Bait title i know, but I need to add a lot of context. I first played 'wargames' some 30 years ago, starting with 2nd ed Warhammer, then moving through Space Marine/Epic, 40k,Horus Heresy board game, Battlefleet Gothic, Warmaster etc, until life moved me along and I put away/sold my minis in exchange for a family.
I re-entered the 'hobby' primarily through modelling kits, which led me to historicals (ww2 and moderns) - I've seen the recent partwork Warhammer conquest and thus thought about re-starting 40k. BUT - on reading about 40k as it is now, I see comments about 'tabling the opposition on turn 1' or 'list building'.
When I played those other 'wargames' the focus was generally on replicating tactics (real or imagined) that the troops represented would use in 'real' life - overwatching, combined arms, flanking shieldwalls etc - that doesn't seem to be the playerbase focus in 40k, instead it seems to be about 'gaming' the rules themselves as some artificial construct, with any concept that the activity on the board is in some way representative of how a battle might unfold being coincidental at best.
I'm therefore asking dakka - is this right? My brain tells me the issue as I see it is either 1) the 40k rules themselves are poor 'wargame' rules, and if I want to play superhuman Marines against numberless Xenos hordes in a 'realistic' manner then I should get out my copy of the Tomorrows War ruleset; or 2) The rules themselves are fine, but the playerbase has corrupted the intent of the game (whether through design or accident) away from a game trying to simulate war, into a game about itself - the players are playing "Warhammer 40k" as opposed to "Chess", or "Risk", all of which have 'war' themes but don't claim to model actual warfare.
People enjoy 40k in different ways. Some people have enjoy playing it almost like an RPG where telling a story is more important than trying to win. Some people see it as a numbers game with cool looking meeples, and don't really care about the story. Some people mainly show up to throw dice, drink beer and joke around and everything is secondary to socializing. (Most people like all aspects to a certain extent.)
Games Workshop is trying to do a better job of catering to different kinds of players with their more recent rules. If you want to play games where people are doing their best to replicate the tactics from the fluff, look for narrative events and groups. If you go to a tournament don't be surprised if you run into a bunch of people who are there to win and don't really care if their army doesn't follow the fluff.
Edit: That was a long-winded version of saying that the game can be most anything you want it to be as long as you find like-minded people.
Yes it is, just b.c its not a wargame like others doesnt mean its not a wargame.
A wargame (if i remember correctly) is defined as a game with 3 things; Terrain, Miniatures, tactical combat.
Edit: to add, table the opponent is b.c both players didnt agree as to what type of game they will play, thats like playing MTG and 1 person playing Standard and the other Legacy, its not going to have a good outcome.
That is an interesting question. My first war games (besides chess and Risk) were Avalon Hill book shelf games, so when I started 40K in 3rd Ed I was puzzled by its lack of tactical depth. Still, I was enamored with the concept of combining figurines with a war game and over time began to see unique tactical elements to tabletop war gaming that I hadn't discovered before. I felt the rules writers made a genuine attempt to create a competitive rules set that could work with their platoon level sci-fantasy setting, even though much improvement could still be made. 40K seemed even then to be a work in progress.
Considerable effort was made to create a game with elements of balance, playability, scaled models and wide-ranging story while allowing for growth in every facet. It went off the rails at times, but I think there was a real attempt at making a tactical game, even if it was a tad shallow at times.
That no longer seems to be a priority if even a genuine consideration. But people rightly love the models, the setting, the camaraderie, the hobby...but unless you house-rule the heck out of 40K you really don't have a war game any more. It's more a card game with figures as tokens.
Thanks for the responses all - Amanita, I think you are perhaps closest to my experience - and I'm not saying I'm right, just looking for alternatives, to my proposal that 40k may have become a war themed game rather than attempting to be a war simulation.
I'd say 8th edition isn't because what few things that really required careful consideration such as vehicle facing, fire arcs, reserves and deepstrike being a gamble. Instead you basically have aura hammer with a bit of CP battery to pull of card combo powers.
What you're seeing has been going on longer than you've been gaming. It's just that you & the people you played with weren't doing it.
And reading about how the tournament scene functions might not be representative of how people are otherwise playing the game....
It was when I started (3rd/4th ed) a science fiction game created by wargamers. It is now a science fiction game created by video gamers. I miss the old 40K. For a time FW stood strong for the "military" aspect of the game, but that is largely gone now.
That terrain plays little role in the game now shows how far it has gone in the other direction.
Honestly. what separates a war game from a normal game or board game or video game.
is it the subject matter, specific game play aspects, movements, mechanics and the like?
Its 3 things, Armed Miniatures , Terrain, and Combat.
Well, that's if we're talking about Miniature Wargames. There's an entire field of board wargames (that I've recently been getting into), which usually come in three flavors - hex-and-counter, block, and card driven. There's even an upcoming 40k game - Heroes of Black Reach.
Honestly. what separates a war game from a normal game or board game or video game.
is it the subject matter, specific game play aspects, movements, mechanics and the like?
Its 3 things, Armed Miniatures , Terrain, and Combat.
Well, that's if we're talking about Miniature Wargames. There's an entire field of board wargames (that I've recently been getting into), which usually come in three flavors - hex-and-counter, block, and card driven. There's even an upcoming 40k game - Heroes of Black Reach.
Im talking about miniature as 40k is a miniature game, there are also subcategories like Air War games, Naval , etc...
There is Miniature wargaming and then there is wargaming, or air wargames, or naval wargames, then there is tactics wargaming, etc..
The problem is there are many forms of it, a "war game" is a game with fictional type military operations in a tactic battle, or aka warfare simulation.
So many games falls under those categories and so does warhammer.
Miniatures - a love of toy soldiers, painting, making terrain or worlds in miniature, visual appeal War - real or imagined history, characters, simulation, realistic tactics, narrative Gaming - rules mastery, winning, competition, clever moves or power combos, casual or serious
And each of us, and every set of wargames rules, rates those three aspects differently.
As a wildly sweeping generalisation, I'd say that miniatures games designers take that range of choice into account. Minis games - to me - seem more likely to produce universal rulesets for playing a particular era or style of game. Compare with more traditional hex-and-chit games, where a designer may create new games with different rules for playing out different engagements in the same conflict to capture unique aspects that particular situation. Of course, there are minis gamers who do that too.
And the audience has ALWAYS asked questions like "what happens if we add dinosaurs, zombies and spellcasters to that...?" Heck, we got the huge range of rulesets as a result of people saying "I don't like..." right from the start of the hobby. GW's success has come at least partly from them offering the combination of tons of background material, cool-looking minis, and games rules to play them with. Really, you're following a grand gaming tradition by deciding exactly what combination of toys and rules you want to play with.
eddieazrael wrote: Bait title i know, but I need to add a lot of context. I first played 'wargames' some 30 years ago, starting with 2nd ed Warhammer, then moving through Space Marine/Epic, 40k,Horus Heresy board game, Battlefleet Gothic, Warmaster etc, until life moved me along and I put away/sold my minis in exchange for a family.
I re-entered the 'hobby' primarily through modelling kits, which led me to historicals (ww2 and moderns) - I've seen the recent partwork Warhammer conquest and thus thought about re-starting 40k. BUT - on reading about 40k as it is now, I see comments about 'tabling the opposition on turn 1' or 'list building'.
When I played those other 'wargames' the focus was generally on replicating tactics (real or imagined) that the troops represented would use in 'real' life - overwatching, combined arms, flanking shieldwalls etc - that doesn't seem to be the playerbase focus in 40k, instead it seems to be about 'gaming' the rules themselves as some artificial construct, with any concept that the activity on the board is in some way representative of how a battle might unfold being coincidental at best.
I'm therefore asking dakka - is this right? My brain tells me the issue as I see it is either 1) the 40k rules themselves are poor 'wargame' rules, and if I want to play superhuman Marines against numberless Xenos hordes in a 'realistic' manner then I should get out my copy of the Tomorrows War ruleset; or 2) The rules themselves are fine, but the playerbase has corrupted the intent of the game (whether through design or accident) away from a game trying to simulate war, into a game about itself - the players are playing "Warhammer 40k" as opposed to "Chess", or "Risk", all of which have 'war' themes but don't claim to model actual warfare.
40k is not a wargame. The rules are essentially a mechanism to provide a narrative construct for people to play with their toy space demon army, to play out cinematic moments with plastic army dudes, not to be a tactical combat simulation ruleset replicating any sort of actual combat or conflict.
As bizarre it may sound I find that less competively oriented 40K matches often involve more tactics as the focus is not on winning the game in the list building phase.
