math away, so it was a bit odd for GW to roll out the carpet and fanfare for "We're officially endorsing house rules!"
Which, incidentally, means you can now use house rules in a GW store so long as you use their models without there being any formal prevention from doing so - just take a look in YMDC to see how hot people get about 'where is it written?' to understand why this might be a big deal.
This seems obvious but i've been in less well managed stores where it was a point of contention by the staff - and also screaming by a person who was obviously very disturbed by the concept until it was explained to him (by, as it happens, a very well trained GW staffer).
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
It reinforces the narrative the WAAC players are preaching that anyone not playing their way is weak. That explanation will be used to attack Narrative and Casual players in the future.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
It reinforces the narrative the WAAC players are preaching that anyone not playing their way is weak. That explanation will be used to attack Narrative and Casual players in the future.
I already have several cutting remarks ready that i can't share here without breaking rule 1 but irl oh it'll be sweet.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
You know you can run a narrative campaign with full points, right?
Power Levels != Narrative, so you can untwist your panties.
There are numerous reasons why someone might want to use Power Levels instead of Points, or even forego listbuilding entirely in favor of just tossing models on the table. Maybe they're trying to simplify things for a child or disabled person. Maybe they just don't care about the details and just don't want to put as much work into it. Maybe they don't have a list handy and they're in a hurry to throw something together for a pick-up game. Just because it might have utility for one of those reasons, doesn't mean that any of those are the ONLY reason.
But "they want to play a campaign" is not one of those reasons, because you can play a campaign with points just fine. You can also play a campaign without points of course, that's up to you and the people you're playing with, even if doing so would be like playing Dark Heresy without EXP.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
That's a fair point. What it does do, though, is lower the barrier for entry. I've set up a bunch of narrative scenarios or campaigns in my time, and they all involve a lot of spitballing relative power, negotiating with what players want, and making emergency adjustments when things inevitably turn out mistuned for whatever reason. Having "standard" narrative scenarios that can be built upon, and with costed Stratagems to give guidelines and control over special effects, will provide structure for whatever someone wants to run, whether they want to use points or power levels.
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that
But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
On the inverse, this exact reaction is why GW could never have marketed it as such if they wanted to provide a means for those of diminished capacity to enjoy the game without being walled off in their own little corner by default. At least with a standardised open play method there's a *chance* that anyone will be willing to play at that level.
It reinforces the narrative the WAAC players are preaching that anyone not playing their way is weak. That explanation will be used to attack Narrative and Casual players in the future.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
You know you can run a narrative campaign with full points, right?
Power Levels != Narrative, so you can untwist your panties.
There are numerous reasons why someone might want to use Power Levels instead of Points, or even forego listbuilding entirely in favor of just tossing models on the table. Maybe they're trying to simplify things for a child or disabled person. Maybe they just don't care about the details and just don't want to put as much work into it. Maybe they don't have a list handy and they're in a hurry to throw something together for a pick-up game. Just because it might have utility for one of those reasons, doesn't mean that any of those are the ONLY reason.
But "they want to play a campaign" is not one of those reasons, because you can play a campaign with points just fine. You can also play a campaign without points of course, that's up to you and the people you're playing with, even if doing so would be like playing Dark Heresy without EXP.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
Where have I mentioned even one time "Power Levels" in my response? You have put words in my mouth that I haven't say to refute them? I don't understand what do you mean to say by "you can untwist your panties". I assume it was some snarky comment, but as I said, I haven't in any moment make the "Power levels=Narrative" assertion.
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that
But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
On the inverse, this exact reaction is why GW could never have marketed it as such if they wanted to provide a means for those of diminished capacity to enjoy the game without being walled off in their own little corner by default. At least with a standardised open play method there's a *chance* that anyone will be willing to play at that level.
It reinforces the narrative the WAAC players are preaching that anyone not playing their way is weak. That explanation will be used to attack Narrative and Casual players in the future.
This is almost certainly the case sadly :\
Well, I like to answer in a forum debate where I'm part of it You shouldn't assume I have been offended just because I respond to you.
And about your second point, I'll just say that, if you want to believe that, you are in your total right. I can see, obviously, how Open play is more appropiate to people with some mental dissabilities. But to say that is his "primary" market , or the group of people they had in mind at the time of doing it... to me making a very big jump.
Are you saying that GW threated all of Warhammer Fantasy players as dissabled people? Because "Open Play" was the only one game mode of AoS for a full year.
I don't think 'why' gw did it is such a big deal here. Maybe it is for intellectually disabled players, maybe not.
I'm more interested in 'what' they've done, and what they've done isn't really much. They've officially endorsed people's abilities to not follow the rules, or use simplified points values when they play. Which people were (hopefully) capable of doing already, and most likely were doing when playing with like-minded people. I don't see it as having any sort of noticeable affect on people's gaming, i think it'll be business as usual for 99/100 players. The whole thing strikes me as a brief drizzle in a teacup.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
You know you can run a narrative campaign with full points, right?
Power Levels != Narrative, so you can untwist your panties.
There are numerous reasons why someone might want to use Power Levels instead of Points, or even forego listbuilding entirely in favor of just tossing models on the table. Maybe they're trying to simplify things for a child or disabled person. Maybe they just don't care about the details and just don't want to put as much work into it. Maybe they don't have a list handy and they're in a hurry to throw something together for a pick-up game. Just because it might have utility for one of those reasons, doesn't mean that any of those are the ONLY reason.
But "they want to play a campaign" is not one of those reasons, because you can play a campaign with points just fine. You can also play a campaign without points of course, that's up to you and the people you're playing with, even if doing so would be like playing Dark Heresy without EXP.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
Where have I mentioned even one time "Power Levels" in my response? You have put words in my mouth that I haven't say to refute them? I don't understand what do you mean to say by "you can untwist your panties". I assume it was some snarky comment, but as I said, I haven't in any moment make the "Power levels=Narrative" assertion.
The fact that you didn't mention Power Levels is exactly the problem. You jumped into a discussion about how Power Levels are just dumbed-down points to rant about how narrative campaigns aren't dumbed down, completely out of context. So who's putting words in whose mouth, then? At best, you have just managed to completely miss the point by jumping to the defense of something that wasn't even being discussed. At worst, you tried to pull a switcheroo by taking a criticism of Power Levels and trying to frame it as a criticism of campaigns, which are something completely different.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
You know you can run a narrative campaign with full points, right?
Power Levels != Narrative, so you can untwist your panties.
There are numerous reasons why someone might want to use Power Levels instead of Points, or even forego listbuilding entirely in favor of just tossing models on the table. Maybe they're trying to simplify things for a child or disabled person. Maybe they just don't care about the details and just don't want to put as much work into it. Maybe they don't have a list handy and they're in a hurry to throw something together for a pick-up game. Just because it might have utility for one of those reasons, doesn't mean that any of those are the ONLY reason.
But "they want to play a campaign" is not one of those reasons, because you can play a campaign with points just fine. You can also play a campaign without points of course, that's up to you and the people you're playing with, even if doing so would be like playing Dark Heresy without EXP.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
Where have I mentioned even one time "Power Levels" in my response? You have put words in my mouth that I haven't say to refute them? I don't understand what do you mean to say by "you can untwist your panties". I assume it was some snarky comment, but as I said, I haven't in any moment make the "Power levels=Narrative" assertion.
The fact that you didn't mention Power Levels is exactly the problem. You jumped into a discussion about how Power Levels are just dumbed-down points to rant about how narrative campaigns aren't dumbed down, completely out of context. So who's putting words in whose mouth, then? At best, you have just managed to completely miss the point by jumping to the defense of something that wasn't even being discussed. At worst, you tried to pull a switcheroo by taking a criticism of Power Levels and trying to frame it as a criticism of campaigns, which are something completely different.
Ehm... no. I jumped into a discussion about how "Narrative play" is useless because Power Levels are just Points-little to say that "Narrative play" brings more rules to the table that just the change of points for Power Levels. I didn't intend to defend Power Levels in any shape or form. They are what they are, and they have the advantages they have.
As is obvious by my flag, English isn't my native lenguage, so maybe i haven't made my original point clear enough. I apologize for that. Personally I'll prefer if we just put asside all this hostile tone, please.
It's funny that one of the biggest things people hold up is that points will be 'more balanced' than powerlevels, and the accompanying hyposthesis that 'matched play' will be more balanced than narrative or open, which is silly.
There is a core, fundamental difference between 'matched play' and narrative play which is what the point of playing the game actually is. Matched play games are played for the sake of winning. Applying your game skill against your opponent and chasing victory, which is quite a lot of fun most of the time. Narrative games are played for the sake of seeing what happens, of being able to walk away from the table with a story to tell; winning is just how you know that particular story is finished. Nothing more.
And because of this fundamental difference in what you're trying to get out of the game, Narrative will always be more balanced than matched no matter what comp system you use. Narrative games self correct because an even battle is ALWAYS more interesting and dramatic than a sportless slaughter. If one side turns out to have a clear advantage, people playing a narrative game will adjust it, often during the game to balance it out and make it more interesting. Because that's the entire point of what they're doing.
Matched play, on the other hand, is about winning and part of that is finding as many advantages as you possibly can. The whole purpose of building a competitive list is to break the point system as much as you can in your favor. Even if taking the absolute most efficient army only gives you a 10% boost in power relative to the baseline value, you've still created an imbalance in your favor, which again is the entire point of matched play.
I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
Torga_DW wrote: I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
Thats why Warhammer has never been a narrative ruleset.
ERJAK wrote: It's funny that one of the biggest things people hold up is that points will be 'more balanced' than powerlevels, and the accompanying hyposthesis that 'matched play' will be more balanced than narrative or open, which is silly.
There is a core, fundamental difference between 'matched play' and narrative play which is what the point of playing the game actually is. Matched play games are played for the sake of winning. Applying your game skill against your opponent and chasing victory, which is quite a lot of fun most of the time. Narrative games are played for the sake of seeing what happens, of being able to walk away from the table with a story to tell; winning is just how you know that particular story is finished. Nothing more.
And because of this fundamental difference in what you're trying to get out of the game, Narrative will always be more balanced than matched no matter what comp system you use. Narrative games self correct because an even battle is ALWAYS more interesting and dramatic than a sportless slaughter. If one side turns out to have a clear advantage, people playing a narrative game will adjust it, often during the game to balance it out and make it more interesting. Because that's the entire point of what they're doing.
Matched play, on the other hand, is about winning and part of that is finding as many advantages as you possibly can. The whole purpose of building a competitive list is to break the point system as much as you can in your favor. Even if taking the absolute most efficient army only gives you a 10% boost in power relative to the baseline value, you've still created an imbalance in your favor, which again is the entire point of matched play.
Have an exalt, sir.
I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
I believe you have those switched around. The objective of the game is often to win, but that is not the point of playing it. Neither is it the only possible objective.
I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
I believe you have those switched around. The objective of the game is often to win, but that is not the point of playing it. Neither is it the only possible objective.
You know, i believe i have. I'd be interested in hearing some other possible objectives to a pvp game? I'm only seeing win, lose and draw here unless we're talking campaign games.
I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
I believe you have those switched around. The objective of the game is often to win, but that is not the point of playing it. Neither is it the only possible objective.
You know, i believe i have. I'd be interested in hearing some other possible objectives to a pvp game? I'm only seeing win, lose and draw here unless we're talking campaign games.
See? Narrative play is obviously not what you're interested in so you can play Matched exclusively and have a game mode that is tuned for what you find most enjoyable to the game. Your focus is heavily on W/L/D and that's fine, it's an important and legitimate way to play the game. Just remember that plenty of people don't even bother to tally totals at the end of games and have plenty of enjoyment from their time.
So rather than provide an example you've instead made an assumption about me (that is fairly inaccurate). Anything that is pvp will end in a w/l/d. That's a simple fact, unless you count having to leave early or a plane crashing on top of you. Narrative play still has w/l/d with w as the objective, even if the players don't care who wins. That's just the nature of the game.
malamis wrote: The intellectual component was the last remaining hurdle for making 40k and its derivatives open to literally anyone who could see and comprehend the position of models and the outcome of dice.
Uh, what? That doesn't make sense, at all. If someone has such a significant intellectual disability that they can't do the basic math of adding up point costs there's zero chance of them being able to understand the rest of the rules well enough to play the game. And if you have an experienced player standing there translating "make my stabby thing stab their monster" into all the rules and dice to roll then the helper can easily take over the token effort of building a list. The idea of making a poorly-balanced point system for "narrative" play has nothing to do with disability accommodations, it's just one more event in a long history of GW endorsing "casual at all costs" attitudes in their design principles.
I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
I believe you have those switched around. The objective of the game is often to win, but that is not the point of playing it. Neither is it the only possible objective.
You know, i believe i have. I'd be interested in hearing some other possible objectives to a pvp game? I'm only seeing win, lose and draw here unless we're talking campaign games.
Fun game/non-fun game. Get 1st one and it's good game, get 2nd one, it was bad game. Win or lose irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tag8833 wrote: 1) I don't see "Competitive" and "Narrative" as mutually exclusive. I always write fluff for my tournament armies. Some tourneys award points for fluff, most don't, but it is always there. I build armies to win a tourney while also keeping them looking like an army that could plausibly exist in universe, and I think most other tourney attendees do likewise.
Narrative!=fluff for army. Fluff for army helps but what matters is story in the game.
Our games involve different companies often in each game. This time it's 5th company of 3rd chapter of sons of horus, next it's 9th company of 6th chapter. Depends more on the narrative of the battle which depends more on generic background of campaign we are playing and how story has progressed so far.
Having fluff on army doesn't mean it's not narrative but having fluff on army doesn't automatically make it narrative either.
2) Narrative games have winners. Narrative campaigns have goals and winners, too. I've never seen a narrative campaign where the outcome of games didn't matter. One thing I see frequently in Narrative play is some amount of "List Tailoring". This can take the form of making sure you are ready for the type of army your opponent brings, or underpowering your own units to give your opponent a chance, or ruthlessly min/maxing to make sure you win. List Tailoring is all about Competition, and making games "Competitive".
Funny. Tell me who won our last narrative game? I sure don't know. At best I would say both since it was bloody fun game.
And as for list tailoring...Well guess you could see we do it as we make forces fit into story we are playing out. Who's got better army though we couldn't care less though.
3) I don't understand how poorly balanced rules are good for narrative play. I've played in lots, and lots of narrative games. Far more narrative games than competitive games, and I've never found crappy balance to be an asset. When people say, "GW didn't support competitive play until 8th", I think they didn't really support narrative play either. Maybe your average narrative player doesn't speak out as vocally when GW dumps a pile of garbage rules onto their tabletop, but bad rules are just as bad in narrative play as they are in competitive player, right?
Then again when you don't limit yourself to matched points you can actually tailor armies closer toward max balance if you so choose. Or you can simply build forces to fit into story. Last game we used points only loosely to give other side roughly 20% points advantage. Game before that we didnt' check points at all.
Narrative does not need point tuning to max. You can do that if you want and even better than in matched if you want but not essential.