Crimson wrote: As bizarre it may sound I find that less competively oriented 40K matches often involve more tactics as the focus is not on winning the game in the list building phase.
There is a reason why games like Go and Chess has skill ratings
Crimson wrote: As bizarre it may sound I find that less competively oriented 40K matches often involve more tactics as the focus is not on winning the game in the list building phase.
There is a reason why games like Go and Chess has skill ratings
So do games where list building is an element. 40k's problem isn't that it has list building, it's that it has poor balance and very shallow rules that encourage a "line up your models and roll dice until someone rolls higher" strategy from both players.
Crimson wrote: As bizarre it may sound I find that less competively oriented 40K matches often involve more tactics as the focus is not on winning the game in the list building phase.
There is a reason why games like Go and Chess has skill ratings
So do games where list building is an element. 40k's problem isn't that it has list building, it's that it has poor balance and very shallow rules that encourage a "line up your models and roll dice until someone rolls higher" strategy from both players.
What does that have to do with "is it a wargame?" List building is in many wargames, just b.c inner balance is bad doesnt mean its still not a wargame.
Amishprn86 wrote: What does that have to do with "is it a wargame?" List building is in many wargames, just b.c inner balance is bad doesnt mean its still not a wargame.
The point is that 40k is not a wargame because its gameplay is not in the same genre. Wargames involve positioning, real-world tactics, etc. 40k plays much more like a CCG where each side lines up their cards and exchanges offensive and defensive stats on an abstract "battlefield" and the winner is decided by a mix of RNG and skill at optimizing rules interactions to produce the best stat lines. For example, an IG storm trooper squad isn't really a "unit" in the wargame sense, it's much more equivalent to a lightning bolt spell in MTG. You cast "plasma storm troopers", you roll to see how much damage you inflict on another card, and then the spell goes away. It hardly matters where the unit and its target are on the table, you simply declare a target and resolve dice. And tactics have little to do with how good or bad the storm troopers are, their effectiveness is almost entirely based on the value of their stat line relative to their point cost (much like lightning bolt is good in MTG because 3 damage for R is a very efficient spell).
Now, technically some of the wargame elements do still exist in 40k as a relic of its previous editions, but the emphasis is overwhelmingly on CCG-style gameplay.
Amishprn86 wrote: What does that have to do with "is it a wargame?" List building is in many wargames, just b.c inner balance is bad doesnt mean its still not a wargame.
The point is that 40k is not a wargame because its gameplay is not in the same genre. Wargames involve positioning, real-world tactics, etc. 40k plays much more like a CCG where each side lines up their cards and exchanges offensive and defensive stats on an abstract "battlefield" and the winner is decided by a mix of RNG and skill at optimizing rules interactions to produce the best stat lines. For example, an IG storm trooper squad isn't really a "unit" in the wargame sense, it's much more equivalent to a lightning bolt spell in MTG. You cast "plasma storm troopers", you roll to see how much damage you inflict on another card, and then the spell goes away. It hardly matters where the unit and its target are on the table, you simply declare a target and resolve dice. And tactics have little to do with how good or bad the storm troopers are, their effectiveness is almost entirely based on the value of their stat line relative to their point cost (much like lightning bolt is good in MTG because 3 damage for R is a very efficient spell).
Now, technically some of the wargame elements do still exist in 40k as a relic of its previous editions, but the emphasis is overwhelmingly on CCG-style gameplay.
Oh.. so you dont have to worry about where you units are position at all? hmm go play a game and not care and see how far that gets you.
Wait... so your saying in real life we dont just shoot each other? we dont try to not die and shoot more guns at them and win as quick and as easily as we can? with long range missiles? Oh ok
So we dont have gorilla warfare either i guess where positioning is 100% viable, WOW just like in 40k, you need to position in the right spots not ot be charged or shot out of cover, or even shot off an objective.. hmmm.
But no its a Card game to you, even tho 1/2 the missions dont use any cards and you dont need cards to play them game.
Amishprn86 wrote: What does that have to do with "is it a wargame?" List building is in many wargames, just b.c inner balance is bad doesnt mean its still not a wargame.
The point is that 40k is not a wargame because its gameplay is not in the same genre. Wargames involve positioning, real-world tactics, etc. 40k plays much more like a CCG where each side lines up their cards and exchanges offensive and defensive stats on an abstract "battlefield" and the winner is decided by a mix of RNG and skill at optimizing rules interactions to produce the best stat lines. For example, an IG storm trooper squad isn't really a "unit" in the wargame sense, it's much more equivalent to a lightning bolt spell in MTG. You cast "plasma storm troopers", you roll to see how much damage you inflict on another card, and then the spell goes away. It hardly matters where the unit and its target are on the table, you simply declare a target and resolve dice. And tactics have little to do with how good or bad the storm troopers are, their effectiveness is almost entirely based on the value of their stat line relative to their point cost (much like lightning bolt is good in MTG because 3 damage for R is a very efficient spell).
Now, technically some of the wargame elements do still exist in 40k as a relic of its previous editions, but the emphasis is overwhelmingly on CCG-style gameplay.
Would you say that's largely a symptom of the size restrictions of 40k's current state - too large forces and too many vehicles on a too small battlefield - as well as a lack of any real "friction," i.e., command and control challenges?
Amishprn86 wrote: Oh.. so you dont have to worry about where you units are position at all?
Not when you have zero-scatter deep strike, weapons with full-table range (and terrain that rarely blocks LOS), and movement speeds high enough to effectively go anywhere you want. Most of the time you just declare a target for your unit and roll dice.
you need to position in the right spots not ot be charged or shot out of cover
95% of time the right spot is incredibly obvious, set during deployment, and completely static. You deploy your IG gunline in the farthest back corner of the table, surround it with bubble wrap, and then you roll dice to see if you can win the game before your opponent can kill your bubble wrap and remove the real threats. Likewise, the charging army's position is incredibly obvious: go straight at the gunline as fast as possible, and roll dice to wipe them off the table once you get in range. When positioning is so obvious and simple it might as well not exist at all, either way you aren't making any interesting decisions with it.
But no its a Card game to you, even tho 1/2 the missions dont use any cards and you dont need cards to play them game.
RULE #1 PLEASE - BROOKM
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote: Would you say that's largely a symptom of the size restrictions of 40k's current state - too large forces and too many vehicles on a too small battlefield - as well as a lack of any real "friction," i.e., command and control challenges?
Partly. Those are certainly contributing factors, but it's also a problem with poor LOS rules, over-homogenization of units, removal of the FOC as a meaningful balance factor, addition of the CP mechanic, etc.
Amishprn86 wrote: Oh.. so you dont have to worry about where you units are position at all?
Not when you have zero-scatter deep strike, weapons with full-table range (and terrain that rarely blocks LOS), and movement speeds high enough to effectively go anywhere you want. Most of the time you just declare a target for your unit and roll dice.
you need to position in the right spots not ot be charged or shot out of cover
95% of time the right spot is incredibly obvious, set during deployment, and completely static. You deploy your IG gunline in the farthest back corner of the table, surround it with bubble wrap, and then you roll dice to see if you can win the game before your opponent can kill your bubble wrap and remove the real threats. Likewise, the charging army's position is incredibly obvious: go straight at the gunline as fast as possible, and roll dice to wipe them off the table once you get in range. When positioning is so obvious and simple it might as well not exist at all, either way you aren't making any interesting decisions with it.
But no its a Card game to you, even tho 1/2 the missions dont use any cards and you dont need cards to play them game.
RULE #1 PLEASE - BROOKM
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote: Would you say that's largely a symptom of the size restrictions of 40k's current state - too large forces and too many vehicles on a too small battlefield - as well as a lack of any real "friction," i.e., command and control challenges?
Partly. Those are certainly contributing factors, but it's also a problem with poor LOS rules, over-homogenization of units, removal of the FOC as a meaningful balance factor, addition of the CP mechanic, etc.
If you havent notice some of the best lists up until AND during the Knights kingdom uses melee and movement tactics, you also have deployment that is a huge part of the game.
Also, CCG is a card game and does needs cards, kinda the point of a CCG, you know "CARD GAME", if you are saying warhammer 40k is a Collecting game, sure it is, but its also a war game, it can be both a game and a collection.
barboggo wrote: It's a TCG with distance and LOS. CP is mana, stratagems are spells, units are creatures.
This is what the game has evolved into.
I believe one post mentioned being “designed by video gamers”. I would agree with that and take it one step further. The new designers grew up playing CCGs like MTG vs. the old guard who grew up on Pen and Paper RPG’s and Historicals. The new guard are bringing their CCG sensibilities to the table and pushing the game to fit that mold.
Its absolutely a wargame. Its a miniatures wargame in a science fiction setting, but its still a wargame. Positioning does matter. There are decisions to be made in the game. Not as many as some would like, but there are still decisions. You have to analyse the objectives and come up with a plan. That plan could indeed involve trying to table your opponent. Its still a wargame.
I think, though, that agonizing over the category is rather pointless. If you want to get back in then try it out. Then decide if you like the new 40K. For what its worth, I started 40K in 2nd Ed (but was miniature wargaming for a decade before that), left at the end of 6th Ed and came back at the start of 8th.
When I hear "war game" I think hexes and counters. And then I think, I don't want to play one of those boring games, I want to play with my toy monsters and tanks. So I don't really care if 40K is a war game. I think it's more about having something to do with all of these miniatures.
Winning in the list building stage is a feature of a war simulation game, not a bug. War isn't balanced. The poorly designed army should get stomped. I'm sure the majority of real-life conflicts were decided by the number and quality of forces brought to the field.
Still, I don't see why the OP would approach this a new phenomenon with 8th edition. It's just as much a war game as Rogue Trader was. If you're "replicating tactics" and playing out some scenario as you imagine it should have gone, while not thinking about the rules, you are not war gaming. You're playing an RPG.
Peregrine wrote: Nope. 40k is a war-themed CCG with cards you have to paint yourself.
Kind of have to agree with this. While I personally like the core rules a lot more than previous editions, on the competitive scale I find there are far too many similarities to Yu-Gi-Oh than a wargame. CP Farming with Stratagems remove a risk-reward factor in the game. Souping everything looks exactly like what metas look like in decks having some form of 'core' then after its whatever they can use to perform that FTK. The only difference I see is that the community seems to disncourage this while the Yu-Gi-Oh community encourage it. Hell 9/10 when I watch 'competitive' batreps on YT I can call out who will win that game just by looking at the lists, very occasionally I will be caught off guard.
Its a game with fighting in it. A game that meant to capture the heart of a battle in the theatre of war. Currently its trying to be the entire war on a board and its just not working imo, but then again did any edition do this right?
Pink Horror wrote: When I hear "war game" I think hexes and counters. And then I think, I don't want to play one of those boring games, I want to play with my toy monsters and tanks. So I don't really care if 40K is a war game. I think it's more about having something to do with all of these miniatures.
Funny you think hex's as the first wargames and the games that made the term war games are not on hex's, nothing against you, just thought it was funny.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Its absolutely a wargame. Its a miniatures wargame in a science fiction setting, but its still a wargame. Positioning does matter. There are decisions to be made in the game. Not as many as some would like, but there are still decisions. You have to analyse the objectives and come up with a plan. That plan could indeed involve trying to table your opponent. Its still a wargame.
I think, though, that agonizing over the category is rather pointless. If you want to get back in then try it out. Then decide if you like the new 40K. For what its worth, I started 40K in 2nd Ed (but was miniature wargaming for a decade before that), left at the end of 6th Ed and came back at the start of 8th.
Compared to any edition positioning matters less than ever. Terrain outside of solid LOS boxes might as well not exist, nothing scatters any more so who cares about that. Models position for wounds don't matter. Weapon facings don't matter, armor value is gone so who cares about flanking a tank. Terrain effects are so watered downed, that again unless it's a big square box, it doesn't matter. I know 7th had a lot of problems but when played with like minded people it was a lot more fun. 8th is better for a game between strangers, but their is no deny that to do that the game was really stripped down. The only position that really matters is am I in range and can i see the thing I want to shot, assault, or psyker to death.
I find the people who hate 8th rarely play it, but more importantly take zero initiative to simply make the game better themselves (either via terrain, table builds, house rules, army builds, or scenarios).
It's a cake game to make 10x better. Maybe it's because I'm a game designer/tinkerer, but if you can't enjoy 8th, you're lazy.
Pink Horror wrote: When I hear "war game" I think hexes and counters. And then I think, I don't want to play one of those boring games, I want to play with my toy monsters and tanks. So I don't really care if 40K is a war game. I think it's more about having something to do with all of these miniatures.
Funny you think hex's as the first wargames and the games that made the term war games are not on hex's, nothing against you, just thought it was funny.
I don't think hexes were the first war games. I wish I could find amusement in your misunderstanding. Oh well.
Elbows wrote: I find the people who hate 8th rarely play it, but more importantly take zero initiative to simply make the game better themselves (either via terrain, table builds, house rules, army builds, or scenarios).
It's a cake game to make 10x better. Maybe it's because I'm a game designer/tinkerer, but if you can't enjoy 8th, you're lazy.
"The game is good, you just need to change a bunch of things" is a concession that the game is not good. Good games don't need changes to be enjoyable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: If you havent notice some of the best lists up until AND during the Knights kingdom uses melee and movement tactics, you also have deployment that is a huge part of the game.
You're missing the point. Melee does not mean that positioning matters or involves meaningful decisions. Most of the time melee lists are just moving as fast as possible straight at the enemy, and the only "tactics" involve remembering to use all of the rules exploits with things like using pile-in moves to extend charge distance or playing the obvious stratagems to buff your melee units. You could simply do a CCG-style "tap my orks, take 10D6 damage" attack without bothering with model positions on the table and still have 95% of the non-trivial gameplay decisions of 40k.
Also, CCG is a card game and does needs cards, kinda the point of a CCG, you know "CARD GAME", if you are saying warhammer 40k is a Collecting game, sure it is, but its also a war game, it can be both a game and a collection.
Sigh. Are you honestly this unable to see beyond the most literal dictionary definition of words or are you trying to be as frustrating as possible? 40k uses CCG-like mechanics and gameplay even if the "cards" are plastic models instead of slips of paper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pink Horror wrote: War isn't balanced. The poorly designed army should get stomped.
This would be understandable and even desirable if "poorly designed" had anything to do with real-world tactics or how well an army represents the fluff instead of failure to identify and exploit GW's balance mistakes. "You didn't bring any anti-tank units in a game where tanks exist" is a good reason to lose a game, "you didn't bring 3ppm IG conscripts in your Eldar army to exploit GW's mistake at not making them 4-5ppm" is not.
Still, I don't see why the OP would approach this a new phenomenon with 8th edition.
Because 8th edition has gone even farther in the direction of CCG-style mechanics with things like the debacle of LOS/terrain rules, over-homogenizing units, emphasizing the importance of exploiting the most overpowered stratagems, etc.
Peregrine wrote:Nope. 40k is a war-themed CCG with cards you have to paint yourself.
kestral wrote:It was when I started (3rd/4th ed) a science fiction game created by wargamers. It is now a science fiction game created by video gamers. I miss the old 40K. For a time FW stood strong for the "military" aspect of the game, but that is largely gone now.
That terrain plays little role in the game now shows how far it has gone in the other direction.
After much consideration, I'd say the current rules edition are a combination of both of these. It is a CCG/3P shooter hybrid played through models.
With range-of-weapons being a thing, how can positioning not be important? Even with no terrain positioning is important.
Some people try to stack their lists in order to make positioning/tactics less important. . . But even that tells you it's a factor. If you approach 40k purely as a ccg, you're still going to lose to someone who out-positions you. Even in setting up an unmoving IG castle position matters.
At least 8th needs more tactics than the last two editions and is better balanced than prior editions have ever been. It really depends on what you make out of it, but that's the case with most games, really.
It's a game about war... with soldiers that simulate a battle. Therefor it's a wargame, no?
Insectum7 wrote: With range-of-weapons being a thing, how can positioning not be important? Even with no terrain positioning is important.
Some people try to stack their lists in order to make positioning/tactics less important. . . But even that tells you it's a factor. If you approach 40k purely as a ccg, you're still going to lose to someone who out-positions you. Even in setting up an unmoving IG castle position matters.
Range being generally "where-ever I want to shoot". Ranges high, board sizes small. Especially with the increasing sizes of armies(6'x4' was juuuust about acceptable in 2nd ed. Now remind me how many models usually were in armies then vs how many are now? Not to mention model sizes have gone up a "bit"...).
Range isn't issue. Only positioning that really matters is micromanaging buffs and consoliditate/pile in ranges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: At least 8th needs more tactics than the last two editions and is better balanced than prior editions have ever been. It really depends on what you make out of it, but that's the case with most games, really.
It's a game about war... with soldiers that simulate a battle. Therefor it's a wargame, no?
But 8th ed has less potential for balance and tactics than last edition had. As Horus Heresy showed. Replace codexes with better and the superior core shows through
While it is true that the DNA of 40K was that of a Wargame, we see a small remnant of that remaining.