4) I don't see how the "Power Levels" are for Narrative Play. One of the challenges for building a Narrative Campaign system is setting up parameters to foster interesting games, as well as mechanics to reward victories, and punish defeats. Points are an excellent way to do that. It's been challenge to make it work in 7th because points were so badly out of balance, but still, points are in my experience the best tool to coordinate a multi-player Narrative Campaign.
They aren't any more than matched points. Points can be used for narrative games but they aren't essential.
malamis wrote: The intellectual component was the last remaining hurdle for making 40k and its derivatives open to literally anyone who could see and comprehend the position of models and the outcome of dice.
Uh, what? That doesn't make sense, at all. If someone has such a significant intellectual disability that they can't do the basic math of adding up point costs there's zero chance of them being able to understand the rest of the rules well enough to play the game. And if you have an experienced player standing there translating "make my stabby thing stab their monster" into all the rules and dice to roll then the helper can easily take over the token effort of building a list. The idea of making a poorly-balanced point system for "narrative" play has nothing to do with disability accommodations, it's just one more event in a long history of GW endorsing "casual at all costs" attitudes in their design principles.
It's entirely possible for someone who is incapable of conceptualising numbers in the abstract without having them in front of them to play 40k since all they have to do is have the to-hit and to wound chart in front of them, and the capacity to read the outcome of dice. It is not necessarily possible for them to build a pointed army list with that impairment.
Well, I like to answer in a forum debate where I'm part of it You shouldn't assume I have been offended just because I respond to you.
And about your second point, I'll just say that, if you want to believe that, you are in your total right. I can see, obviously, how Open play is more appropiate to people with some mental dissabilities. But to say that is his "primary" market , or the group of people they had in mind at the time of doing it... to me making a very big jump.
I'm repeating what someone with specific domain knowledge told me, and we appear to be having a fruitful debate on the veracity of the claim.
Are you saying that GW threated all of Warhammer Fantasy players as dissabled people? Because "Open Play" was the only one game mode of AoS for a full year.
I don't have information to that effect and frankly i've never paid attention to Fantasy until the overlords came out. Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the lunatic CEO that was booted in charge at that time?
Anpu42 wrote: Power Level though is good for pick up games. How many time have you had to wait for the other guy to figure out his last 3 points?
Never even once.
Consider yourself lucky. More than once I just had to find some who could build a list on the fly.
*raises hand*
On more than one occasion, but that's generally because I want to accommodate someone's play skill so neither of us wastes our time, not lead my knights in a conga line over their army list.
I don't see power levels mitigating that problem though, but we'll see how it shakes out in the end.
You know, i believe i have. I'd be interested in hearing some other possible objectives to a pvp game? I'm only seeing win, lose and draw here unless we're talking campaign games.
Off the top of my head: survive against stacked odds; kill an especially annoying enemy model; gain campaign experience/gold for your warband; advance an overarching narrative; see how many of your horde army it takes to overwhelm the enemy elite force; escape from New York; work a secret deal in a multiplayer game where you both betray your teammates and high-five as they yell at you both...
None of these particularly matter if you win or lose the game as designed. They're objectives you can have fun trying to achieve.
malamis wrote: It's entirely possible for someone who is incapable of conceptualising numbers in the abstract without having them in front of them to play 40k since all they have to do is have the to-hit and to wound chart in front of them, and the capacity to read the outcome of dice. It is not necessarily possible for them to build a pointed army list with that impairment.
And, again, how many people have such trouble with the kind of math we expect small children to be capable of but are capable of understanding the rest of the rules well enough to play the game in any meaningful sense? I understand that there are people who can't do basic addition, or even understand numbers at all, but I doubt that very many of those people are going to be able to do anything else with 40k. They're probably going to need significant help with the rest of the game, and at that point the helper can do the list building work with the same standard point system as everyone else. Your supposed accessibility factor is such a ridiculously unlikely edge case that I can't believe GW would invest any effort at all into it.
The real answer is, as I said, GW's well-documented obsession with "casual at all costs" attitudes. Their rule authors, going back all the way to the earliest days, are ideologically opposed to the idea of competitive gaming and grudgingly tolerate it at best. Making a "narrative" variant that explicitly states their beliefs about the virtues of not caring about balance is entirely in line with GW history. That's all there is to it, there's no reason to search desperately for an alternative explanation.
And, again, how many people have such trouble with the kind of math we expect small children to be capable of but are capable of understanding the rest of the rules well enough to play the game in any meaningful sense? I understand that there are people who can't do basic addition, or even understand numbers at all, but I doubt that very many of those people are going to be able to do anything else with 40k. They're probably going to need significant help with the rest of the game, and at that point the helper can do the list building work with the same standard point system as everyone else. Your supposed accessibility factor is such a ridiculously unlikely edge case that I can't believe GW would invest any effort at all into it.
Incorrect.
In the UKGW offers both a product (40k etc) and a service as defined by the disability discrimination act ( the gaming venue). If at *any point* they refused service based on disability they'd not only be open to litigation but the advocacy groups would be in an uproar - not something a UK business can usually weather without taking a beating. Whilst you can probably discriminate based on trivial edge cases in the colonies without repercussions, you can't do that here.
Also unlike the colonies, the greater portion of GW vendors here are GW stores themselves. If the managers who have a shorter path to interacting with the new head office - which we've seen and been told is more responsive than it's ever been - are saying 'disabled persons are a significant customer tranche, make products more useful to them.' , then it's an entirely reasonable response to incorporate that into their main product without sticking a blatant disabled access badge on it - since less accommodating folks are likely to have responses denigrating them as second class hobbyists.
The real answer is, as I said, GW's well-documented obsession with "casual at all costs" attitudes. Their rule authors, going back all the way to the earliest days, are ideologically opposed to the idea of competitive gaming and grudgingly tolerate it at best. Making a "narrative" variant that explicitly states their beliefs about the virtues of not caring about balance is entirely in line with GW history. That's all there is to it, there's no reason to search desperately for an alternative explanation.
I don't have to go searching, i've been handed one Frankly I wasn't even remotely fussed about it, since i'll be playing matched play 90% of the time anyway, with the exceptions being apoc-lite.
I'd encourage you to contact GW directly regarding their product accessibility policy since I can understand you don't have any reason to believe what some guy on t'internet said about some other guy from GW.
malamis wrote: In the UKGW offers both a product (40k etc) and a service as defined by the disability discrimination act ( the gaming venue). If at *any point* they refused service based on disability they'd not only be open to litigation but the advocacy groups would be in an uproar - not something a UK business can usually weather without taking a beating. Whilst you can probably discriminate based on trivial edge cases in the colonies without repercussions, you can't do that here.
What does this have to do with the 40k rules? Not publishing math-free rules is not the same thing as refusing service. Everyone, regardless of intellectual ability, is permitted to buy products from the store and (assuming they behave appropriately, and can find a willing opponent) use the gaming space. The idea that GW could be sued for not providing math-free rules is just not dealing with reality.
'disabled persons are a significant customer tranche, make products more useful to them.'
{citation needed}
Remember, we aren't talking about a minor disability here, we're talking about people who can't do the level of math we expect from small children. I'd like to see some support for this idea that there are a meaningful number of people with that level of disability who also have the ability and interest to play 40k at all, and the financial resources to afford it. And that second part is rather important, given the high cost of GW products and low income that severely disabled people tend to have.
What does this have to do with the 40k rules? Not publishing math-free rules is not the same thing as refusing service. Everyone, regardless of intellectual ability, is permitted to buy products from the store and (assuming they behave appropriately, and can find a willing opponent) use the gaming space. The idea that GW could be sued for not providing math-free rules is just not dealing with reality.
They absolutely could be sued for providing math free rules, the suit would be thrown out of court, but there'd still be a (page 16) headline of "Toy company refuses service to dyscalculia sufferers". Making a 2 line adjustment to product to limit this from happening is a sound course of action that Kirby should have mandated years ago.
Peregrine wrote: 'disabled persons are a significant customer tranche, make products more useful to them.'
{citation needed}
I don't exactly have lawful access to internal GW memos do I?
Remember, we aren't talking about a minor disability here, we're talking about people who can't do the level of math we expect from small children.
How small? Seriously? we had 20+ 6 year olds in my local GW on the one and only sunday I went there, and you can bet your bottom feather they don't bother with written lists.
I'd suggest disqualifying participation in the hobby with a baseline expectation of abilities is perfectly fine and valid given the investment involved, so it's perhaps why it's been lowered with tiered complexity available to anyone according to need and desire.
I'd like to see some support for this idea that there are a meaningful number of people with that level of disability who also have the ability and interest to play 40k at all, and the financial resources to afford it. And that second part is rather important, given the high cost of GW products and low income that severely disabled people tend to have.
Again, UK. We matter more to GW's policy than America, at least for now.
I'd direct you to the National Autistic Society and British Dyslexic association if you want that information in the abstract. Disabled support services usually operate as individual organisations at the city level, so I don't imagine there are national aggregates but you never know.
As for funding, from my own certain knowledge from working with the benefits agency, in 2011 ASD qualified you for:
Free or subsidised (90%+) housing and free or subsidised residential care
A stipend of about £400/month - from which food would be bought in bulk and distributed in the case of residential care
Additional subsidies if you find a part time job working at least 16 hrs a week - with some employers able to claim funding incentives to provide disability specific employment positions.
The rates are available here and here. The former represents the minimums per qualifying category, there is some flexibility. It's not enough exactly to splurge on a new army every month, but certainly a new pack of space marines on a fairly regular basis if you don't have to pay rent, utilities or transport, and get free supervised use of glue and hobby tools.
Anecdotally, there are 5 regular attendees (of 50~ regular 40k players) over the average month at my local GW who have diagnosed and acknowledged disabilities in that area, one who comes in with a carer. Another regular actually works with ASD people as a residential carer and occasionally brings his charges in on quiet days en-masse.
tneva82 wrote:
Fun game/non-fun game. Get 1st one and it's good game, get 2nd one, it was bad game. Win or lose irrelevant.
Which goes back to the already discussed objective of the game vs point of the game.
tneva82 wrote:
tag8833 wrote: 1) I don't see "Competitive" and "Narrative" as mutually exclusive. I always write fluff for my tournament armies. Some tourneys award points for fluff, most don't, but it is always there. I build armies to win a tourney while also keeping them looking like an army that could plausibly exist in universe, and I think most other tourney attendees do likewise.
Narrative!=fluff for army. Fluff for army helps but what matters is story in the game.
But narrative games involves using the emergent gameplay to tell a story. All he needs to do is invest a bit of imagination and he's playing a narrative game in a competitive scene. Narrative games can make use of alternate force compositions, special rules and alternate victory conditions; but they don't have to.
tneva82 wrote:
tag8833 wrote: Narrative games have winners. Narrative campaigns have goals and winners, too. I've never seen a narrative campaign where the outcome of games didn't matter. One thing I see frequently in Narrative play is some amount of "List Tailoring". This can take the form of making sure you are ready for the type of army your opponent brings, or underpowering your own units to give your opponent a chance, or ruthlessly min/maxing to make sure you win. List Tailoring is all about Competition, and making games "Competitive".
Funny. Tell me who won our last narrative game? I sure don't know. At best I would say both since it was bloody fun game.
You don't bother to work out who the winner was, therefore there was no winner. Interesting logic. Tell me, what was the *story* behind your last narrative game? Why weren't you interested in seeing how the story concluded in that battle? It's sounding more that you just play for fun (which is fair enough) and might not be as big a narrative player as you think.
tneva82 wrote:
tag8833 wrote: I don't understand how poorly balanced rules are good for narrative play. I've played in lots, and lots of narrative games. Far more narrative games than competitive games, and I've never found crappy balance to be an asset. When people say, "GW didn't support competitive play until 8th", I think they didn't really support narrative play either. Maybe your average narrative player doesn't speak out as vocally when GW dumps a pile of garbage rules onto their tabletop, but bad rules are just as bad in narrative play as they are in competitive player, right?
Then again when you don't limit yourself to matched points you can actually tailor armies closer toward max balance if you so choose. Or you can simply build forces to fit into story. Last game we used points only loosely to give other side roughly 20% points advantage. Game before that we didnt' check points at all.
Narrative does not need point tuning to max. You can do that if you want and even better than in matched if you want but not essential.
What i'm hearing is, instead of using the printed points values, you're using familiarity with the relative power levels of the units in the game to do essentially the same thing. The ruleset is bad, so you're using ad hoc balancing. If the ruleset was actually good, however, you wouldn't need to throw the points away entirely to 'actually tailor armies closer towards max balance' because the balance would already be there. That's the gw mentality in a nutshell - the rules aren't bad, you're just playing wrong.
tneva82 wrote:
tag8833 wrote: I don't see how the "Power Levels" are for Narrative Play. One of the challenges for building a Narrative Campaign system is setting up parameters to foster interesting games, as well as mechanics to reward victories, and punish defeats. Points are an excellent way to do that. It's been challenge to make it work in 7th because points were so badly out of balance, but still, points are in my experience the best tool to coordinate a multi-player Narrative Campaign.
They aren't any more than matched points. Points can be used for narrative games but they aren't essential.
Some way of reckoning balance levels is always required, otherwise how do you know if you're playing a deliberately unbalanced game or not? I think the problem here is that you're familiar enough with the rules that you're doing it innately, and then declaring that you're not doing it at all.
You know, i believe i have. I'd be interested in hearing some other possible objectives to a pvp game? I'm only seeing win, lose and draw here unless we're talking campaign games.
Off the top of my head: survive against stacked odds; kill an especially annoying enemy model; gain campaign experience/gold for your warband; advance an overarching narrative; see how many of your horde army it takes to overwhelm the enemy elite force; escape from New York; work a secret deal in a multiplayer game where you both betray your teammates and high-five as they yell at you both...
None of these particularly matter if you win or lose the game as designed. They're objectives you can have fun trying to achieve.
I think you're confusing victory conditions here with the objective of winning. Yes, you can have your own personal set of victory conditions outside the mission's victory conditions and play to those instead (for a moral/personal victory). But survive against stacked odds will have a win/lose outcome. Kill an annoying enemy model will have a win/lose outcome. Advance an overarching narrative will be completely dependent on the outcome of the game. All of them have w/l/d outcomes and can be done inside or outside a 'narrative' game or a 'competitive' one.
Unless you're playing for high stakes like money, the game itself doesn't matter if you win or lose. That doesn't mean that there's not an objective to playing the game.
I think you're confusing victory conditions here with the objective of winning. Yes, you can have your own personal set of victory conditions outside the mission's victory conditions and play to those instead (for a moral/personal victory). But survive against stacked odds will have a win/lose outcome. Kill an annoying enemy model will have a win/lose outcome. Advance an overarching narrative will be completely dependent on the outcome of the game. All of them have w/l/d outcomes and can be done inside or outside a 'narrative' game or a 'competitive' one.
Unless you're playing for high stakes like money, the game itself doesn't matter if you win or lose. That doesn't mean that there's not an objective to playing the game.
I think that's a very reductive mindset, and frankly one I'm not interested in litigating further. Agree to disagree.
My answers to the op is mainly based on following internet discussions, which have a tendency to be rather simplified and polarised.
Competitive gaming is when the players approach the game like it is a professional sport, the opposite end of the spectrum is casual gaming in which players approach the game to have a laugh. Both groups tend to look down on each other and dismiss the other group as playing it "wrong". Divide and conquer, kudos GW. At it's worst the former group has a slightly ( ) exaggerated view on how much skill is required to play any wargame and throw around stuff like "get good" when someone has an opinion that something should be balanced (see below) differently and the latter screams bloody murder when confronted with someone who takes slightly optimised lists. The extremists of the two groups generally don't have good times when playing each other.
Personally I fall in the casual part of the spectrum since in my opinion wargames are generally to easy to tilt in your favour and the stakes are rather to low for me to get in a competitive mood. So I generally put my effort into parts of the hobby(tm) where I feel the investment pay enough of a return, such as painting, building and hanging out with my nephew who is in that starry-eyed age when everything his uncle do is awesome
Then we come to narrative gaming, it is entirely possible to be both competitive and casual and yet play narrative. I used to be really into narrative gaming, especially in fantasy, prior to AoS.
Narrative gaming and GW Narrative (TM) isn't necessary the same things. The first is a mindset when playing a game that regardless of the outcome both players work together to fit the actions and results of the game into a (often continuous) story. The second is a buzzword to placate the fluffplayers of GW-verse that the removal and simplification of most of the immersive rules such as psychology and morale is fixed by following their prearranged battleplans. This is done in order to allow them to make their best to "balance" the rules to cater to the great masses that only care about balance as evidenced by the massive amounts of threads and posts on forums such as these that inanely clamour: "balance this and balance that!". The last part is a definitive change in attitude from GW. I dare you to find a post or thread asking where the psychology rules went, and it was exactly the same when AoS dropped. Everyone screamed at the "changes" but it really boiled down to the lack of points, which despite the incessant claims that AoS was "a narrative wargame, not a competitive" and "points doesn't matter" was fixed by the community within days of AoS release. GW learnt it's lesson in that regard this time.
malamis wrote: They absolutely could be sued for providing math free rules, the suit would be thrown out of court, but there'd still be a (page 16) headline of "Toy company refuses service to dyscalculia sufferers". Making a 2 line adjustment to product to limit this from happening is a sound course of action that Kirby should have mandated years ago.
They could also be sued for a lot of other frivolous things that would promptly get thrown out of court, many of which are far more likely than getting sued for not providing a math-free version of the rules. Living in terror of insane lawsuits is not a reasonable way to run a company.
How small? Seriously? we had 20+ 6 year olds in my local GW on the one and only sunday I went there, and you can bet your bottom feather they don't bother with written lists.
That sounds like a pretty good description of hell to me, and a great way to get any adults that walk in to immediately turn and walk out (taking their piles of disposable income with them). And I sincerely doubt that a 6 year old is going to have the ability to play 40k by the rules anyway, so what the rules say isn't very relevant.
Again, UK. We matter more to GW's policy than America, at least for now.
That's a stupid business decision. The US market is far, far more important to any sane company because of its sheer size. The US market should be driving every choice GW makes, with the UK a distant secondary concern at best.
It's not enough exactly to splurge on a new army every month, but certainly a new pack of space marines on a fairly regular basis
So, in addition to the hypothetical "can't do math that we expect from small children, but is otherwise capable of functioning as an adult and playing the rest of 40k without help" person being very rare you're conceding that they don't even have much money. Occasionally buying a box of space marines here and there isn't what GW wants, they want the new customer who will drop $500 on a new army. So why exactly is this group supposed to be a high-priority market?
Anecdotally, there are 5 regular attendees (of 50~ regular 40k players) over the average month at my local GW who have diagnosed and acknowledged disabilities in that area, one who comes in with a carer. Another regular actually works with ASD people as a residential carer and occasionally brings his charges in on quiet days en-masse.
And, again, if we're talking about people who need someone to take care of them and help them play the game then math isn't an obstacle. The carer can do the simple addition of the point costs just like they help the person play the rest of the game. The rule change is providing absolutely nothing to this edge-case situation.
Torga_DW wrote: You don't bother to work out who the winner was, therefore there was no winner. Interesting logic. Tell me, what was the *story* behind your last narrative game? Why weren't you interested in seeing how the story concluded in that battle? It's sounding more that you just play for fun (which is fair enough) and might not be as big a narrative player as you think.
Neither player wins or loses just because of what happens on the table. What happens is story takes turn from path A to path B.
What i'm hearing is, instead of using the printed points values, you're using familiarity with the relative power levels of the units in the game to do essentially the same thing. The ruleset is bad, so you're using ad hoc balancing. If the ruleset was actually good, however, you wouldn't need to throw the points away entirely to 'actually tailor armies closer towards max balance' because the balance would already be there. That's the gw mentality in a nutshell - the rules aren't bad, you're just playing wrong.
Except points are never 100% balanced. They cannot. They are flawed method for that. No matter who does them they CANNOT be truly balanced. Too many variables that keep changing. Value of unit changes depending on too many factors. How can fixed point value that doesn't take into account scenario, opponents army, amount, location and type of terrain etc be balanced? It cannot. It can be only rough estimation.
And 8th ed matched points don't even try to be as close to rough estimation as it could be as evidenced by weapon prices being same for army regardless of who wields it. Flawed from the get-go. Just seeing that tells you it's 100% impossible to have truly balanced 8th edition.
And that's just EASY factor. How you factor value of opponents army composition to point value? GW don't know what I will bring to my next game. How they can make sure that is reflected on point value of your unit. Howabout when I change my army? Value of your units changes.
It's hopeless. If you are looking for fixed point value to bring full balance in a non-fixed game you are doomed from the get-go.
Some way of reckoning balance levels is always required, otherwise how do you know if you're playing a deliberately unbalanced game or not? I think the problem here is that you're familiar enough with the rules that you're doing it innately, and then declaring that you're not doing it at all.
Or howabout we care less about balance and more about what the story calls for?
malamis wrote: Another regular actually works with ASD people as a residential carer and occasionally brings his charges in on quiet days en-masse.
I sincerely doubt that this is a situation that GW wants. Much like the horde of small children or the usual socially-awkward game store crowd it's the kind of thing that gets paying customers to turn around and walk out because they want nothing to do with it*. GW is a for-profit business, not a charity, the last thing they want to do is encourage something that makes their stores less appealing for potential customers. GW therefore has zero incentive to make their rules more accessible to people like that. In fact, if they give the matter any consideration at all, that barrier to entry is something they probably consider a good thing that needs to be maintained.
*Yes, you can say that it's being a horrible person. But obviously it happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Or howabout we care less about balance and more about what the story calls for?
That's a nice thought in theory, but it doesn't produce enjoyable games on the table. Setting up armies with no point values (whether explicitly used or approximate points that you remember even without referencing them) is a great way to create a game where one side is overwhelmingly more powerful than the other and the "game" is nothing more than a tedious exercise in making the obvious conclusion official. If you want to tell a story and ignore the game aspect that thoroughly then don't bother playing a game at all, just paint some models and write a story about how awesome they are.
I foresee a good number of threads in our future where people vainly try to understand ways of playing that don't really appeal to them. I never thought we'd see something like the OP so soon though.
For many people, even though they are standing on the opposite side of the table, the game is actually cooperative rather than competitive. Where their primary interest is not on the win-loss axis, but on the axis of discovery.
I've been in games where part way through the opponent decided to add another few squads and another vehicle as a surprise attack. I know of a good number of players that would be shocked by such behaviour and accuse the person of cheating because they don't understand we were operating under a different one of the "3 ways to play" than they normally do.
I have to deal with this split in ways of play pretty much regularly since I run narrative events, and the competitive players often cannot tolerate it existing in a public format.
I think you're confusing victory conditions here with the objective of winning. Yes, you can have your own personal set of victory conditions outside the mission's victory conditions and play to those instead (for a moral/personal victory). But survive against stacked odds will have a win/lose outcome. Kill an annoying enemy model will have a win/lose outcome. Advance an overarching narrative will be completely dependent on the outcome of the game. All of them have w/l/d outcomes and can be done inside or outside a 'narrative' game or a 'competitive' one.
Unless you're playing for high stakes like money, the game itself doesn't matter if you win or lose. That doesn't mean that there's not an objective to playing the game.
I think that's a very reductive mindset, and frankly one I'm not interested in litigating further. Agree to disagree.
I find breaking things down to their simplest components allows the best understanding of what's involved in something, and reduces confusion when being approached by multiple parties.
tneva82 wrote:
Torga_DW wrote: You don't bother to work out who the winner was, therefore there was no winner. Interesting logic. Tell me, what was the *story* behind your last narrative game? Why weren't you interested in seeing how the story concluded in that battle? It's sounding more that you just play for fun (which is fair enough) and might not be as big a narrative player as you think.
Neither player wins or loses just because of what happens on the table. What happens is story takes turn from path A to path B.
The story is generated by what happens on the table. The outcome of the scenario, winning or losing, it all happens because of what happens on the table. The game is the vehicle that drives everything. Otherwise peregrine is right:
Peregrine wrote:If you want to tell a story and ignore the game aspect that thoroughly then don't bother playing a game at all, just paint some models and write a story about how awesome they are.
tneva82 wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:]What i'm hearing is, instead of using the printed points values, you're using familiarity with the relative power levels of the units in the game to do essentially the same thing. The ruleset is bad, so you're using ad hoc balancing. If the ruleset was actually good, however, you wouldn't need to throw the points away entirely to 'actually tailor armies closer towards max balance' because the balance would already be there. That's the gw mentality in a nutshell - the rules aren't bad, you're just playing wrong.
Except points are never 100% balanced. They cannot. They are flawed method for that. No matter who does them they CANNOT be truly balanced. Too many variables that keep changing. Value of unit changes depending on too many factors. How can fixed point value that doesn't take into account scenario, opponents army, amount, location and type of terrain etc be balanced? It cannot. It can be only rough estimation.
And 8th ed matched points don't even try to be as close to rough estimation as it could be as evidenced by weapon prices being same for army regardless of who wields it. Flawed from the get-go. Just seeing that tells you it's 100% impossible to have truly balanced 8th edition.
And that's just EASY factor. How you factor value of opponents army composition to point value? GW don't know what I will bring to my next game. How they can make sure that is reflected on point value of your unit. Howabout when I change my army? Value of your units changes.
It's hopeless. If you are looking for fixed point value to bring full balance in a non-fixed game you are doomed from the get-go.
There's a rather broad area between: the points are completely useless and the points are completely perfect. GW has always been more on the points are useless side of the scale, and fostered an attitude that that's the hallmark of a good narrative to hide the problems with their expensive work. It is possible to have greater balance with the appropriate points and well written rules, and this in no way hinders narrative play.
tneva82 wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:Some way of reckoning balance levels is always required, otherwise how do you know if you're playing a deliberately unbalanced game or not? I think the problem here is that you're familiar enough with the rules that you're doing it innately, and then declaring that you're not doing it at all.
Or howabout we care less about balance and more about what the story calls for?
Why does it have to be an either/or solution? Why can't we have a good and balanced ruleset that can be set aside when the story calls for it?
This entire thread is operating under the assumption that power levels aren't balanced. They take into account optimal / most expensive choices. If points are balanced, then power levels will be, provided you take the optimal war gear.
Open play is an idiotic idea that might as well not exist. Each player buys an amount of GW models, and then the player who spent the most money wins. Nobody will ever play this, except possibly a few "casual at all costs" players who consider it a point of pride to masochistically endure the worst possible rules.
Its only there because gw cant make everything free.
pretty simple.
il hold judgment until i actually try it before throwing it the window.
edit holy hell 4 pages. i really need to pay attention to page numbers :/
Peregrine wrote: Open play is an idiotic idea that might as well not exist. Each player buys an amount of GW models, and then the player who spent the most money wins. Nobody will ever play this, except possibly a few "casual at all costs" players who consider it a point of pride to masochistically endure the worst possible rules.
What condescending horse gak. It really shows you don't have any idea what open play is really about. This "the player who spent the most money wins" idea is a caricature that exists only in the minds of people on the internet.
The most common form of actual open play is beginners, especially young ones, getting their early purchases put together and having a fun time on the table with them. Given how much GW concentrates on recruiting new players, it's likely that open play is actually really, really common.
The next most common form of open play would be found at home games where people are throwing a game together. The new power level points system will be heavily used by these sorts of people. I know people who see the hobby as only being matched play with points for every upgrade can't understand why anyone would want to use power level instead (to the point of needing to be told it's for people with developmental disorders and the like), but they will be very popular among the non game store and tournament crowd.
As well, multiplayer games are in the open play category. So every time a GW store runs one of those multiplayer events, they are doing open play.
None of these are "put every model you own on the table and the person who spent the most wins." No one does it that way. After how long the general's handbook has been out and how it has actual scenarios and guidelines in the open play section, continuing to spread that idea can only be described as intentional ignorance or outright misrepresentation. You should stop.
Peregrine wrote: Open play is an idiotic idea that might as well not exist. Each player buys an amount of GW models, and then the player who spent the most money wins. Nobody will ever play this, except possibly a few "casual at all costs" players who consider it a point of pride to masochistically endure the worst possible rules.
What condescending horse gak. It really shows you don't have any idea what open play is really about. This "the player who spent the most money wins" idea is a caricature that exists only in the minds of people on the internet.
The most common form of actual open play is beginners, especially young ones, getting their early purchases put together and having a fun time on the table with them. Given how much GW concentrates on recruiting new players, it's likely that open play is actually really, really common.
The next most common form of open play would be found at home games where people are throwing a game together. The new power level points system will be heavily used by these sorts of people. I know people who see the hobby as only being matched play with points for every upgrade can't understand why anyone would want to use power level instead (to the point of needing to be told it's for people with developmental disorders and the like), but they will be very popular among the non game store and tournament crowd.
As well, multiplayer games are in the open play category. So every time a GW store runs one of those multiplayer events, they are doing open play.
None of these are "put every model you own on the table and the person who spent the most wins." No one does it that way. After how long the general's handbook has been out and how it has actual scenarios and guidelines in the open play section, continuing to spread that idea can only be described as intentional ignorance or outright misrepresentation. You should stop.
BlaxicanX wrote: I maintain that narrative players are filthy casuals because A) I'm a malicious person and B) lord knows that the distinction between "competitive" and "WAAC" ceased to exist on this forum many years ago, so it's only fair.
Exalted.
To the OP, now. So basically the difference is in mindset, and since every bit of minutiae is up to the player's interpretation as far as "spirit of the game" goes, you will never get a meaningful consensus of any type. It's the same reason you have people going back to 2nd Ed. or whatever.
frozenwastes wrote: What condescending horse gak. It really shows you don't have any idea what open play is really about. This "the player who spent the most money wins" idea is a caricature that exists only in the minds of people on the internet.
At the most basic level, you can just put whatever models you have in your collection on the table and get rolling – this is the very essence of open play.