The game as it is now has morphed into a game that plays like a CCG. That is to say it is all about building a combo in your list, and seeing how that performs. Units and models are chosen basses upon the special rules they have, or how they work with other special rules to win. If a list has no synergy it is going to struggle
In a Wargame, the emphasis is on tactics during the game. A poor list doesn't have combos, it may have poor quality troops and weapons, but due to tactical manoeuvres it can win.
In 40k we see none of the following:
Enfilade fire.
Pinning.
Surpressing fire.
Flanking.
Arc of vision.
Fog of war.
Command break down.
These are quite essential for a miniature game to be a miniature wargame. The old guard who made and designed 40k have left, the new design team have changed the game to be something that is different from its original form.
That isn't to say 40K can't be fun, just approach it with the right mind set, or collect the miniatures (they are very nice after all), and to play One Page Rules Grim Dark, it while not perfect, is a damn sight better than current 40k.
TL/DR, anyone who claims 40K is a wargame, probably hasn't played a wargame.
Thanks to all posters, seems it kicked off some lively debate, as well as "what makes a game a wargame?"
Perhaps I should include my definition - a tactical 'wargame' is one where a player who utilises the tactics of the period being played, can see results which should reflect that period.
Chess for example, I think we can agree is a great 'game' - the following it has around the world makes that statement hard to disagree with. It is also a 'war' themed game. However, it is a very poor 'wargame' - though the pieces represent medieval military units, there is no ability to play the game using medieval military tactics.
Likewise, I think 40k in it's current incarnation may not be a very good 'wargame' - which doesn't preclude it being a good game.
For the record, I still do, and have always loved the 40k universe, but while I plan on collecting armies again, I'm not beholden to the GW line that "these are the mini's, and you need our rules to play with them" - if I want to introduce new people skirmish sci fi wargames, (who are likely to only play in a small circle, not a store) - I think I can find better rules outside the BRB.
eddieazrael wrote: Thanks to all posters, seems it kicked off some lively debate, as well as "what makes a game a wargame?"
Perhaps I should include my definition - a tactical 'wargame' is one where a player who utilises the tactics of the period being played, can see results which should reflect that period.
Chess for example, I think we can agree is a great 'game' - the following it has around the world makes that statement hard to disagree with. It is also a 'war' themed game. However, it is a very poor 'wargame' - though the pieces represent medieval military units, there is no ability to play the game using medieval military tactics.
Likewise, I think 40k in it's current incarnation may not be a very good 'wargame' - which doesn't preclude it being a good game.
For the record, I still do, and have always loved the 40k universe, but while I plan on collecting armies again, I'm not beholden to the GW line that "these are the mini's, and you need our rules to play with them" - if I want to introduce new people skirmish sci fi wargames, (who are likely to only play in a small circle, not a store) - I think I can find better rules outside the BRB.
I wish you well in finding a rule set that suits your group.
I vaguely remember reading that there was a 40k mod for Bolt Action, that is said to be very good.
Amishprn86 wrote: Yes it is, just b.c its not a wargame like others doesnt mean its not a wargame.
A wargame (if i remember correctly) is defined as a game with 3 things; Terrain, Miniatures, tactical combat.
Squad Leader doesn't have two of those three, nor does Combat Commander. A "wargame" is only a game that tries to "simulate" warfare. Board game, card game, computer game, miniatures game are just different ... media? genres? of wargame. Running around the garden with sticks shouting "bang! you're dead!" is a wargame, albeit a fairly simplistic one.
If you havent notice some of the best lists up until AND during the Knights kingdom uses melee and movement tactics, you also have deployment that is a huge part of the game.
Also, CCG is a card game and does needs cards, kinda the point of a CCG, you know "CARD GAME", if you are saying warhammer 40k is a Collecting game, sure it is, but its also a war game, it can be both a game and a collection.
Most of those lists ignore the movment phase, because they either move the whole table in a single turn, don't care about moving their units, or are something like the raven castellan that ignores all the negatives of moving. The only armies that care about movment or terrain are those like my own army aka they are very bad this edition.
Squad Leader doesn't have two of those three, nor does Combat Commander. A "wargame" is only a game that tries to "simulate" warfare. Board game, card game, computer game, miniatures game are just different ... media? genres? of wargame. Running around the garden with sticks shouting "bang! you're dead!" is a wargame, albeit a fairly simplistic on
If we go all reductionist like that, we may as well say that two 6 year olds playing with legos in a sand box are playing a wargame, because it has models, it has terrain and there is "war".
It is to me primarily a game that borrows heavily from deckbuilding games only uses miniatures instead of cards.
The era of wargames as we know them from 20 years ago are largely extinct in the broad public eye. You have to dig deep to find activity related to classic wargames these days.
Eh, that depends. Certainly, the scale that 40kwants to play at would work better at 15mm or 6mm. But if it was scaled back to Bolt Action/Konflikt 47 sized games, 28mm would be fine. And the various flavors of skirmish games are fine as well.
Would be fun to see some HUGE battles in an Epic Armageddon battle again. I got into the game after Epic Armageddon, but I think it would be a lot of fun to play at 6mm scale on a 4 x 6 table.
eddieazrael wrote: Thanks to all posters, seems it kicked off some lively debate, as well as "what makes a game a wargame?"
Perhaps I should include my definition - a tactical 'wargame' is one where a player who utilises the tactics of the period being played, can see results which should reflect that period.
Well, in 40K if you play Tau or Imperial guard you use the tactics these factions "historically" use - mainly ranged attacks with the occasional Ogryn charge or Stealth suit infiltration.
If you play World Eaters you'll see some crazy berzerkers charging heads up into gunlines. Same with Orks.
My Death guard foot slogs close to the enemy, protected by their unnatural toughness, and then uses its ranged firepower to bring them down.
All in all, 8th edition 40K makes it possible to use the "tactics of the period" to overcome your opponent.
Like OP, i played 40k early - but started again recently. I started in 3rd and unless 2nd was vastly different - 40k back then still wasn't much in the way of a 'war game' - it was very clunky and didn't make a lot of sense rules-wise.
I think OP's impression is right to some degree. There are a lot of people that play the game with the intent of 'gaming' the system and there will likely be players at your local shop that play their list exactly that way - they only play the most broken combos that they found on the internet. However, most people I play against have so far just built their lists based on "i like these models". It takes too much time and money to buy all new models every time GW nerfs something thats over-powered. Those player will inevitably be the guys on the table with unpainted or half-painted/broken models they got off of ebay, or proxying half their army with green plastic armymen.
I've played a few other tabletop games - and imo, most had better rulesets that were built around making the game flexible and quasi-realistic. 40k really doesn't make much of an effort to do that. The latest edition, it feels like their entire focus was to simplify the rules as much as possible for the sake of allowing them to balance the game, as well as making it more accessible.
I'd love if it there was an advanced ruleset available with more advanced tactical options - but i don't see that as being very likely unless it is fan-made.
That said though, there are still tactical choices that can be made in the game. A lot of that is list-building, but a good list played poorly can still lose.
I'm hoping Adeptus-Titanicus will take off. It feels as if it has some decent detailed rules that aren't so over-the-top details as to cause games to drag on for hours. I think if there's any hope for a more strategic game from GW, it will be from the specialist games side.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: At least 8th needs more tactics than the last two editions and is better balanced than prior editions have ever been. It really depends on what you make out of it, but that's the case with most games, really.
It's a game about war... with soldiers that simulate a battle. Therefor it's a wargame, no?
I think you meant to type "has more tactics" but if that is the case then I strongly disagree. 6/7th was a game with elements that placed value on angle of attack, placement of critical models with a unit, intervening terrain, spacing, proximity of units around other units, firing arcs and facings on vehicles, etc which had a major outcome on results. The risk/reward of reserves, deep striking (and more importantly how close and thus how risky the deep strike would be to get that ideal shot off), using cover (it slows you down but also gives protection), using reactive abilities like going to ground or jinking, etc gave more decision making and risk management to your actions. 6/7th had a lot of tactical depth that came from the core rules of the game unlike 8th where most of your depth really comes from stratagems which feel A LOT more CCG or MOBA like (the closest parallel is probably the munition system in Company of Heroes).
The game (8th) is better balanced sure but it was at the cost of most of the meat and fat of 7th which left a very bland rule set with far less depth. Also by your description you could say Risk is a Wargame which isn't exactly scratching that strategic, let alone any sort of tactical, itch.
Karol wrote: we may as well say that two 6 year olds playing with legos in a sand box are playing a wargame, because it has models, it has terrain and there is "war".
That's exactly what I did say. Except without the LEGO bricks. The "war" in "wargame" is just an indication of the subject of the game, that's all. Granted, some games aren't very good wargames (whatever "good" means" - some people would say a good wargame needs to accurately simulate warfare in the period it depicts, some would say it should be a balanced, competitive game, etc).