When the "very essence of open play" is putting your whole collection on the table it's going to overwhelmingly favor the players with the most money to spend on a bigger collection. If you have $500 to spend on models and I have $5,000 then I will have about ten times the strength of your army every game, an advantage that is impossible to overcome. I win every game simply by having more money to spend.
The most common form of actual open play is beginners, especially young ones, getting their early purchases put together and having a fun time on the table with them. Given how much GW concentrates on recruiting new players, it's likely that open play is actually really, really common.
Yes, sure, most games have simplified starter rules for new players. But most games make it clear that the starter rules are just that: starter rules. Once you've figured out how to play the game you move on to the real rules and never look back. But GW is selling open play as something for all players, not just a newbie's first game or two.
The next most common form of open play would be found at home games where people are throwing a game together. The new power level points system will be heavily used by these sorts of people. I know people who see the hobby as only being matched play with points for every upgrade can't understand why anyone would want to use power level instead (to the point of needing to be told it's for people with developmental disorders and the like), but they will be very popular among the non game store and tournament crowd.
As I keep saying, this makes no sense at all. If you're using power levels then you are using points, and the only difference between power levels and conventional points is that power levels are a less-accurate evaluation of a unit's strength. If you are playing with power levels there is absolutely no reason not to use conventional points instead. Nothing is gained by deliberately making the game less balanced in random ways.
And, no, power levels have nothing to do with helping people with developmental disorders. People who can't do the basic addition required to make a list with the conventional rules are unlikely to be capable of playing 40k at all, and if they have someone helping them with the rest of the game then their helper can easily add up some point costs. And that's just considering open play vs. matched play, if you're talking about power levels vs. points then anyone who is capable of adding up power levels can do the same addition with points. So, I suppose there might be a person or two with such a specific disability that this rule is relevant to them, but I don't find it at all plausible that these people exist in such numbers that GW would find it beneficial to put effort into catering to them. The much more obvious explanation is that power levels and open play are a natural extension of GW's well-established "casual at all costs" attitudes.
As well, multiplayer games are in the open play category. So every time a GW store runs one of those multiplayer events, they are doing open play.
Err, what? Plenty of multiplayer games are done with the conventional point system, in a way that is (rules-wise) indistinguishable from any other "matched play" game. The fact that some GW stores run silly "throw some models on the table" events doesn't really mean much, we know that GW stores run poorly-designed events all the time and that has very little to do with the rules used by everyone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: This entire thread is operating under the assumption that power levels aren't balanced. They take into account optimal / most expensive choices. If points are balanced, then power levels will be, provided you take the optimal war gear.
The problem is that any other configuration will then be underpowered, which is still poor balance. And those other configurations can be desirable for reasons other than being bad at list construction: they might fill a "less powerful, but cheaper" role or they might have a different target type in mind (heavy bolters vs. lascannons, for example). So if you try to bring anything other than the one specific list that GW decided was "optimal" then you're at a significant disadvantage.
So you take a statement that starts with "at its most basic level" and then end up at the conclusion that it must mean whoever buys more wins. Do you really think that's what they meant by the "essence of open play?" Isn't it more likely that it's the simple process of putting your models on the table and getting to the game? Doesn't that make a bit more sense?
You might just be misinterpreting things in order to justify a caricature. Do you honestly believe people actually do that? That they play "buy more to win" games? If so, let me tell you as someone who has been actually doing open play: they don't. Putting "whatever models you have in your collection" is not some arms race where you pay to win. It's just the most basic option. The starting point for beginners.
And yes, if you read the Open Play section of the GHB, you'd see multiplayer is found there. Multiplayer is also in the Open Play section of the new 40k rulebook as well. Also Open Play and a points system are not mutually exclusive. There are also loads of hybrid forms using elements from multiple ways to play.
As well, some people don't care about adding up detailed points and paying for each upgrade and will love just quickly adding things up and getting on with the game. Even if you think it makes no sense. Or fail to realize that your insistence that there is "absolutely no reason" not to use the full points system is proven wrong by the existence of a single reason. Speed. Or ease of use.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand that some people might not care about making sure they pay 19 points per model and then 7 points for this item and 15 points for this when they can just do "10 power for this unit" and get their models on the table. And still have a fun time playing a game they enjoy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And, no, power levels have nothing to do with helping people with developmental disorders
What I said was that people need to think it's about that because they can't understand why the power level system is even there. Their failure of imagination is to such a degree that they come up with people with developmental disorders as the real reason it's there. That's laughable. And we saw it in this very thread.
Personally I like both but I like the Simplicity that power levels will give when I don't want to screw around with nitpicking a list. I'm also the fact that most of the interesting missions seem to be narrative will make me try to push my group to do a narrative games but if somebody really wants to play matched with paying for everything I will do that as well.
If anyone wants to figure out the appeal or come to an understanding of a given mode of play, make sure you approach it with the idea in mind that it's actually fun for the people who like it.
If you go into assessing any type of play (be it tournaments, narrative events, pick up games at a store, map campaigns, simple beginner games, just throwing stuff together, crazy games like seeing how many guardsmen it takes to stop the rampaging tank, whatever) and assume that it sucks or that it's bad, you'll never actually understand it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Personally I like both but I like the Simplicity that power levels will give when I don't want to screw around with nitpicking a list. I'm also the fact that most of the interesting missions seem to be narrative will make me try to push my group to do a narrative games but if somebody really wants to play matched with paying for everything I will do that as well.
Me too. I already have a game scheduled using the shared images of the data slates and core rules. We're doing "only war" with power level. We're going to fool around and have some fun with stuff that has been sitting in storage since early 5th edition.
After that we're going to see just how compatible this new version of 40k is with the Age of Sigmar: Skirmish book. I think we'll need to add a lot more terrain.
What I think is that there is a subset of players (Peregrine seems to fall in this category) who cannot fathom any reason why you wouldn't take the "best" options available if you can, and no reason at all will make sense because it's not "optimal" and doesn't give you an advantage of some sort. Then there are players who sometimes pick the optimal and sometimes don't, depending on whatever (what models they have, their fluff, because they rolled a die before the game to determine which weapon they would take, etc.) and that seems like an anathema to someone who only looks at what is numerically the better choice and takes nothing but that.
What I mean is there are groups of people who play Open Play without any issues at all in AOS, because they know the difference between being able to abuse the system and choosing to abuse the system, and then there are people who will see an abuse and, as long as nothing else stops them, take advantage of that simply because they can. It's a very strange sociological dichotomy when you think about it, similar to saying that if there was no law against theft, everyone would steal everything because there would be no reason to pay since you didn't have to.
From what I can see, Power Level isn't intended to be used on its own. The process, as far as I can see, is thus:
Come up with a scenario or idea - Ordo Xenos Inquisitor with Valhallan Astra Militarum support and an allied Tau Fire Warrior contingent cleansing an undercity of genestealer infestation, Astra Militarum defending an Adeptus mechanicus facility against Ork and Necron threats or Valhallan and Tallarn troops have to repel a Chaos invasion and simultaneous cult uprising while not entirely trusting each other. Then, choose appropriate forces based on the idea and the models you have available. At that point, you can look at the relative Power Levels to see if you've got a major imbalance, and then you can do something about it (allow the outmanned force some reinforcements, defensive positions or simply adjust the victory conditions). Obviously you can do that with the full points if you want, but it's not really necessary; a lot of this will be judged based on players' experience, with the Power Level as a rough rule of thumb.
Narrative and Open also lets you play things that you just want to play sort of like Unbound.
Playing What You Want: >The ones I always wanted to play was Shrike and his Command Squad loaded will Jump Packs and Lighting Claws. Under Matched play that is prohibitive by points, but Under Narrative not so much. Now my group would not just do that without telling everyone you were going to so they could put together something like that.
>I love Rough Riders, always have an always will. I have been playing them since the Rouge Trader Days. It did not matter to me if they were good or not, if I could put them on a list I would and toss in Creed and they could really do some damage in a backfield.
>A friend of mine like to play an all Dreadnought Army. He had to borrow every Dread in the group to do such, but he liked playing them. He did not care if they were good or not.
>He also wants to do a 100% Geanstealer Army, nothing but Geanstealers.
>I would also like to play an all Wolf Army, just Thunder Wolves and Fenresian Wolves. Have not got the models together to do such, but it is a plan. Not because of a Power Level or anything, but just because I think it would be cool.
Common sense would tell you none of these ideas are good for 'Competitive-Play', but that is not the point of playing armies like this.
What I don't understand anymore is why you would stop playing a group of models or a Unit (or an Edition) just because they are just ok or bad. 6th and 7th were playable if you just wanted to have fun.
hobojebus wrote: Er an army of thunder wolves will be broken beyond belief and I say that as a sw player.
The plan is 3 Wolf Lords (Each with 2 Wolves), Canis Wolfborn, 1 Iron Priest (With Cyberwolves), 1 Pack of Thunderwolves and the rest just Wolves, lost of Wolves...
frozenwastes wrote: Do you honestly believe people actually do that? That they play "buy more to win" games?
No, I don't believe that people actually do that. I believe that most people take one look at no-points games, recognize immediately that the person who spends the most money wins, and play a better game instead. That's why launching with no points almost killed AoS before GW rushed out a book with a point system to attempt to salvage the game.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand that some people might not care about making sure they pay 19 points per model and then 7 points for this item and 15 points for this when they can just do "10 power for this unit" and get their models on the table.
Because it isn't any faster once you have some basic familiarity with your army. You aren't adding up single points like that, you're comparing "100 points for a melta vet squad" to "10 power for a melta vet squad" and taking the same amount of time either way. I don't know why people like you seem to think that making a list with points is some kind of tedious burden, while making a list with different points is effortless.
What I said was that people need to think it's about that because they can't understand why the power level system is even there. Their failure of imagination is to such a degree that they come up with people with developmental disorders as the real reason it's there. That's laughable. And we saw it in this very thread.
You do realize that the person who made the argument about disability mitigation likes the power level system, right? And was using that argument as a defense of it, alongside their other arguments in favor of power level (and open play)?
I just don't see the need for explicit open-play rules. Are we that far gone that we need to spell out that you can do what you want if the opponent consents? I'm a little sad now. It's like those obvious instructions they have on things now like don't put fork in power socket, or don't drink gasoline. Don't leave hand grenades near unsupervised children. It's probably just me. :(
No, I don't believe that people actually do that. I believe that most people take one look at no-points games, recognize immediately that the person who spends the most money wins, and play a better game instead.
You really are here just to denigrate other people's preferences aren't you? I just explained to you that those who actually do open play don't do what you think they do and you reply with that?
Spoiler:
Earlier I posted this:
If anyone wants to figure out the appeal or come to an understanding of a given mode of play, make sure you approach it with the idea in mind that it's actually fun for the people who like it.
If you go into assessing any type of play (be it tournaments, narrative events, pick up games at a store, map campaigns, simple beginner games, just throwing stuff together, crazy games like seeing how many guardsmen it takes to stop the rampaging tank, whatever) and assume that it sucks or that it's bad, you'll never actually understand it.
BlaxicanX wrote: I maintain that narrative players are filthy casuals because A) I'm a malicious person and B) lord knows that the distinction between "competitive" and "WAAC" ceased to exist on this forum many years ago, so it's only fair.
Exalted
Wanting for balance, structure and being as on the same page as possible with my prospective opponents when it comes to the rules = foaming at the mouth win at all cost sociopath (possibly with halitosis)
I think it's fine to have any preference among the options presented, but what you don't get to do is parade the false dichotomy of balance coming at the cost narrative. There have been plenty of opinions in the thread that are nuanced, IE express fondness or even preference for narrative play while still acknowledging the importance of accurate balance (points, ie even if they're wrong they're the closest we've got to a power/efficacy metric)
Peregrine is not wrong, one method is objectively more balanced (in terms of GW own efficacy rating in point value) than the other.
Peregrine is not wrong however, one method is objectively more balanced (in terms of GW own efficacy rating in point value) than the other.
But he just can't seem to accept the possibility that for some people a more general system is exactly what they are looking for and that maximum objective balance might not be the goal of those people. That to them, "good enough" really is good enough for their games.
frozenwastes wrote: You really are here just to denigrate other people's preferences aren't you? I just explained to you that those who actually do open play don't do what you think they do and you reply with that?
Fine, there's a tiny minority who do open play the way you're describing. Most people, as demonstrated by the spectacular failure of no-points AoS, took one look at the system and its obvious flaws and said "NOPE". The few people who continue playing without points are fixing a broken system by, implicitly or explicitly, agreeing not to exploit its problems. And they're probably doing it by playing with a point system in all but name, where everyone understands what points a unit costs in the normal game and sticks to roughly equal point totals. I don't care if they have fun with it, their existence does not negate the fact that open play is a "pay to win" game any more than a group of people agreeing to play a FTP MMO together without using any cash-shop purchases negates its "pay to win" status.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: But he just can't seem to accept the possibility that for some people a more general system is exactly what they are looking for and that maximum objective balance might not be the goal of those people. That to them, "good enough" really is good enough for their games.
I don't accept it because it's a nonsense argument. Using power levels saves a trivial amount of time and effort compared to using the conventional point system. You're still making a list the same way and adding up point costs, the only difference is that those point costs are a much less accurate representation of a unit's power. You're making the game less balanced but getting nothing in return. Unless of course you count the smug self-congratulatory attitude many people seem to have, where using a less-accurate point system is proof of how "casual" they are and how superior they are to those WAACTFG tournament players they hate...
Acknowledging the existence of people who prefer objectively less balanced gaming is one thing, being forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 5,1 or really whatever "that party" deems it that day is a whole other matter. Thougt crime. (waacness)
From personal experience, I have indeed encountered individuals who use the social camouflage of casual play to mask some pretty unhealthy emotions they won't allow themselves to really encounter head on. I'm a fatty, gym class was rough on me through all of highschool, you develop the view that somehow being competitive is a deep character flaw. Took years to get over the idea that competition in any form was somehow a weakness or morale failing or only for jocks and bullies.
I don't always agree with peregrine, but again I must in this instance because for every genuinely good natured narrative/casual (often they self identify as such) I have encountered who genuinely convey the best of intentions I also encounter passive aggressive smug individuals who eschew every bit a holier art than though attitude often encountered at the competitive end of things. It's just horseshoe theory.
sorry haven't read all of the thread, but had a quick question w/ the leaked rules.
So there is a case (probably more, I haven't read everything) of this:
Unit X costs 17 pts and is 7 Power
Unit Y costs 15 pts and is 9 Power
Open/Narrative use Power, yes? So, do those modes value stats, wargear, abilities, etc differently? Like a Melta or DS or something is just better/worse in Open/Narrative compared to Matched? I'm guessing it's still speculative til we start playing games to find out, but anyone have any ideas?
edit:
nvm, Power doesn't take into account upgrades and such, right? Interesting formula or algorithm GW used to determine some of these #'s...
Crablezworth wrote: Acknowledging the existence of people who prefer objectively less balanced gaming is one thing, being forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 5,1 or really whatever "that party" deems it that day is a whole other matter. Thougt crime. (waacness)
Sure. Part of the problem with internet discussions is people bringing baggage from previous threads. You end up with endless pushing back in an ebb and flow to the point where people are calling people WAAC when they are just competitive or declaring an entire way to play idiotic and then ardently defending a caricature of it.
There's no intellectual honesty on either side of that one.
edit:
nvm, Power doesn't take into account upgrades and such, right? Interesting formula or algorithm GW used to determine some of these #'s...
Yup, which is why it's objectively less balanced than points. Apparently the existence of someone's subjective preference of game type means all things are equal, post modernism for all. My dog is bigger than my cat, but I like my cat more and as such, my cat is bigger than my dog.
Crablezworth wrote: Acknowledging the existence of people who prefer objectively less balanced gaming is one thing, being forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 5,1 or really whatever "that party" deems it that day is a whole other matter. Thougt crime. (waacness)
Sure. Part of the problem with internet discussions is people bringing baggage from previous threads. You end up with endless pushing back in an ebb and flow to the point where people are calling people WAAC when they are just competitive or declaring an entire way to play idiotic and then ardently defending a caricature of it.
There's no intellectual honesty on either side of that one.
Sure but there was never any intellectual honesty in bringing identity politics into gaming. The reality though is that doesn't stop anyone from either identifying as any "type" of gamer or being accused of being any "type" of gamer. Be it waac or casual. Back in the day we at least had distinctions between waac and power gamer, but with time it seems shades of grey just shift to black and white.
Argument and opinion mix a bit too much but there are definitely aspects of the discussion being had here that really aren't subjective. Which method is more objectively balanced is not the same as stating one's subjective preference among the 3 options available.
An opinion is unfalsifiable, people are generally the best source on their own thoughts and opinions. Essentially, making the argument that someone who claims to prefer narrative or open play is lieing is sort of pointless. But when they start to say that their preference also lets them claim 2 + 2 =5, well, you'll get disagreement on that.
Agreeing this much with peregrine doesn't make me feel great(it's starting to scare me), but he's right dammit.
Torga_DW wrote: I just don't see the need for explicit open-play rules. Are we that far gone that we need to spell out that you can do what you want if the opponent consents? I'm a little sad now. It's like those obvious instructions they have on things now like don't put fork in power socket, or don't drink gasoline. Don't leave hand grenades near unsupervised children. It's probably just me. :(
You're looking at it the wrong way. They're not molly coddling you with this, they're looking out at all the stuff people do already and are saying 'yes, these things are good. We as the creators of the game are endorsing these fun things you are doing. We also wanted to contribute some of our design specifically to add to this type of gaming. Feel free to use it or not at your leisure!'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Acknowledging the existence of people who prefer objectively less balanced gaming is one thing, being forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 5,1 or really whatever "that party" deems it that day is a whole other matter. Thougt crime. (waacness)
From personal experience, I have indeed encountered individuals who use the social camouflage of casual play to mask some pretty unhealthy emotions they won't allow themselves to really encounter head on. I'm a fatty, gym class was rough on me through all of highschool, you develop the view that somehow being competitive is a deep character flaw. Took years to get over the idea that competition in any form was somehow a weakness or morale failing or only for jocks and bullies.
I don't always agree with peregrine, but again I must in this instance because for every genuinely good natured narrative/casual (often they self identify as such) I have encountered who genuinely convey the best of intentions I also encounter passive aggressive smug individuals who eschew every bit a holier art than though attitude often encountered at the competitive end of things. It's just horseshoe theory.
That's a problem with the people, not the mode of play. And it's not like points vs powerlevel is going to make a significant difference. That players not suddenly going to be fun to play against because you use matched play rules and points over narrative play rules and powerlevels. He's not suddenly going to stop pushing every rule he can because a dreadnought costs 8 instead of 140 or w/e. No amount of game system design is going to stop an unpleasant player from being unpleasant.
I also an a firm believer that this kind of behavoir is much rarer than people tend to fear it is. In my completely anecdotal experience, competitive players are on the whole better sports and more fun to converse with than the type of player who shouts about how 'waacs are ruining the game' or any of the myriad of other things I've heard people whine about in regards to list building.
No amount of game system design is going to stop an unpleasant player from being unpleasant.
Agreed, but some systems reward them more than others.
ERJAK wrote: In my completely anecdotal experience, competitive players are on the whole better sports and more fun to converse with than the type of player who shouts about how 'waacs are ruining the game' or any of the myriad of other things I've heard people whine about in regards to list building
That's generally been my experience as well for the most part, although I've certainly encountered extremes at both ends that sorta blur the line.
ERJAK wrote: You're looking at it the wrong way. They're not molly coddling you with this, they're looking out at all the stuff people do already and are saying 'yes, these things are good. We as the creators of the game are endorsing these fun things you are doing. We also wanted to contribute some of our design specifically to add to this type of gaming. Feel free to use it or not at your leisure!'
It feels like ridiculous coddling because open play doesn't add anything to the game. There's no design being contributed, only a statement of the obvious: that you can ignore the list-building rules if you want. Outside of that single sentence open play does nothing that can't already be done with conventional point-based games. It's just one more case of GW getting credit for "supporting narrative/casual play" without actually doing anything to improve the game for those things, as if anything that is bad for competitive play is automatically brilliant game design for narrative/casual games.
That players not suddenly going to be fun to play against because you use matched play rules and points over narrative play rules and powerlevels.
Actually they very often will be more fun to play. It won't help with someone who is just a TFG in general*, but the more balanced the game is the less room there is for people to exploit balance problems and crush you with overpowered lists. And the conventional point system is indisputably better for balance than the less-accurate point system of power levels. It's not perfect, of course, since GW sucks at game design, but it's better.
*Which, as you said, is not that common. Most of the time the problem is a difference in goals where one player cares more about list optimization than the other, but nobody is a bad person.
Yeah its really hard to be TFG when you can't game the system, in a points free system TFG thrives you can't call him out for spamming the most powerful units while you take a fluffy list because its bring what you like.
In a well written well balanced game they can't pull that bs as there's no option for it in the first place.
Open and narrative are both open to greater levels of abuse than matched is.
The upside is that at least in narrative, while it is more open to abuse, the guys that want to break the game are usually not playing narrative play anyway.
No TFG just wants to win and win big if he can do that easiest in narative thats where he'll lurk.
TFG don't tend to like competative enviroments because skill is a factor and TFG has no skill which is why they cheat and bring as much broken stuff as possible.
auticus wrote: In 20 years of running narrative events I can count a TFG on one hand. They usually avoid our events because we don't let them min/max.
You run (presumably) well-structured events. TFG would lurk in pickup games, or more poorly-run events, to get his easy wins. You can't prevent someone from min-maxing in a pickup game, especially when it can be difficult to pick up/nobody agrees exactly what min-maxing is.*
*Depending on your definition, it could be absuing anti-fluff combos, or using optimal, efficient load-outs. (The horror, the eldritch horror)
auticus wrote: In 20 years of running narrative events I can count a TFG on one hand. They usually avoid our events because we don't let them min/max.
You run (presumably) well-structured events. TFG would lurk in pickup games, or more poorly-run events, to get his easy wins. You can't prevent someone from min-maxing in a pickup game, especially when it can be difficult to pick up/nobody agrees exactly what min-maxing is.*
*Depending on your definition, it could be absuing anti-fluff combos, or using optimal, efficient load-outs. (The horror, the eldritch horror)
Sure it could depend on what you call narrative games. I've never seen pickup games be anything other than competitive / matched play style rules which is why the TFGs in our area thrive in that style of play. Because you can't prevent them from min/max since the rules say they can in matched play.
I'm referring to narrative play (I don't see anyone playing open play so I cannot comment). Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.
Our TFGs howl at the narrative events for disallowing their min/max lists but they romp around in matched play events with their power lists.
auticus wrote: Sure it could depend on what you call narrative games. I've never seen pickup games be anything other than competitive / matched play style rules which is why the TFGs in our area thrive in that style of play. Because you can't prevent them from min/max since the rules say they can in matched play.
I'm referring to narrative play (I don't see anyone playing open play so I cannot comment). Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.
Our TFGs howl at the narrative events for disallowing their min/max lists but they romp around in matched play events with their power lists.
Exactly-you have tight, well run narrative events. Not everyone does.
auticus wrote: Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.
IOW, you concede that narrative play as-written is broken and does nothing to stop "TFG"s. Your narrative games work because you don't play with GW's rules, you create your own house rules that restrict army construction, require approval from the event organizer, and ban the people you don't like. These things would not be necessary if narrative play as published by GW wasn't a broken mess and a failure at its supposed goals.
Narratve play is not about min/maxing. So if someone wants to show up to min/max, you have them adjust their roster. And if they won't... you show them the tournament room instead.
What you I think are trying to argue, based on reading your past arguments, is that there shoudl only be one way to play and that narrative and competitive should be one and the same.
That however does not remove my previous comment which was based on how in my experience TFG doesn't go to narrative events because TFG can't min/max. But those are my narrative events, where we prevent them from doing so. I don't have any experience with other narrative events because I can count them all on one hand beyond what I do since the default is tournament min/max play events.
auticus wrote: Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.
IOW, you concede that narrative play as-written is broken and does nothing to stop "TFG"s. Your narrative games work because you don't play with GW's rules, you create your own house rules that restrict army construction, require approval from the event organizer, and ban the people you don't like. These things would not be necessary if narrative play as published by GW wasn't a broken mess and a failure at its supposed goals.
I take it you never just play for fun (or get to)?
My example of I mean is a RL one involving my time doing Medieval Reenactment. We had three modes of play there and I will use the 8th Edition terms.
Matched Play: >War: We used War to determine who would be the King of a local Area or Emperor the whole for the next year. The wars were always a serious affair with lots of politics mucking up a lot of us having just fun.
>Tournaments:What you think of when when you see a Knight's Tale (Though we did not have jousting do to the expense of horses...you think WH40k is expensive, imagine having to pay for the insurance in a jousting horse)
Narrative Play: >Wars: We would usually have what we would call a 'Holy War' or 'Water War' once or twice a year. Whoever organized the war would set up a set of scenarios and lots of time whoever won one battle would have some sort of advantage in the next one. The stakes were always low, like bragging rights or an ice chest fill with ale.
Open Play: >Just that, we would all armor up and head out on the field and pick a side. The fight continued till one side was all eliminated and then we would line up on each side and do it till we all got tired. The idea was to just have fun Wacking each other for a few hours.
This is how I see the 'Three Types of Play' and I think other do to.
A note on 'No Balance With Power Level' I am going to miss quote Syndrome: "When Everyone it Playing a Over Powered Unit, then No one is Playing an Over Power Unit"
auticus wrote: Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.
IOW, you concede that narrative play as-written is broken and does nothing to stop "TFG"s. Your narrative games work because you don't play with GW's rules, you create your own house rules that restrict army construction, require approval from the event organizer, and ban the people you don't like. These things would not be necessary if narrative play as published by GW wasn't a broken mess and a failure at its supposed goals.
I take it you never just play for fun (or get to)?
My example of I mean is a RL one involving my time doing Medieval Reenactment. We had three modes of play there and I will use the 8th Edition terms.
Matched Play: >War: We used War to determine who would be the King of a local Area or Emperor the whole for the next year. The wars were always a serious affair with lots of politics mucking up a lot of us having just fun.
>Tournaments:What you think of when when you see a Knight's Tale (Though we did not have jousting do to the expense of horses...you think WH40k is expensive, imagine having to pay for the insurance in a jousting horse)
Narrative Play: >Wars: We would usually have what we would call a 'Holy War' or 'Water War' once or twice a year. Whoever organized the war would set up a set of scenarios and lots of time whoever won one battle would have some sort of advantage in the next one. The stakes were always low, like bragging rights or an ice chest fill with ale.
Open Play: >Just that, we would all armor up and head out on the field and pick a side. The fight continued till one side was all eliminated and then we would line up on each side and do it till we all got tired. The idea was to just have fun Wacking each other for a few hours.
This is how I see the 'Three Types of Play' and I think other do to.
I was in Amtgard boffer combat/LARP for about a year and a half, and it had an almost identical set up. Tournaments to show off skill and earn rewards (consisted of bragging rights and bling for your garb), story-based scenarios as an excuse to do something different (sometimes players would plays as "monsters" and have a ridiculous number of hit points and armor), and the "ditch line" (sparring with one another for practice and excercise).
Really, to me, the difference comes down in player attitude: are you here to play WITH the other players, or are you here to play AGAINST them?
auticus wrote: Competitive play as written is also broken lol.
Narratve play is not about min/maxing. So if someone wants to show up to min/max, you have them adjust their roster. And if they won't... you show them the tournament room instead.
What you I think are trying to argue, based on reading your past arguments, is that there shoudl only be one way to play and that narrative and competitive should be one and the same.
That however does not remove my previous comment which was based on how in my experience TFG doesn't go to narrative events because TFG can't min/max. But those are my narrative events, where we prevent them from doing so. I don't have any experience with other narrative events because I can count them all on one hand beyond what I do since the default is tournament min/max play events.
Actually banning things is more of a competative mindset.
auticus wrote: Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.
IOW, you concede that narrative play as-written is broken and does nothing to stop "TFG"s. Your narrative games work because you don't play with GW's rules, you create your own house rules that restrict army construction, require approval from the event organizer, and ban the people you don't like. These things would not be necessary if narrative play as published by GW wasn't a broken mess and a failure at its supposed goals.
I take it you never just play for fun (or get to)?
My example of I mean is a RL one involving my time doing Medieval Reenactment. We had three modes of play there and I will use the 8th Edition terms.
Matched Play: >War: We used War to determine who would be the King of a local Area or Emperor the whole for the next year. The wars were always a serious affair with lots of politics mucking up a lot of us having just fun.
>Tournaments:What you think of when when you see a Knight's Tale (Though we did not have jousting do to the expense of horses...you think WH40k is expensive, imagine having to pay for the insurance in a jousting horse)
Narrative Play: >Wars: We would usually have what we would call a 'Holy War' or 'Water War' once or twice a year. Whoever organized the war would set up a set of scenarios and lots of time whoever won one battle would have some sort of advantage in the next one. The stakes were always low, like bragging rights or an ice chest fill with ale.
Open Play: >Just that, we would all armor up and head out on the field and pick a side. The fight continued till one side was all eliminated and then we would line up on each side and do it till we all got tired. The idea was to just have fun Wacking each other for a few hours.
This is how I see the 'Three Types of Play' and I think other do to.
I was in Amtgard boffer combat/LARP for about a year and a half, and it had an almost identical set up. Tournaments to show off skill and earn rewards (consisted of bragging rights and bling for your garb), story-based scenarios as an excuse to do something different (sometimes players would plays as "monsters" and have a ridiculous number of hit points and armor), and the "ditch line" (sparring with one another for practice and excercise).
Really, to me, the difference comes down in player attitude: are you here to play WITH the other players, or are you here to play AGAINST them?