In a Wargame, the emphasis is on tactics during the game. A poor list doesn't have combos, it may have poor quality troops and weapons, but due to tactical manoeuvres it can win.
In 40k we see none of the following:
Enfilade fire.
Pinning.
Surpressing fire.
Flanking.
Arc of vision.
Fog of war.
Command break down.
These are quite essential for a miniature game to be a miniature wargame. The old guard who made and designed 40k have left, the new design team have changed the game to be something that is different from its original form.
That isn't to say 40K can't be fun, just approach it with the right mind set, or collect the miniatures (they are very nice after all), and to play One Page Rules Grim Dark, it while not perfect, is a damn sight better than current 40k.
TL/DR, anyone who claims 40K is a wargame, probably hasn't played a wargame.
You do see these, even if there isn't a direct mechanic for them all.
Enfilade fire. Maneuvering to get around cover
Pinning/suppressing fire. having enough fire power to force your enemy into cover, rather then advancing.
Flanking. Deep striking, and flanking stratagems.
Arc of vision is currently missing.
Fog of war. It actually makes some sense, considering the scale of the game. As 40K is more of a company on company game, rather then army on army, it's feasible that the over seeing commander (aka you) would have a good idea of what's in the area.
Command Break Down. While Battle Shock is a poor man's version of it, it's one of the things that represents this. IG officers having to be in the area to give orders (and possibly getting killed), as well. Most of the rest however seem to only need their HQ to smash things.
--
FOr me, 40K seems to be a low end of the scale war game. It's a company on company style game, as opposed to a squad or two in most skirmish games, but missing the larger army or army group scale. Much of the resources associated with a full army are missing, such as long range artillery support, but you do have things like divisional assets, depending on how you fluff your detachments. This to me is in part due to the scale of the game, though you can also point at a lack of expertise on the part of the writers, a desire for technical simplicity for list building, and leaving things open ended for the players.
I'll go with option 1. If a war-game is defined as a game that tries on some level to simulate battles and contains an element of strategy past extremely basic and obvious things such as "Hmm, do I shoot my lascannons at the gaunts or the carnifex?" Warhammer 40,000 (and AOS for that matter) is not a war-game. Both Warhammers are dice-rolling activities. GW decided that the act of rolling dice is itself the core gameplay and not just a method of determining the success or failure of an action.
Once models are on the table the gameplay essentially consists of shuffling models toward the center of the table, picking targets, and rolling dice. The element of strategy, of attempting to read your opponent and discern what their plan is, of maneuver, of things to consider and use to your advantage (or minimize disadvantages through good play) in a general sense just isn't there.
I don't think it is fair or accurate to compare WH to CCGs, however. MTG especially, and to an extent Pokemon as well still have elements of making meaningful decisions, of playing against your opponent rather than WH's current "use your list's combo/synergies with little regard for your opponent's army and hope you roll more sixes than they do." Not to mention the host of varying interactions between cards in MTG. Even if you're playing a Combo deck, you still have to care about the other person's deck and actions, if to a lesser degree, whereas GW has stated that one of the positives about 8th is only needing to know the rules for your own units.
The comparison to MTG comes from how importance listbuilding is. It feels like a deckbuilding game. Especially when they minimized maneuver and terrain the way they have, its only a step or two away from playing the same game with cards where you don't move at all and terrain doesn't matter.
Its more of a "feel". Especially if you ever came from a classic wargame where maneuver and the battlefield were huge components of warfare and played a big part in the game.
It's a CCG with distance and LOS. And with BOTH players knowing EXACTLY what's in each other's hands!
(Idc, I still love it)
Automatically Appended Next Post: I didn't play from 4th-7th but it feels like 8th really did away with all of the movement/orientation/spatial gameplay rules that previous editions had which seems to be what really distinguishes a wargame from other games. It's about making positioning and orientation of dudes on the board matter in strategic terms. Things like scatter dice, vehicle armor values, blast templates, difficult terrain, and flanking seemed to have made the positioning and orientation of models on the board matter more when the game had them.
I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".
auticus wrote: The comparison to MTG comes from how importance listbuilding is. It feels like a deckbuilding game. Especially when they minimized maneuver and terrain the way they have, its only a step or two away from playing the same game with cards where you don't move at all and terrain doesn't matter.
Its more of a "feel". Especially if you ever came from a classic wargame where maneuver and the battlefield were huge components of warfare and played a big part in the game.
This is a good description and puts into words well a general 'feel' about the game makes it feel so oversimplified.
It's because instead of moving models into position, we get a deployment phase and a good chunk of weapons are in-range as soon as the battle starts - or worse - deep strike and just plop down onto the field.
Mmmpi wrote: You do see these, even if there isn't a direct mechanic for them all.
Enfilade fire. Maneuvering to get around cover
Pinning/suppressing fire. having enough fire power to force your enemy into cover, rather then advancing.
Flanking. Deep striking, and flanking stratagems.
Arc of vision is currently missing.
Fog of war. It actually makes some sense, considering the scale of the game. As 40K is more of a company on company game, rather then army on army, it's feasible that the over seeing commander (aka you) would have a good idea of what's in the area.
Command Break Down. While Battle Shock is a poor man's version of it, it's one of the things that represents this. IG officers having to be in the area to give orders (and possibly getting killed), as well. Most of the rest however seem to only need their HQ to smash things.
Most of these things may technically exist, but have negligible practical effect.
Maneuvering to get around cover barely matters, most cover doesn't block LOS and only gives benefits to models within its footprint. So it doesn't matter what angle you come at the cover from, the unit will still get the same +1 save bonus but still be in LOS.
Pinning/suppressing fire almost never accomplishes anything. Only units that already camp somewhere will stay in cover, units that need to move will almost never be better off staying in one place. Sure, you lose fewer models, but you also take that unit out of the fight. 99% of the time your melee unit is better off ignoring the "suppressing fire" and running straight at the target.
Flanking with deep strike is not meaningfully flanking because the direction of attack is irrelevant. As long as you're within your X" range to attack it doesn't matter if you deep strike directly in front of the unit or behind it. That makes deep striking units less about positioning advantage and more a CCG equivalent to a one-shot direct damage spell.
Command break down is not at all represented by battle shock because it's something that neither player has any control over. You roll your D6 and lose a random number of models, with maybe some buff cards you can play to counter it. Your units don't break and flee from their position, your orders don't get confused, you don't have to do anything to regroup and fix the chain of command. You just add a random D6-based modifier to all casualty totals, making all weapons a bit more effective. Aura bubbles might be a very superficial version of this, except auras are almost always tied to character models that are invulnerable to attack and virtually impossible to disrupt.
eddieazrael wrote: Thanks to all posters, seems it kicked off some lively debate, as well as "what makes a game a wargame?"
Perhaps I should include my definition - a tactical 'wargame' is one where a player who utilises the tactics of the period being played, can see results which should reflect that period.
Chess for example, I think we can agree is a great 'game' - the following it has around the world makes that statement hard to disagree with. It is also a 'war' themed game. However, it is a very poor 'wargame' - though the pieces represent medieval military units, there is no ability to play the game using medieval military tactics.
Likewise, I think 40k in it's current incarnation may not be a very good 'wargame' - which doesn't preclude it being a good game.
For the record, I still do, and have always loved the 40k universe, but while I plan on collecting armies again, I'm not beholden to the GW line that "these are the mini's, and you need our rules to play with them" - if I want to introduce new people skirmish sci fi wargames, (who are likely to only play in a small circle, not a store) - I think I can find better rules outside the BRB.
Good luck in your search for other rules to use your models! Luckily, I have a close-knit group of gamers that has house-ruled 40K over the years so we play our own version, which is a blend of mostly 4th and 5th Ed with a sprinkling of 6th and an overlay of our own game mechanics. It became necessary to overhaul the primary codices as well since they are integral to the rules. We're pretty happy with it all, and we add new armies and tweak rules every now and then. Let me know if if you want me to send your our rules to either play or cherry-pick whatever for use in your own games.
barboggo wrote: I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".
IMO the defining thing that makes a wargame is what other games don't have: unit positions on the table being "real". In a CCG you just put your cards on the table in a row and exchange attacks. In a board game you have your pieces on an abstract map, with spaces and the physical distance between them having no meaning. In a wargame your units are accurately represented by their positions on the table. If unit A is 6" away and to the left of unit B then the "real" distance between them is 6" multiplied by the scale factor (28mm, etc) and the attack is resolved from the left. If you want to move unit A behind unit B and close to 50m for short-range weapons you have to actually measure the appropriate distances and move the model to that position. Even in wargames with hex grids or similar mechanics the real positioning aspect is still the same, you just have a fixed distance increment (one hex) instead of being able to move fractional inches.