Exactly, I love playing with Other Players (And get your mind out of the gutter). It is just much more fun. I have had two experiences with FTG. The worst was when the Dark Angels 3rd or 4th Codex dropped (It has been a while though I am sure it was 3rd) and I found myself at the LFGS and had not got a chance to try the Deep Strike Rules and an Eldar Player said he was willing to have a what I thought was a Practice game. He went 2nd and after the First turn I had 2 models left on the table out of the 25+ and two Terminator Quads sill in reserve and never even got to make a save.
Then when I asked for a re-play practice game he said, and I quote "No you are not good enough and I don't play Practice Games, come back maybe when you are good." Nether one of us Enjoyed the game (Well I know I did not and I am sure he did not unless he got his kicks by spending more time placing figures on the table rather than actually playing the game.)
Actually banning things is more of a competative mindset.
Less so than narrative/open.
What you are introducing is an impossible argument. Where every answer is wrong.
If the point of narrative is to play a story driven scenario where winning is second to the story and where armies are drafted based on the story, the entire concept of narrative therefore is that armies need to conform to the story/scenario.
Which is what narrative is.
But if restricting armies is 'competitive' you've introduced the argument that by banning min/max armies in narrative to fit the scenario, you've suddenly become "more competitive", which woudl make narrative "more competitive" than competitive, which as we know is false.
Also if the idea of narrative is story driven scenarios with story drafted forces, can it be more broken than matched play, which is about breaking the game and winning?
I don't think it is.
From the perspective of a perpetual power gamer, I can see where it may seem that way, for if the perpetual power gamer that was always striving to break the game suddenly played a narrative game where he didn't have the matched play rules, he'd suddenly be breaking the game exponentially more. But that assumes the narrative event he's playing in is matched play and bring whatever you want. Which I find is not the case. The perpetual power gamer would play in the narrative event with the narrative constraints based on the scenario, and likely be enraged that he cannot powergame. Which is why I find that most TFG perpetual power gamers avoid (my) narrative events. Because they cannot powergame.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: I was in Amtgard boffer combat/LARP for about a year and a half, and it had an almost identical set up. Tournaments to show off skill and earn rewards (consisted of bragging rights and bling for your garb), story-based scenarios as an excuse to do something different (sometimes players would plays as "monsters" and have a ridiculous number of hit points and armor), and the "ditch line" (sparring with one another for practice and excercise).
Really, to me, the difference comes down in player attitude: are you here to play WITH the other players, or are you here to play AGAINST them?
Exactly, I love playing with Other Players (And get your mind out of the gutter). It is just much more fun. I have had two experiences with FTG. The worst was when the Dark Angels 3rd or 4th Codex dropped (It has been a while though I am sure it was 3rd) and I found myself at the LFGS and had not got a chance to try the Deep Strike Rules and an Eldar Player said he was willing to have a what I thought was a Practice game. He went 2nd and after the First turn I had 2 models left on the table out of the 25+ and two Terminator Quads sill in reserve and never even got to make a save.
Then when I asked for a re-play practice game he said, and I quote "No you are not good enough and I don't play Practice Games, come back maybe when you are good." Nether one of us Enjoyed the game (Well I know I did not and I am sure he did not unless he got his kicks by spending more time placing figures on the table rather than actually playing the game.)
Indeed. The issue isn't with game balance, but player attitudes. I can look back on every negative game of any system, any sport, any activity, throughout my life, and see that in each and every one of those instances, my issues were with certain people, not the rules or system or whatever.
I have made the argument before, and I feel it is perfectly valid now, that it is a matter of personal responsibility and accountability that you are playing a game that your opponent will enjoy. Whether this is in discussing ahead of time what kind of game you want, or taking units that aren't going to blow them away, or however you do it. But just because the rules allow for certain things to be done does not mean its is okay to do them; just because you CAN, does not mean you SHOULD. That's why I am selective on who I spend my hobby time on, focusing on players with similar goals and desired outcomes as me and not wasting my time with others. The issue isn't that people can take overpowered lists, the issue is that they do.
I could go off on anecdotal rants all day long about my and others's negative experiences about a select group of players in our local area, but that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to determine and understand the various ways to play the games we play. Not everyone is going to like the different styles of play, and that is OKAY.
You can't claim narative is more balanced if you have to ban lists and units to make it that way, it makes no sense giving everything you've argued before.
If it's about having fun then you have to let players take armies they enjoy using.
Forcing people into set builds is not a casual mindset at all, after all i thought the result was irelevent.
Where did I claim narrative is "more balanced?" lol
I said that in my experience TFG perpetual power gamers avoid narrative events because they can't freely powergame due to the constraints of the narrative scenarios.
Trying to say narrative is wrong because it enforces builds players don't enjoy using has nothing to do with what I said.
You are establishing a secondary argument for a different thread... that its wrong to enforce builds and that people should be free to bust the game however they want.
auticus wrote: I said that in my experience TFG perpetual power gamers avoid narrative events because they can't freely powergame due to the constraints of the narrative scenarios.
What constraints of the narrative scenarios? The scenarios we've seen so far have had plenty of room for powergaming. In fact, with the weaker restrictions on army choices compared to matched play, there's more room for powergaming.
And no, your personal house-ruled version of "narrative" play is not relevant here. It's just a concession that the "narrative" rules published by GW are a broken mess and do not prevent overpowered lists.
Everyone I have ever played with that does our narrative events understands why the enforced builds exist. They play the narrative events to do story-driven scenarios where min/max tournament lists aren't present. As such yeah they are all totally fine with enforced builds.
And no, your personal house-ruled version of "narrative" play is not relevant here. It's just a concession that the "narrative" rules published by GW are a broken mess and do not prevent overpowered lists.
Your snide comment is noted. It would also be noted that the LVO, Adepticon, and the SCGT would be irrelevant versions of tournaments because they are all house-ruled versions of "matched play". In fact, in your world, none of GW rules prevent overpowered lists.
The points have always been garbage. All the way from the beginning the points have been garbage. That the points will continue to be garbage is not surprising, or to be honest, something that I care much about.
We'll continue to spreadsheet the game and find the optimal load outs and just stick with that as has been done since the long ago.
Node based campaign for my public 2017 campaign.
From the other thread the quotes messed up but it's clear you think your narrative game is superior to competative play at least to me.
You don't rate organized play thats fine but to declare points garbage while using your own system to balance is a tad hypocritical as both do the exact same thing, either narrative play is inherintly better on it's own merrits or it's not.
The fact you have to ban stuff shows the exact problem i talked about does exist.
auticus wrote: Your snide comment is noted. It would also be noted that the LVO, Adepticon, and the SCGT would be irrelevant versions of tournaments because they are all house-ruled versions of "matched play".
The difference is that the people running those tournaments aren't pretending that matched play is perfect, they're openly acknowledging that balance problems exist and need to be fixed. Nobody is saying "it's ok that 40k is not balanced, the LVO rules fix it", tournament players want GW to fix the rules and make the house rules unnecessary.
But sure, let's consider matched play as-printed and ignore the house rules created by tournaments. It's still a better game than "narrative" or open play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: They play the narrative events to do story-driven scenarios where min/max tournament lists aren't present.
Why do you keep assuming that "narrative" and "powerful" are opposing concepts in list construction? There are plenty of powerful tournament lists that are also very fluffy. Banning those lists isn't about improving the narrative, it's about trying to maintain competitive balance and ensure that everyone has an equal chance of winning. If it's truly all about the narrative then you would allow the powerful-but-fluffy lists and accept that having one-sided games against them is just part of the narrative. After all, it's not like winning matters, right?
Story > winning for narrative play. If you don't understand this you won't understand narrative. Trying to get you to understand this is like describing color to a blind man.
For instance, comments like "Why do you keep assuming that "narrative" and "powerful" are opposing concepts in list construction?" really miss the mark.
The question should be "What makes sense for the story," then, from there, you adjust balanced based on power if necessary.
hobojebus wrote: You can't claim narative is more balanced if you have to ban lists and units to make it that way, it makes no sense giving everything you've argued before.
If it's about having fun then you have to let players take armies they enjoy using.
Forcing people into set builds is not a casual mindset at all, after all i thought the result was irelevent.
Narrative isn't in any shape or form "casual". A good narrative event need 200% more work that a competitive event. And no, for a good narrative experience you can't let players do what they want. Haven't you played some pen and papper RPG? Theres restrictions because the Narrative comes before than anything.
To say that "restrictions" and "bans" are something that only exist in "competitive" style of experiences is just wrong. Objetively wrong.
auticus wrote: I said that in my experience TFG perpetual power gamers avoid narrative events because they can't freely powergame due to the constraints of the narrative scenarios.
What constraints of the narrative scenarios? The scenarios we've seen so far have had plenty of room for powergaming. In fact, with the weaker restrictions on army choices compared to matched play, there's more room for powergaming.
And no, your personal house-ruled version of "narrative" play is not relevant here. It's just a concession that the "narrative" rules published by GW are a broken mess and do not prevent overpowered lists.
The title of the threat is "Narrative" vs "Competitive" vs "Casual"; not "Narrative play" vs "Matched play" vs "Open play". So his personal house ruled version of a narrative event is totally relevant here. Stop being the thread police out there and come to a discussion with the posibility that maybe what you write with your fingers isn't always an unquestionable truth.
People is here arguing about Narrative as a form of gaming but you live obssesed with Narrative play and Games Workshop for your personal campaing against them. Thats good, everyone has his hobbys. But go down from your high horse, please sir.
hobojebus wrote: You can't claim narative is more balanced if you have to ban lists and units to make it that way, it makes no sense giving everything you've argued before.
If it's about having fun then you have to let players take armies they enjoy using.
Forcing people into set builds is not a casual mindset at all, after all i thought the result was irelevent.
Narrative isn't in any shape or form "casual". A good narrative event need 200% more work that a competitive event. And no, for a good narrative experience you can't let players do what they want. Haven't you played some pen and papper RPG? Theres restrictions because the Narrative comes before than anything.
To say that "restrictions" and "bans" are something that only exist in "competitive" style of experiences is just wrong. Objetively wrong.
And, again, please remember that restrictions / bans are fluid based on what makes logical sense.
If you're invading a craftworld, maybe a few Wraithknights show up.
Does it make sense, for instance, to have Roboute Guilliman in every fight? There'd have to be something very large at stake for him to be present. And this is why some people get narrative and others don't. If you have to be told not to bring Roboute Guilliman to a specific part of the story arc, you're missing the point entirely.
hobojebus wrote: You can't claim narative is more balanced if you have to ban lists and units to make it that way, it makes no sense giving everything you've argued before.
If it's about having fun then you have to let players take armies they enjoy using.
Forcing people into set builds is not a casual mindset at all, after all i thought the result was irelevent.
Narrative isn't in any shape or form "casual". A good narrative event need 200% more work that a competitive event. And no, for a good narrative experience you can't let players do what they want. Haven't you played some pen and papper RPG? Theres restrictions because the Narrative comes before than anything.
To say that "restrictions" and "bans" are something that only exist in "competitive" style of experiences is just wrong. Objetively wrong.
And, again, please remember that restrictions / bans are fluid based on what makes logical sense.
If you're invading a craftworld, maybe a few Wraithknights show up.
Does it make sense, for instance, to have Roboute Guilliman in every fight? There'd have to be something very large at stake for him to be present. And this is why some people get narrative and others don't. If you have to be told not to bring Roboute Guilliman to a specific part of the story arc, you're missing the point entirely.
Basically, yes. Trying to arguee about what is a narrative game with 100% competitive players is like talking with a wall I understand it. Is just against all of what they want for the game. And thats cool for them. But to don't even have the capability to open the mind fo understand what other people want only shows a boxed-shaped mind.
And before someone say anything: Warhammer has NEVER been a narrative pure experience. The "Narrative play" GW has done is Competitive with a Story and special rules behind, but Competitive noneteless.
auticus wrote: They play the narrative events to do story-driven scenarios where min/max tournament lists aren't present.
Why do you keep assuming that "narrative" and "powerful" are opposing concepts in list construction? There are plenty of powerful tournament lists that are also very fluffy. Banning those lists isn't about improving the narrative, it's about trying to maintain competitive balance and ensure that everyone has an equal chance of winning. If it's truly all about the narrative then you would allow the powerful-but-fluffy lists and accept that having one-sided games against them is just part of the narrative. After all, it's not like winning matters, right?
This just demostrates that you simple, don't understand what a pure narrative game/experience is. And, no. The Narrative Play mode of Warhammer 40k 8th edition isn't a pure narrative experience.
He raises an interesting point. How many narrative players here are playing games like: the eldar are racing to seal their webway portal before the ork army can gain access, meanwhile the orks have found traces of their rival waagh and are looking for signs of their secret camp. How does it turn out?
vs
This game we're about to play will tell the story of how the eldar sealed their webway portal before the orks were able to gain access, and the orks found traces of their rivals and located their secret camp.
I would be genuinely interested to know if people are playing the latter.
Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.
You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.
What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.
Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.
hobojebus wrote: Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.
You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.
What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.
Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.
It's not an argument, it's a statement.
You're talking about balance but that's not even the point.
That's like me saying my favorite drink is coca-cola, and you then go on to describe how pancakes are better than bacon.
Granular points accompany a specific mindset. Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.
Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?
Granular points accompany a specific mindset. Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.
Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?
Because at some point in the narrative, you're going to play a game to see how the story progresses. And once that happens, the relative power levels of the units involved (whether it be points or power level or innate guestimation) will influence the outcomes of both the game and therefore the story. Unless you're just pushing models around declaring this unit killed that unit, or this unit is constantly getting shot at but not taking any casualties.
It also depends on the set up. I got a BattleTech one I am tying to work up for 40k. If done right Min/Max will mean little.
Long Table Set Up.
Basically you would have a Patrol Level Detachment on Side A. The Side a Battalion sized Detachment.
The victory conditions are based on how many units you get off Side-A's Table Edge.
Some of the Special Rules might be:
>No Flanking or Deep Strike Units. No units over Move of 10".
>Variable Game End.
>Side A getting a Fortification.
>Side A getting Bonus Command Points.
>Side A getting Orbital Bombardment.
>Side B starting off board and randomly coming in randomly.
Have not worked out all of the all the details yet, but the goal is to make Side B decide to engage Side A or get units off Side A's table edge.
For the matter, a good narrative system needs a good balance, but not everything has to be equal to be narratively balanced.
A good example are Warriors vs Mages in Dungeons and Dragons systems. Warriors are alongside the Barbarian the strongest class at the low levels, and the mages the Weakers, but that changes at the end of the campaing (If the mage survives)
A balanced narrative system means that every "narrative" you want to accomplish can be executed as you expect it with a system that support it in relation to how your "narrative" interacts with the "narratives" of the other player.
Explaining it better: Is not about everyone having a equal chance of "winning" or having the same "power"; is about everyone having their place.
If I want to do the "narrative" of a vagabund, is absurd to ask the system to be balanced so my vagabund can kill the other player Knight. If the system is balanced, my vagabund will be good in his own "narrative" way. And the system will let me behave as a vagabund should behave.
But this comes down to my previous statement: Warhammer isn't a narrative system. The best you can have is a Competitive play with some "fluffy" rules. Thats why many pages before I said that Power Level isn't better for narrative that complete points.