The reason 8th edition 40k is more of a CCG than a wargame is how it fails to make positioning matter. Most of the time you're just lining up your respective combos and stat lines CCG-style and exchanging attacks until someone wins, it hardly matters where the models are on the table.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: At least 8th needs more tactics than the last two editions and is better balanced than prior editions have ever been. It really depends on what you make out of it, but that's the case with most games, really.
It's a game about war... with soldiers that simulate a battle. Therefor it's a wargame, no?
See, this is why i never understood why more people didnt play fantasy compared to 40k. Fantasy has actual tactical play. In 40k, you just compare units and shoot at what is most effective to shoot at, mixed with treat level aspects and VPs.
In fantasy, you not only compare units, treat level etc, but you place units according to an overall strategy - and use tactics like outflanking, while making sure your own flank doesnt fall. At least in casual games. This has elements from actual warfare, where if one flank would fall, there was a risk of this to continue like domino bricks. I have played games that resolved like that. This means that when list building, if you pick an infantry unit, you also think about how to protect its flanks when deploying. If the opponent had a really hard hitting front line, like cavalry or ogres, and your front line fell, then it would become a chaotic scenario with flank and rear charges left and right.
Northern85Star wrote: See, this is why i never understood why more people didnt play fantasy compared to 40k. Fantasy has actual tactical play. In 40k, you just compare units and shoot at what is most effective to shoot at, mixed with treat level aspects and VPs.
In fantasy, you not only compare units, treat level etc, but you place units according to an overall strategy - and use tactics like outflanking, while making sure your own flank doesnt fall. At least in casual games. This has elements from actual warfare, where if one flank would fall, there was a risk of this to continue like domino bricks. I have played games that resolved like that. This means that when list building, if you pick an infantry unit, you also think about how to protect its flanks when deploying. If the opponent had a really hard hitting front line, like cavalry or ogres, and your front line fell, then it would become a chaotic scenario with flank and rear charges left and right.
barboggo wrote: I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".
IMO the defining thing that makes a wargame is what other games don't have: unit positions on the table being "real". In a CCG you just put your cards on the table in a row and exchange attacks. In a board game you have your pieces on an abstract map, with spaces and the physical distance between them having no meaning. In a wargame your units are accurately represented by their positions on the table. If unit A is 6" away and to the left of unit B then the "real" distance between them is 6" multiplied by the scale factor (28mm, etc) and the attack is resolved from the left. If you want to move unit A behind unit B and close to 50m for short-range weapons you have to actually measure the appropriate distances and move the model to that position. Even in wargames with hex grids or similar mechanics the real positioning aspect is still the same, you just have a fixed distance increment (one hex) instead of being able to move fractional inches.
The reason 8th edition 40k is more of a CCG than a wargame is how it fails to make positioning matter. Most of the time you're just lining up your respective combos and stat lines CCG-style and exchanging attacks until someone wins, it hardly matters where the models are on the table.
If you feel positioning doesn't matter, feel free to not screen your IG tanks.
barboggo wrote: I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".
IMO the defining thing that makes a wargame is what other games don't have: unit positions on the table being "real". In a CCG you just put your cards on the table in a row and exchange attacks. In a board game you have your pieces on an abstract map, with spaces and the physical distance between them having no meaning. In a wargame your units are accurately represented by their positions on the table. If unit A is 6" away and to the left of unit B then the "real" distance between them is 6" multiplied by the scale factor (28mm, etc) and the attack is resolved from the left. If you want to move unit A behind unit B and close to 50m for short-range weapons you have to actually measure the appropriate distances and move the model to that position. Even in wargames with hex grids or similar mechanics the real positioning aspect is still the same, you just have a fixed distance increment (one hex) instead of being able to move fractional inches.
The reason 8th edition 40k is more of a CCG than a wargame is how it fails to make positioning matter. Most of the time you're just lining up your respective combos and stat lines CCG-style and exchanging attacks until someone wins, it hardly matters where the models are on the table.
If you feel positioning doesn't matter, feel free to not screen your IG tanks.
I think its fair to say that while positioning does matter, the importance has been greatly been reduced due to the elimination and/or minimized impact of area of effect, scatter, firing arcs, vehicle facings, closest casualties, terrain rules, cover mechanics, etc. Bubble wrapping does remain a valid tactic but the number of positioning based factions to consider has gone down dramatically in the edition change.
I think a lot of people are trying to cram "wargame" into their preferred "type of wargame" instead of the vague notion.
40K has shifted in its complexity and "type" numerous times, though I think the majority of current players came from the 3rd-7th realm...which hilariously was far less detailed than 2nd. 8th is different, and less complex, but I think GW is playing far better to their audience than 7th ever was. 7th edition, for instances was a laughable joke compared to 2nd with regard to complexity, depth, rules layering, realism, etc.
What is realism? Well that's people more or less shoe-horning historical wargaming into a science fiction setting. You can judge historical games far easier because you have a litmus test to compare it to - you have background, memoirs, loads of data, personal experiences, and physical evidence. None of that exists in a science fiction setting with huge robots, aliens and psychic stuff.
I mean, no offense to the people who miss the bizarre rules of 7th, but if you thought they were good, you're missing out on a world of fantastic actual rules sets for historical wargames. I really enjoy 8th edition (though we heavily modify it - that's one of its strengths I believe, being much more streamlined it makes modifications far easier to create), but I think it ranks very low on a wargaming scale - but it's still a wargame.
I'd rank numerous other proper historical wargames well above Warhammer 40K...but that's not what I play 40K for. Would I like a more detailed game? Perhaps, but a lot of the guys I play with wouldn't, and the answer to 8th was not 7th, a corpse of 3rd edition covered in glitter over 15 years. My answer to complaints is always "shut up and fix it". There's feedback and then there's whining. Whining gets you nowhere. Thumping your chest and playing internet tough guy because you don't like the rules is useless. Either email GW with genuine feedback and shut up, or go play another game. Honestly, you're not adding anything to the conversations or the community.
Better yet...go play 7th. Seriously. It didn't disappear. Nothing went away. A few modern armies don't exist but you can figure out the rules well enough. Keep playing whatever you want to play. I still play 2nd edition on occasion. It didn't stop existing because later editions came out.
I would say realism in 40k is when there is consistensy between fluff and how the game plays, because we have no real 41st millenium warfare to compare to.
barboggo wrote: I have literally zero familiarity with other wargames (not even WFB) but I'd be curious to hear what characteristics you guys think makes other wargames particularly "uniquely wargame-y ".
IMO the defining thing that makes a wargame is what other games don't have: unit positions on the table being "real". In a CCG you just put your cards on the table in a row and exchange attacks. In a board game you have your pieces on an abstract map, with spaces and the physical distance between them having no meaning. In a wargame your units are accurately represented by their positions on the table. If unit A is 6" away and to the left of unit B then the "real" distance between them is 6" multiplied by the scale factor (28mm, etc) and the attack is resolved from the left. If you want to move unit A behind unit B and close to 50m for short-range weapons you have to actually measure the appropriate distances and move the model to that position. Even in wargames with hex grids or similar mechanics the real positioning aspect is still the same, you just have a fixed distance increment (one hex) instead of being able to move fractional inches.
The reason 8th edition 40k is more of a CCG than a wargame is how it fails to make positioning matter. Most of the time you're just lining up your respective combos and stat lines CCG-style and exchanging attacks until someone wins, it hardly matters where the models are on the table.
If you feel positioning doesn't matter, feel free to not screen your IG tanks.
I think its fair to say that while positioning does matter, the importance has been greatly been reduced due to the elimination and/or minimized impact of area of effect, scatter, firing arcs, vehicle facings, closest casualties, terrain rules, cover mechanics, etc. Bubble wrapping does remain a valid tactic but the number of positioning based factions to consider has gone down dramatically in the edition change.
You mean the terrain rules where monstrous creatures gained a 4++ by having a toenail in a ruin? That's the slick tactical gaming is it?
I hated casualty removal, too.
I miss flamers. And sorta miss vehicle facing/firing arcs, but then again monsters didn't follow the same rules which felt a bit off.
7th ed to me felt way more ccg to me with the pile of USRs, formation rules, multi-character unit/spell buffs and more niche weapon-armor interactions and how they manifested. Was Barkstar "tactical"? Nooo...
Terrain rules may be lacking in this edition (although there are some), but a really good fix for that is to build terrain that still works in the system. Los blockers, infantry cover, etc. go a long way. Short ruins that can't be entered by vehicles, grouped pillars of stone that block LOS but aren't individually too wide to restrict movement through them. There's plenty of opportunity here.