Power Level has is advantages. Ones that to me, someone that plays many times with little childres, really appreciates to introduce childres to a Point system step by step. But it is what it is. With all his limitations.
The problem here is how Peregrine just insistit that the mere existence of that option is detrimental.
Dungeons and Dragons isn't a good example here however, because it's one of the few games i can think of that is actually a co-operative game. The party is intended to work together, so the relative power levels of a warrior vs a mage are less meaningful as they're not meant to be fighting each other at every encounter.
Torga_DW wrote: Dungeons and Dragons isn't a good example here however, because it's one of the few games i can think of that is actually a co-operative game. The party is intended to work together, so the relative power levels of a warrior vs a mage are less meaningful as they're not meant to be fighting each other at every encounter.
You say that... and I can say all the Campaings that have ended abrutly because one player joined the bad guys or just infighting between the players.
Torga_DW wrote: Dungeons and Dragons isn't a good example here however, because it's one of the few games i can think of that is actually a co-operative game. The party is intended to work together, so the relative power levels of a warrior vs a mage are less meaningful as they're not meant to be fighting each other at every encounter.
You say that... and I can say all the Campaings that have ended abrutly because one player joined the bad guys or just infighting between the players.
No question about it. There's a heavy social component involved in d&d. But at most stages of the game, when the warrior fights the mage you can predict how it will turn out.
Torga_DW wrote: Dungeons and Dragons isn't a good example here however, because it's one of the few games i can think of that is actually a co-operative game. The party is intended to work together, so the relative power levels of a warrior vs a mage are less meaningful as they're not meant to be fighting each other at every encounter.
You say that... and I can say all the Campaings that have ended abrutly because one player joined the bad guys or just infighting between the players.
No question about it. There's a heavy social component involved in d&d. But at most stages of the game, when the warrior fights the mage you can predict how it will turn out.
But thats exactly my point. At some point in the "late game" the Warrior just Can't win against the mage. Is that inbalanced? No, because both have made their own "narratives" throught the game/campaing.
And thats whats important in a Narrative system. Is not about everyone having equal chances of winning at every state. Is about having a balanced system about the narrative people want to roleplay/create. But those narratives don't need to be balanced ones against the others to be a good narrative system.
Like playing a Kobold in Pathfinder with -4 Strenght and -4 Dexterity without bonus while a Sun Elf has +2 Dexterity/Magic/Charisma. Is obviously imbalanced from a competitive standpoint, but it works for both narratives.
5E? Fighter wins early on, unless the Wizard picked Sleep. At 5th level, Fighter probably wins no matter the spell selection. At higher levels, though, it tips in the Wizard's favor.
That's not because the classes aren't balanced in 5E, though-it's because the Wizard is capable of going nova, whereas the Fighter is not, for the most part.
But thats exactly my point. At some point in the "late game" the Warrior just Can't win against the mage. Is that inbalanced? No, because both have made their own "narratives" throught the game/campaing.
And thats whats important in a Narrative system. Is not about everyone having equal chances of winning at every state. Is about having a balanced system about the narrative people want to roleplay/create. But those narratives don't need to be balanced ones against the others to be a good narrative system.
Like playing a Kobold in Pathfinder with -4 Strenght and -4 Dexterity without bonus while a Sun Elf has +2 Dexterity/Magic/Charisma. Is obviously imbalanced from a competitive standpoint, but it works for both narratives.
Yes, it is imbalanced. At most points of the game, one class will dominate the other. The game works because its not intended to pit one player vs another. When that sort of thing happens, you start losing players and/or the campaign ends entirely. The story stops, when it could otherwise continue.
Compare that to 40k, where you can have cadia be scoured of life and cease to exist as a planet, yet players who own cadian armies can still continue to play and advance their stories.
But thats exactly my point. At some point in the "late game" the Warrior just Can't win against the mage. Is that inbalanced? No, because both have made their own "narratives" throught the game/campaing.
And thats whats important in a Narrative system. Is not about everyone having equal chances of winning at every state. Is about having a balanced system about the narrative people want to roleplay/create. But those narratives don't need to be balanced ones against the others to be a good narrative system.
Like playing a Kobold in Pathfinder with -4 Strenght and -4 Dexterity without bonus while a Sun Elf has +2 Dexterity/Magic/Charisma. Is obviously imbalanced from a competitive standpoint, but it works for both narratives.
Yes, it is imbalanced. At most points of the game, one class will dominate the other. The game works because its not intended to pit one player vs another. When that sort of thing happens, you start losing players and/or the campaign ends entirely. The story stops, when it could otherwise continue.
Compare that to 40k, where you can have cadia be scoured of life and cease to exist as a planet, yet players who own cadian armies can still continue to play and advance their stories.
I can compare it better with a Warhammer40k Map-based Campaing where one player starts with 10 planets and a full grown empire and all the other players starts with only 1 planet and they all need to ally ones with others, play the diplomate game, etc... to go against the one that from a competitive standpoint has a builded up imbalance to make a narrative.
All of that can go with rules in the proper missions that offer the "big bad" player more units, or points, a battle where one player with a smaller army has to sabotage some facility of the big player that has much more troops, etc...
But again, all of this works better with a balanced system for units. In any point I have made the statement agains't that. My statement was that the Power Level system has all of his limitations but some virtues over the full point system. And we work with the reality that 40k isn't really a narrative game. "Narrative play" as 40k presents it isn't a narrative game, is just Competitive with some nice lists and extra rules.
hobojebus wrote: Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.
You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.
What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.
Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.
It's not an argument, it's a statement.
You're talking about balance but that's not even the point.
That's like me saying my favorite drink is coca-cola, and you then go on to describe how pancakes are better than bacon.
Granular points accompany a specific mindset. Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.
Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?
I think you'll find it a tricky statement to justify as you never actually tried to investigate my level of comprehension you've just assumed your superior and decided to talk to me and others in a very condescending manner.
Balance has in point of fact always been my point in this thread.
Why would you play any game if there's no chance at victory? Be it a co-op game of zombiecide or a 100/6 of x-wing if the outcome is predetermined playing is a waste of time and effort, if all your doing is telling a story you don't need to touch a model, telling a story using a wargame must have the outcome be uncertain with the possibility of triumphant victory as likely as a crushing defeat.
If your story can't shift to accommodate every outcome then its honestly not much cop.
A good gm can work with any twist and turn their players throw at them you should never put your group an tracks with no option to divert from what you've scripted, their decision making must matter or there's no point in their participation.
Galas wrote: The title of the threat is "Narrative" vs "Competitive" vs "Casual"; not "Narrative play" vs "Matched play" vs "Open play".
And, despite this nitpick, the OP makes it clear that they're talking about GW's "three ways to play". Their very first sentence:
GW is pushing 3 ways to play to 40K. But I'm confused by how they are setting them apart from one another.
Marmatag wrote: If you have to be told not to bring Roboute Guilliman to a specific part of the story arc, you're missing the point entirely.
No, you're missing the point and defining "narrative" according to your personal preferences for the games you play instead of looking at narrative gaming in general. Perhaps the Guilliman player loves the character and wants to tell Guilliman's story (along with the stories of the Ultramarines fighting by his side)? If that's the case then of course they're going to bring Guilliman to every part of the story arc, because doing anything else would be ruining their narrative experience. By saying "don't bring Guilliman often, it isn't narrative" what you're actually saying is "your story isn't valid, you need to be an NPC in my story by my rules".
Galas wrote: A good example are Warriors vs Mages in Dungeons and Dragons systems. Warriors are alongside the Barbarian the strongest class at the low levels, and the mages the Weakers, but that changes at the end of the campaing (If the mage survives)
Actually this is a common misconception. The warrior vs. mage balance problem exists largely because most groups tend to ignore the follower and kingdom building aspects of the game in favor of playing a skirmish-scale miniatures game with token roleplaying rules attached. A higher-level fighter reaches a limit on individual power, but is meant to gain followers and eventually claim territory and become lord of their domain with whole armies at their command. The mage, on the other hand, continues to grow in individual power but is still just a single character. Having a duel between a fighter and a wizard is completely missing the point, the actual duel should be between a wizard and the fighter-king's army (which probably contains some lower-level wizards).
And there is a balance problem when you strip down the game and take away the fighter's greatest endgame assets. It's a major problem for DMs to deal with, since nobody has any fun when a single character does all the cool stuff and the rest of the party never gets their chance to shine. As a DM you have to work a lot harder to keep a high-level game interesting than if fighters and mages were balanced as individual characters.
Galas wrote: A good example are Warriors vs Mages in Dungeons and Dragons systems. Warriors are alongside the Barbarian the strongest class at the low levels, and the mages the Weakers, but that changes at the end of the campaing (If the mage survives)
Actually this is a common misconception. The warrior vs. mage balance problem exists largely because most groups tend to ignore the follower and kingdom building aspects of the game in favor of playing a skirmish-scale miniatures game with token roleplaying rules attached. A higher-level fighter reaches a limit on individual power, but is meant to gain followers and eventually claim territory and become lord of their domain with whole armies at their command. The mage, on the other hand, continues to grow in individual power but is still just a single character. Having a duel between a fighter and a wizard is completely missing the point, the actual duel should be between a wizard and the fighter-king's army (which probably contains some lower-level wizards).
And there is a balance problem when you strip down the game and take away the fighter's greatest endgame assets. It's a major problem for DMs to deal with, since nobody has any fun when a single character does all the cool stuff and the rest of the party never gets their chance to shine. As a DM you have to work a lot harder to keep a high-level game interesting than if fighters and mages were balanced as individual characters.
Actually I have done that in more than one game with my warriors/knights, so I can understand what you are saying here. But the point remains here, because as the Warrior can build or conquer a Kingdom a Wizard can become the master of all the Magic Towers of the Planet (If that universe has something like that). I have seen a Wizard conquer all the 8 magic towers in a campaing and build a infinite army of inmune-magic golems and then conquer all of the world with that army (Using some gamey mathematical formulas, to be honest )
But I agree that when the game reach that points it becomes normally absurd or boring. My point was basically that, for a good narrative game, you need for people to do their narrative and to have fun doing it. If I want to roleplay a vagabund it doesn't matter to me that other member of the party is a Wizard that has devour God and then give me superpowers. I agree that munchkin and Overpowered characters are anathema for a fun roleplaying or narrative experience. If someone want to do a narrative campaing where he is the little dog
But to be honest, at this point, I don't even know what I'm discussing anymore, so I'll drop it here. Thanks everybody for the discussion! Sorry if I have appeared hostile Peregrine! It wasn't my intention.
hobojebus wrote: Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.
You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.
What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.
Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.
It's not an argument, it's a statement.
You're talking about balance but that's not even the point.
That's like me saying my favorite drink is coca-cola, and you then go on to describe how pancakes are better than bacon.
Granular points accompany a specific mindset. Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.
Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?
I think you'll find it a tricky statement to justify as you never actually tried to investigate my level of comprehension you've just assumed your superior and decided to talk to me and others in a very condescending manner.
Balance has in point of fact always been my point in this thread.
Why would you play any game if there's no chance at victory? Be it a co-op game of zombiecide or a 100/6 of x-wing if the outcome is predetermined playing is a waste of time and effort, if all your doing is telling a story you don't need to touch a model, telling a story using a wargame must have the outcome be uncertain with the possibility of triumphant victory as likely as a crushing defeat.
If your story can't shift to accommodate every outcome then its honestly not much cop.
A good gm can work with any twist and turn their players throw at them you should never put your group an tracks with no option to divert from what you've scripted, their decision making must matter or there's no point in their participation.
I'm not trying to be condescending, and I apologize for coming across that way; i think you're just missing the mark here. You keep mentioning winning and losing (victory, defeat) but *i don't care* if i win or lose.
Be careful not to simplify narrative games to winners and losers. It's not about winning! When it's a narrative you should want to see everyone do well and have fun. I will play the bad guy and lose every time, I don't care. I'm having fun if everyone is having fun (and I expect something similar from the people i play with).
A lot of gamers i've seen over the years - and i'm not saying this is you - have very fragile egos, and can't handle losing. Getting KO'd in D&D brings people to tears, or table flipping anger. These guys don't fit well with narrative kinds of games, because it ultimately boils down to the NEED to win.
Question to everybody on this thread-can we at least agree that GW should make a balanced system?
For narrative or matched play, I think it's pretty sensible to say the SYSTEM ITSELF should be balanced, and any unbalance should be the player's choice, not inherent to the game.
Narrative Gaming is a lot like RPGs are intended - a story telling experience between multiple players. They are not here to "win" at anything, but just have a good time. Think along the lines of needing a GM for a Narrative Game or Campaign. They are the writer and facilitator of the story, whether it is homebrewed (custom) or running pre-published modules (what is in the GW books).
It boils down to your desired gaming experience, and what you want out of your games:
- Are you here to recreate battles from the lore and/or create your own?
- Do you want to just move models around and roll dice?
- Are you interested in seeing who among your friends is the best tabletop commander?
- Do you want to play WITH other players, or AGAINST them?
Basically, what is your definition of fun? And does that mesh with what other players want for fun?
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Narrative Gaming is a lot like RPGs are intended - a story telling experience between multiple players. They are not here to "win" at anything, but just have a good time. Think along the lines of needing a GM for a Narrative Game or Campaign. They are the writer and facilitator of the story, whether it is homebrewed (custom) or running pre-published modules (what is in the GW books).
It boils down to your desired gaming experience, and what you want out of your games:
- Are you here to recreate battles from the lore and/or create your own?
- Do you want to just move models around and roll dice?
- Are you interested in seeing who among your friends is the best tabletop commander?
- Do you want to play WITH other players, or AGAINST them?
Basically, what is your definition of fun? And does that mesh with what other players want for fun?
The issue is, I don't think 40k is a good system for that. It's set up as a direct competition, and doesn't have many, if any, narrative elements in the rules. There's no Inspiration, like in D&D 5E, or Fate Points, from Fate. There's no options for going beyond the rules to do cool things, like swinging from a chandelier. There's no story built in, basically.
Not so say you CAN'T do narrative with 40k. Just saying it takes a heck of a lot of work to make it function as a narrative system, and GW hasn't really put the work in.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Narrative Gaming is a lot like RPGs are intended - a story telling experience between multiple players. They are not here to "win" at anything, but just have a good time. Think along the lines of needing a GM for a Narrative Game or Campaign. They are the writer and facilitator of the story, whether it is homebrewed (custom) or running pre-published modules (what is in the GW books).
It boils down to your desired gaming experience, and what you want out of your games:
- Are you here to recreate battles from the lore and/or create your own?
- Do you want to just move models around and roll dice?
- Are you interested in seeing who among your friends is the best tabletop commander?
- Do you want to play WITH other players, or AGAINST them?
Basically, what is your definition of fun? And does that mesh with what other players want for fun?
The issue is, I don't think 40k is a good system for that. It's set up as a direct competition, and doesn't have many, if any, narrative elements in the rules. There's no Inspiration, like in D&D 5E, or Fate Points, from Fate. There's no options for going beyond the rules to do cool things, like swinging from a chandelier. There's no story built in, basically.
Not so say you CAN'T do narrative with 40k. Just saying it takes a heck of a lot of work to make it function as a narrative system, and GW hasn't really put the work in.
As one who put a bunch of effort into a 4th edition D&D campaign to make it, I am not scared of making 40K work for my group. Coming up with simple little mechanics like Fate Points, or allowing models to do ridiculous things, or giving level-up bonuses to characters is easy to figure out. It just takes time, some effort, and a group of players willing to play something different and unusual. In my D&D campaign, did I complain when my players tamed a griffon? Or accidentally one-shot the big-boss with a couple nat-20s? Or taunted the giant ant-queen with their mustaches? Or the bird-bard players being ridiculous and managing to create hijinks in the campaign, including setting fire to a dock and accidentally killing someone in an interrogation? No, I just quickly figured out something for the players to roll against, or came up with some flavorful consequence for their actions (the giant ant-queen did not appreciate the mustache twirling, and focused on the player character that insulted her most, and Derpy the Griffon was a loyal companion for the rest of our sessions).
Balance is not a bad thing at all, and I don't think that any of the Narrative Players think that balance is bad to have. But balance is not the focus of Narrative Play, because that effort put into planning the game or campaign would include some kind of incidental "balancing" in it. That's why I would always recommend having a GM to manage the campaign, while the other players act as the players, making their own decisions and playing their games based upon the story (and any limitations and balancing) created by the GM. Sure, the GM can play, either as an NPC threat against the other players, or fill in for a vacant player on campaign nights. While one player may be playing the OP cheesy army, the GM can come up with some way to bring up the weaker armies, bring down the stronger ones, or have a discussion with that player about what kind of army they ought to bring for their games.
What I am getting at is that the RULES may not be "balanced", but us Narrative Gamers can figure out ways to "balance" our GAMES. In the end, so long as everyone has fun, that is the most important thing to happen. Is 40K set up to be a Narrative Game over a Competitive Game? That is hard to answer, and the fact that they will be releasing different supplemental rules for both Matched Play and Narrative Play tells us that GW intends for both versions to be played and enjoyed. To use an example, in the General's Handbook for Age of Sigmar, both the Narrative Play and Matched Play sections make reference to house-rules being available to players to make their games a better experience - think about that, GW making reference to house-rules being okay for your games and tournaments.
I guess I am lucky in that there are enough players in the area who are fed up with the WAAC players that we are excited for the global campaigns from GW, and in coming up with out own stories based on our models's exploits on the tabletop.
And that's cool as hell. More effort than my group is willing to put into 40k.
But that being said, what mechanics does the system have natively for narrative play? Because it sounds a lot like you're adding basically all the narrative elements.
Just need a fast way to get lists onto the table, and to easily determine if something is too strong.
Points don't tell if a unit is too strong, because strength lies in customization. Look at kill team as the prime example. There are a host of restrictions above and beyond point totals, because points are insufficient to balance relative power scales.
JNAProductions wrote: And that's cool as hell. More effort than my group is willing to put into 40k.
But that being said, what mechanics does the system have natively for narrative play? Because it sounds a lot like you're adding basically all the narrative elements.
Age of Sigmar has a couple neat ideas with Path to Glory, and a couple other ideas in the General's Handbook.
But for 40K 8th Edition? I have no idea what is official or not yet, other than we are getting distinct sections for Open, Matched, and Narrative Play. I haven't noticed anything in the leaks about Narrative rules support. I would imagine something very similar to Age of Sigmar, with additional stuff to come later.
Path to Glory is kinda crap, though. It's insanely unbalanced-not "Oh, he's got a 10% advantage," no, it can easily be "He's got 1800 points and I have 600."
Without any real provisions for addressing the disparity.
As a side note, have you ever written up your campaign system for 40k? I'd be interested in seeing it.
JNAProductions wrote: Question to everybody on this thread-can we at least agree that GW should make a balanced system?
For narrative or matched play, I think it's pretty sensible to say the SYSTEM ITSELF should be balanced, and any unbalance should be the player's choice, not inherent to the game.
How do we know it is unbalanced, because it was made by GW. The GW from a year ago is dead...we have a new one that wants a fresh start and it looks like they tried their best.
JNAProductions wrote: Path to Glory is kinda crap, though. It's insanely unbalanced-not "Oh, he's got a 10% advantage," no, it can easily be "He's got 1800 points and I have 600."
Without any real provisions for addressing the disparity.
Hence why a GM should be included, or the players take notice of their advantages
JNAProductions wrote: As a side note, have you ever written up your campaign system for 40k? I'd be interested in seeing it.
I haven't compiled my 40K ideas yet, but I have played in several 40K campaigns run by friends, one was a large (HUGE) scale campaign with 30+ players that scales out of control, and it was based on map-control with bonuses to the armies for controlling certain worlds (Forge Worlds, Hive Worlds, etc), but that campaign died before turn 2 was finished (you ever try getting 30 people to respond to their team leaders? UGH). The other campaign was a modified Kill Team campaign that functioned a lot like Necromunda/SW:A, but was a PVE campaig, with everyone going up against the GM's Chaos army; ever seen Geanstealer Cult, Space Marines, Eldar, Necrons, and Orks all working together to fight Chaos before? It was a hoot and a half!
Once 8th Edition drops, I will definitely start writing up my ideas for Narrative Play, and will make sure to make it public for others to use as they see fit. I did get something written up for our local Age of Sigmar group at one point, but I can't find the document I was working on...
JNAProductions wrote: And that's cool as hell. More effort than my group is willing to put into 40k.
But that being said, what mechanics does the system have natively for narrative play? Because it sounds a lot like you're adding basically all the narrative elements.
It has no one. Warhammer40k as a game isn't a Narrative Game. Players can make it one with a bunch of house rules, just like you see players modding so much a videogame that it doesn't look as the "vanilla" game.
But that doesn't mean that house ruling 40k to make it a more narrative driven game isn't fun.
But I agree. Balance is good to everybody. Is just that in a list of priorities, in the "narrative experience" isn't as high as a "competitive experience". I don't know if I explain myself.
You have been critted by a wall of quotes. Roll for damage.
Spoiler:
JNAProductions wrote:Question to everybody on this thread-can we at least agree that GW should make a balanced system?
For narrative or matched play, I think it's pretty sensible to say the SYSTEM ITSELF should be balanced, and any unbalance should be the player's choice, not inherent to the game.
I would agree with that. Perfect balance being of course impossible, but that doesn't mean gw shouldn't put the effort in to get it as balanced as possible.
hobojebus wrote: Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.
You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.
What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.
Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.
It's not an argument, it's a statement.
You're talking about balance but that's not even the point.
That's like me saying my favorite drink is coca-cola, and you then go on to describe how pancakes are better than bacon.
Granular points accompany a specific mindset. Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.
Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?
I think you'll find it a tricky statement to justify as you never actually tried to investigate my level of comprehension you've just assumed your superior and decided to talk to me and others in a very condescending manner.
Balance has in point of fact always been my point in this thread.
Why would you play any game if there's no chance at victory? Be it a co-op game of zombiecide or a 100/6 of x-wing if the outcome is predetermined playing is a waste of time and effort, if all your doing is telling a story you don't need to touch a model, telling a story using a wargame must have the outcome be uncertain with the possibility of triumphant victory as likely as a crushing defeat.
If your story can't shift to accommodate every outcome then its honestly not much cop.
A good gm can work with any twist and turn their players throw at them you should never put your group an tracks with no option to divert from what you've scripted, their decision making must matter or there's no point in their participation.
I'm not trying to be condescending, and I apologize for coming across that way; i think you're just missing the mark here. You keep mentioning winning and losing (victory, defeat) but *i don't care* if i win or lose.
Be careful not to simplify narrative games to winners and losers. It's not about winning! When it's a narrative you should want to see everyone do well and have fun. I will play the bad guy and lose every time, I don't care. I'm having fun if everyone is having fun (and I expect something similar from the people i play with).
A lot of gamers i've seen over the years - and i'm not saying this is you - have very fragile egos, and can't handle losing. Getting KO'd in D&D brings people to tears, or table flipping anger. These guys don't fit well with narrative kinds of games, because it ultimately boils down to the NEED to win.
I agree that everyone should have fun, and that fun is different for different people. Part of being a gm is to lose in the encounters so the players can progress the story, the trick is to not make victory a sure thing otherwise where's the thrill from overcoming a challenge? Be it combat, or solving a puzzle, or negotiating with the drow ambassador. My sticking point is predetermined outcomes - at what point is someone playing a game with a narrative, vs telling a narrative with the game being a sidenote that gets put aside when it looks like it might influence the outcome? The balance levels of the scenario, of the units involved, of the special rules, will influence the story if you're playing a narrative *game* based on something like 40k. If the story is more important than the game, then at some point you cease playing a game entirely and are just moving toy soldiers across the table and telling a story, which is certainly narrative but not necessarily narrative gaming.
Spoiler:
BunkhouseBuster wrote:Narrative Gaming is a lot like RPGs are intended - a story telling experience between multiple players. They are not here to "win" at anything, but just have a good time. Think along the lines of needing a GM for a Narrative Game or Campaign. They are the writer and facilitator of the story, whether it is homebrewed (custom) or running pre-published modules (what is in the GW books).
It boils down to your desired gaming experience, and what you want out of your games:
- Are you here to recreate battles from the lore and/or create your own?
- Do you want to just move models around and roll dice?
- Are you interested in seeing who among your friends is the best tabletop commander?
- Do you want to play WITH other players, or AGAINST them?
Basically, what is your definition of fun? And does that mesh with what other players want for fun?
I largely agree here, i just think its important to note that there's a fine line between playing a game with a narrative, and telling a story with a narrative. The latter requires little to no rules at all.
Spoiler:
BunkhouseBuster wrote:As one who put a bunch of effort into a 4th edition D&D campaign to make it, I am not scared of making 40K work for my group. Coming up with simple little mechanics like Fate Points, or allowing models to do ridiculous things, or giving level-up bonuses to characters is easy to figure out. It just takes time, some effort, and a group of players willing to play something different and unusual. In my D&D campaign, did I complain when my players tamed a griffon? Or accidentally one-shot the big-boss with a couple nat-20s? Or taunted the giant ant-queen with their mustaches? Or the bird-bard players being ridiculous and managing to create hijinks in the campaign, including setting fire to a dock and accidentally killing someone in an interrogation? No, I just quickly figured out something for the players to roll against, or came up with some flavorful consequence for their actions (the giant ant-queen did not appreciate the mustache twirling, and focused on the player character that insulted her most, and Derpy the Griffon was a loyal companion for the rest of our sessions).
Balance is not a bad thing at all, and I don't think that any of the Narrative Players think that balance is bad to have. But balance is not the focus of Narrative Play, because that effort put into planning the game or campaign would include some kind of incidental "balancing" in it. That's why I would always recommend having a GM to manage the campaign, while the other players act as the players, making their own decisions and playing their games based upon the story (and any limitations and balancing) created by the GM. Sure, the GM can play, either as an NPC threat against the other players, or fill in for a vacant player on campaign nights. While one player may be playing the OP cheesy army, the GM can come up with some way to bring up the weaker armies, bring down the stronger ones, or have a discussion with that player about what kind of army they ought to bring for their games.
What I am getting at is that the RULES may not be "balanced", but us Narrative Gamers can figure out ways to "balance" our GAMES. In the end, so long as everyone has fun, that is the most important thing to happen. Is 40K set up to be a Narrative Game over a Competitive Game? That is hard to answer, and the fact that they will be releasing different supplemental rules for both Matched Play and Narrative Play tells us that GW intends for both versions to be played and enjoyed. To use an example, in the General's Handbook for Age of Sigmar, both the Narrative Play and Matched Play sections make reference to house-rules being available to players to make their games a better experience - think about that, GW making reference to house-rules being okay for your games and tournaments.
I guess I am lucky in that there are enough players in the area who are fed up with the WAAC players that we are excited for the global campaigns from GW, and in coming up with out own stories based on our models's exploits on the tabletop.
[spoiler]
From the murky depths of my memory, gw has referenced house rules in the past, most likely in white dwarf. I guess its good that they're letting certain people know they have control over the games they own, but it seems a bit redundant to me and still ends up requiring opponent's consent. Leaving us with the situation we have already - the people that want to alter the rules will do so, the people that don't won't.
What i'm reading from your post is that some players largely abandon the rules altogether in favour of telling a story. My contention is that if you alter or ignore the rules enough, that's fine but at a certain point you're no longer playing 40k. Again, that's fine nothing wrong with that. You could alter the game to be a co-operative d&d-type experience, without a shadow of a doubt. It's just important to realize that at that point you're not actually playing 40k, and might be better served by using rules from one of the rpgs as a starting point to your game, like dark heresy, etc.
I'll be interested in seeing exactly what support is given to narrative play when the game releases.
[spoiler]
Marmatag wrote:Just need a fast way to get lists onto the table, and to easily determine if something is too strong.
Points don't tell if a unit is too strong, because strength lies in customization. Look at kill team as the prime example. There are a host of restrictions above and beyond point totals, because points are insufficient to balance relative power scales.
But power is a less accurate version of points. A fast way to get lists onto the table - maybe. To easily determine if something is too strong - probably not. I've already seen the inceptor vs thousand sons argument, so out of the box we have a problem in that respect.
Spoiler:
Anpu42 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: Question to everybody on this thread-can we at least agree that GW should make a balanced system?
For narrative or matched play, I think it's pretty sensible to say the SYSTEM ITSELF should be balanced, and any unbalance should be the player's choice, not inherent to the game.
How do we know it is unbalanced, because it was made by GW. The GW from a year ago is dead...we have a new one that wants a fresh start and it looks like they tried their best.
I've heard this many times before. As always, i'll be taking a wait and see approach before i commit to giving them any more of my money.
Spoiler:
Galas wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: And that's cool as hell. More effort than my group is willing to put into 40k.
But that being said, what mechanics does the system have natively for narrative play? Because it sounds a lot like you're adding basically all the narrative elements.
It has no one. Warhammer40k as a game isn't a Narrative Game. Players can make it one with a bunch of house rules, just like you see players modding so much a videogame that it doesn't look as the "vanilla" game.
But that doesn't mean that house ruling 40k to make it a more narrative driven game isn't fun.
But I agree. Balance is good to everybody. Is just that in a list of priorities, in the "narrative experience" isn't as high as a "competitive experience". I don't know if I explain myself.
I understand what you're saying, and largely agree. I think it depends on how much of the game you end up using and how much you end up throwing out. A 'true' narrative experience doesn't require any rules whatsoever.
Matched is the standard game, "open" is just formal endorsement of tossing aside restrictions and playing whatever you and your friends feel like, and "narrative" is playing to a story, and perfectly compatible with either. Narrative scenarios have always been in the game in some form or another.
Someone came up with splitting the Generals Handbook up this way, then pushed it really hard. Now they're still pushing it when honestly you could probably compress the idea of open play to a short paragraph and present narrative as an extensive set of scenarios rather than trying to push it as a nebulously seperate form of play.