And There's still the range to contend with. Getting into rapid fire range with your plasma remains important. Obliterators with a 24" range and a 4" move still have to be thoughtfully deployed upon deep striking. Surrounding a unit so it can't fall back is big, or defensively deploying units together so they can't be surrounded also works. Aura buffs require proximity, but objectives often require you to spread out. Hiding behind an advancing tank/s provides cover for troops. Concentration of firepower requires coordinated movement, and cover gives troops an edge in a firefight. There's plainly tactical gaming available if you want it, but it will require a bit of investment on your part. 40k has always been a "you get out what you put in" type of thing.
The OP nailed it. It has become a ccg using 3d "cards" tabletop dynamics so abstracted as to hardly matter and this has rewarded a type of player focused on rules manipulation and loophole exploitation i.e. "the meta".
It’s definitely (2) from your two proposed scenarios. There’s a vocal segment of 40K players on the internet who see it as an exercise in, as you say, “gaming the system” to try and gain a competitive advantage. However, there are plenty of people out there with a more relaxed, old-school attitude (what I like to think of as the “roleplay that gak” vibe) and, really, 40K is now, as ever, a framework for you to approach as you see fit. I would recommend not spending too much time on the internet though, as it does skew heavily towards the competitive mindset. (And, as you’ve probably gathered from this thread, a lot of pointless and tangential bickering.)
Northern85Star wrote: See, this is why i never understood why more people didnt play fantasy compared to 40k. Fantasy has actual tactical play. In 40k, you just compare units and shoot at what is most effective to shoot at, mixed with treat level aspects and VPs.
In fantasy, you not only compare units, treat level etc, but you place units according to an overall strategy - and use tactics like outflanking, while making sure your own flank doesnt fall. At least in casual games. This has elements from actual warfare, where if one flank would fall, there was a risk of this to continue like domino bricks. I have played games that resolved like that. This means that when list building, if you pick an infantry unit, you also think about how to protect its flanks when deploying. If the opponent had a really hard hitting front line, like cavalry or ogres, and your front line fell, then it would become a chaotic scenario with flank and rear charges left and right.
Yeah.. i miss rank and file :b
There's a couple of reasons fantasy wasn't as popular. The rule set was a lot more complex which meant learning the game took more of a time investment. The armies took an insane amount of models, particularly something like skaven. Plus you needed movement trays which added another cost. The larger model count made transporting an army more difficult. Ultimately there were just too many barriers to entry. You needed to learn a relatively complex rule set compared to 40k. You needed to buy more models and buy movement trays. You needed more time to assemble and paint an army because of the increased model count. Transporting models became more of a chore especially if you lived somewhere where you needed to use public transport to get to your LGS.
All of these combined means you lose potential players who get overwhelmed by having to learn so many rules in one go, players who can't afford to build an army on the scale they need in a reasonable time frame, players who can't assemble or paint the models in a reasonable time frame and players who can't transport the models conveniently. So even if someone does have their army and a way to transport it it's much more difficult to get a pick up game. Games need to be arranged in advance so people stop bringing their fantasy army in case someone else has one and they just bring their 40k army or they stop coming to the store on game nights if they don't have a game arranged. This reduces visibility for the game too because no one sees it played. I used to live a 5 minute walk from a GW and in the roughly two years I lived there I saw maybe a dozen games fantasy. Several of which were me trying out the game which I always had to prearrange.
There were certainly things I liked about the game but there just weren't enough people playing it even though I was living in the capital city of my state in Australia. In a larger city somewhere like the USA or UK there should be more players but there's still the problems of transporting an army around in a city.
With 8th ed 40k the simplified rule set made jumping back in much easier so I'm now part of a play group that largely consists of returning players. There's enough depth for us to be enjoying the game and I'm sure some of the people would like a bit more complexity in some areas of the game but everyone is able to jump in and get some games. Before 8th ed 40k was practically dead locally so I hadn't played since around when 6th ed dropped. It's still a wargame but it's a wargame where you can actually find an opponent.
A lot of the 'not a wargame' crowd seems to be using defining 40k as 'not a wargame' as a thinly veiled (or explicit) critique of 40k's tactical depth. To this I say, in my general experience there is a clear inverse relationship between how much you whine about 'tactical complexity' and how skilled you are at the game.
There's plenty of tactical depth in 40K. The game a lot of people posting seem to want to play is called "Napoleonic historicals". for which there are plenty of good rulesets out there and affordable miniatures. Forcing 40K into that mould is not gonna happen.
IMO 8th edition is just a board game, it's no longer trying to simulate actual combat. Which has been very good for the game itself (because GW sucked at simulating combat), but probably not for people who want to play a wargame.
It requires strategy, just like any board or card game with any resemblance of depth, but no actual strategies that you would see on a battlefield.
Has it ever had such strategies? I don’t recall putting a toe in cover giving you cover IRL, vortex grenades being a thing IRL, or rifles having a range less than a real world pistol.
It simulates fantasy space conflict. It is not a real world combat sim, and has never pretended to be.
Jidmah wrote: IMO 8th edition is just a board game, it's no longer trying to simulate actual combat. Which has been very good for the game itself (because GW sucked at simulating combat), but probably not for people who want to play a wargame.
It requires strategy, just like any board or card game with any resemblance of depth, but no actual strategies that you would see on a battlefield.
The definition of a wargame is miniatures with gear, terrain on the table, and combat with strategy.
40k is this, it doesnt matter is the stratagem is less than other games, it is a wargame, it fits the 3 criteria.
Saying 40k isnt a wargame is like saying "The Room" isnt a move b.c its gakky story and acting, it still has everything a movie has.
Jidmah wrote: IMO 8th edition is just a board game, it's no longer trying to simulate actual combat. Which has been very good for the game itself (because GW sucked at simulating combat), but probably not for people who want to play a wargame.
It requires strategy, just like any board or card game with any resemblance of depth, but no actual strategies that you would see on a battlefield.
The definition of a wargame is miniatures with gear, terrain on the table, and combat with strategy.
40k is this, it doesnt matter is the stratagem is less than other games, it is a wargame, it fits the 3 criteria.
Saying 40k isnt a wargame is like saying "The Room" isnt a move b.c its gakky story and acting, it still has everything a movie has.
In my opinion, this ceased to be a wargame when they introduced objective cards that changed from turn to turn.
Look, I get that requirements change in the field, but they don't change every 2 minutes. High command isn't schizophrenic. There's no war, ever, where it was important to get to somewhere and remain there for 5 minutes before dying.
Prior to 7th edition, at least the objectives tended to make sense in a 'war' sense. Go take some ground. Go kill the enemy. Stop the enemy advance. Hold a vital position until the end of the game.
Everything else is details. I mean, technically, the game has terrain still. It still has cover. They're not good terrain or cover rules, but they have them.
Redbeard wrote: In my opinion, this ceased to be a wargame when they introduced objective cards that changed from turn to turn.
Look, I get that requirements change in the field, but they don't change every 2 minutes. High command isn't schizophrenic. There's no war, ever, where it was important to get to somewhere and remain there for 5 minutes before dying.
Prior to 7th edition, at least the objectives tended to make sense in a 'war' sense. Go take some ground. Go kill the enemy. Stop the enemy advance. Hold a vital position until the end of the game.
Everything else is details. I mean, technically, the game has terrain still. It still has cover. They're not good terrain or cover rules, but they have them.
You mean the entirely optional objectives, which are just one of the several different ways you can potentially *choose* to play the game?
40k is a game dominated by special rules, everything has to have at least 2/3 special rules. The core rules are over simplified, all complexity and interplay comes from the various special rules interacting and bouncing off one another.
This doesn't happen in wargames, units are not festooned with special rules, that isn't to say that special rules don't exist, but rather the complexity and interplay arises from the core rules. Which allows for realistic (even in a Science-fantasy game such as 40k there should be elements of realism) tactics and strategies to be adopted and benefited from.
I can see how to those who have only played GW game systems that 40k looks like a wargame. Because it does look like a wargame on the surface, but scratch just beneath that surface and it simply isn't.
Jidmah wrote: IMO 8th edition is just a board game, it's no longer trying to simulate actual combat. Which has been very good for the game itself (because GW sucked at simulating combat), but probably not for people who want to play a wargame.
It requires strategy, just like any board or card game with any resemblance of depth, but no actual strategies that you would see on a battlefield.
The definition of a wargame is miniatures with gear, terrain on the table, and combat with strategy.
40k is this, it doesnt matter is the stratagem is less than other games, it is a wargame, it fits the 3 criteria.
Saying 40k isnt a wargame is like saying "The Room" isnt a move b.c its gakky story and acting, it still has everything a movie has.
A wargame (also war game) is a strategy game that deals with military operations of various types, real or fictional. Wargaming is the hobby dedicated to the play of such games, which can also be called conflict simulations, or consims for short.
So yes, I think so long as we have at least the catchphrase: "There is only war." we are good.
A wargame (also war game) is a strategy game that deals with military operations of various types, real or fictional. Wargaming is the hobby dedicated to the play of such games, which can also be called conflict simulations, or consims for short.
So yes, I think so long as we have at least the catchphrase: "There is only war." we are good.
By that definition the 40kCCG is a "wargame" because it deals with war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: If you feel positioning doesn't matter, feel free to not screen your IG tanks.
You're missing the point here. Screening exists, but it isn't meaningful positioning because it's so obvious how to do it. You deploy your bubble wrap that was taken specifically for the purpose of being bubble wrap, and you're probably deploying it exactly the same way each time. At no point are you making any interesting decisions, and those screening units become little more than blocking with a 1/1 creature in MTG. You could take the entire tabletop aspect out of the game and the screens would still work the same way.
And sometimes you're screening with non-bubble wrap, and then the choice to screen matters more, and the position of the unit/s in question matter more.
The scenario you're describing is buying units for a single purpose and then only using them for that purpose in the same way every game. Which is basically just on you. The choices you make in the army building phase define whether or not you're going to get "tactical" with your units. Essentially your blaming the game for your own choices.
The problem is the only meaningful choices that exist in 40k are all in list building. Once minis hit the table there isn't much to do but declare targets and resolve attacks.
Blastaar wrote: The problem is the only meaningful choices that exist in 40k are all in list building. Once minis hit the table there isn't much to do but declare targets and resolve attacks.
Then you're either a not very good, you play a very simple army, or you are taking for granted the numerous choices you actually do make on the table.
If you're experienced at the game, play against a non-tactically inclined player some time and see how many poor choices they make.
Blastaar wrote: The problem is the only meaningful choices that exist in 40k are all in list building. Once minis hit the table there isn't much to do but declare targets and resolve attacks.
Then you're either a not very good, you play a very simple army, or you are taking for granted the numerous choices you actually do make on the table.
If you're experienced at the game, play against a non-tactically inclined player some time and see how many poor choices they make.
I have been playing Wargames since 1988, and I have lost most games of 8th not because my tactics are lacking. It is because I lost in the list building stage. Which is the main tactics in current 40k. A poor list will lose against a good list regardless of player skill. In a wargame there are ways and means that a poor list can still out perform a good list.
Blastaar wrote: The problem is the only meaningful choices that exist in 40k are all in list building. Once minis hit the table there isn't much to do but declare targets and resolve attacks.
Then you're either a not very good, you play a very simple army, or you are taking for granted the numerous choices you actually do make on the table.
If you're experienced at the game, play against a non-tactically inclined player some time and see how many poor choices they make.
I have been playing Wargames since 1988, and I have lost most games of 8th not because my tactics are lacking. It is because I lost in the list building stage. Which is the main tactics in current 40k. A poor list will lose against a good list regardless of player skill. In a wargame there are ways and means that a poor list can still out perform a good list.
There's no rule that says that needs to be the case for a game to be a wargame.
Despite all of my complaints, I feel the simplification did successfully reduce most situations to booleans (true/false). And this is a good thing. Your model is in cover - or its not. You have LOS or you don't. I think it unfortunately also undermined tactical depth.
Although I doubt it will happen - I would love if 40k had advanced rules options. I would buy a well made rules expansion codex immediately. Battletech did just this - except all in one rule book.
In BT, there are the 'starter' rules that don't deal with sub-systems damage. If your unit lost all armor in one section - it's done. Good for new people or large games. The advanced rules track damage to specific body parts, damage to sub-systems, ammo explosions - tons of detailed damage tracking. Even further down the rabit hole - you can perform piloting moves to 'brace' your mech against buildings or hills, go prone, and lots of other moves.
I think as a side effect of that, BT tends to hook people for life because the ruleset caters to people that are in different levels of 'maturity' in their gaming. The starter rules are boring for players that want more depth, and the super-advanced rules are too much for people wanting a quick game. But if you've got a whole day to kill, at least there's the option of breaking out the geeky hardcore rules.
They actually even have rules for space assaults, planet landings, shooting drop-shops with orbital defenses - if you want you could conduct a full planetary raid from start to end.
I don't think 40k needs full rulesets from space battles, to titan battles, down to 28mm scale with full complex flanking maneuvers - but I think a half-notch up the complexity ladder would help retain older fans - even if the advanced rules were just optional.
Well I'd disagree with the "Battletech for life" bit as I swapped to 40k 20 odd years ago and pretty much stayed with it.
I found battletech "list building" to be mech creation, and if you made a sick mech or two, you could really get some work done. It was fun though, figuring out where all your ferro-fibrous slots would go, etc. I remember I built a mech with all pulse lasers and a targeting computer, and it would just go around punching holes through the center torsos of opponent mechs. Or another one armed with nothing but SRM6 Streaks that just plowed through things. Battletech, like 40k, I recall as a "you get out what you put in" sort of thing.
eddieazrael wrote: Bait title i know, but I need to add a lot of context. I first played 'wargames' some 30 years ago, starting with 2nd ed Warhammer, then moving through Space Marine/Epic, 40k,Horus Heresy board game, Battlefleet Gothic, Warmaster etc, until life moved me along and I put away/sold my minis in exchange for a family.
I re-entered the 'hobby' primarily through modelling kits, which led me to historicals (ww2 and moderns) - I've seen the recent partwork Warhammer conquest and thus thought about re-starting 40k. BUT - on reading about 40k as it is now, I see comments about 'tabling the opposition on turn 1' or 'list building'.
When I played those other 'wargames' the focus was generally on replicating tactics (real or imagined) that the troops represented would use in 'real' life - overwatching, combined arms, flanking shieldwalls etc - that doesn't seem to be the playerbase focus in 40k, instead it seems to be about 'gaming' the rules themselves as some artificial construct, with any concept that the activity on the board is in some way representative of how a battle might unfold being coincidental at best.
I'm therefore asking dakka - is this right? My brain tells me the issue as I see it is either 1) the 40k rules themselves are poor 'wargame' rules, and if I want to play superhuman Marines against numberless Xenos hordes in a 'realistic' manner then I should get out my copy of the Tomorrows War ruleset; or 2) The rules themselves are fine, but the playerbase has corrupted the intent of the game (whether through design or accident) away from a game trying to simulate war, into a game about itself - the players are playing "Warhammer 40k" as opposed to "Chess", or "Risk", all of which have 'war' themes but don't claim to model actual warfare.
When GW realised they could sell more models by making units OP, that's kinda where things all went to gak. Now people collect all the OP units they can and play to win. I still actually use armies as I like to recreate the lore and realism rather than just trying to win a game, in which if you win not only does no one care ibut those who do, ts the equivalent of taking pride in winning monopoly. The whole tournament thing is just ridiculous to me. I won a tournament at 40k; no one cares.
eddieazrael wrote: Bait title i know, but I need to add a lot of context. I first played 'wargames' some 30 years ago, starting with 2nd ed Warhammer, then moving through Space Marine/Epic, 40k,Horus Heresy board game, Battlefleet Gothic, Warmaster etc, until life moved me along and I put away/sold my minis in exchange for a family.
I re-entered the 'hobby' primarily through modelling kits, which led me to historicals (ww2 and moderns) - I've seen the recent partwork Warhammer conquest and thus thought about re-starting 40k. BUT - on reading about 40k as it is now, I see comments about 'tabling the opposition on turn 1' or 'list building'.
When I played those other 'wargames' the focus was generally on replicating tactics (real or imagined) that the troops represented would use in 'real' life - overwatching, combined arms, flanking shieldwalls etc - that doesn't seem to be the playerbase focus in 40k, instead it seems to be about 'gaming' the rules themselves as some artificial construct, with any concept that the activity on the board is in some way representative of how a battle might unfold being coincidental at best.
I'm therefore asking dakka - is this right? My brain tells me the issue as I see it is either 1) the 40k rules themselves are poor 'wargame' rules, and if I want to play superhuman Marines against numberless Xenos hordes in a 'realistic' manner then I should get out my copy of the Tomorrows War ruleset; or 2) The rules themselves are fine, but the playerbase has corrupted the intent of the game (whether through design or accident) away from a game trying to simulate war, into a game about itself - the players are playing "Warhammer 40k" as opposed to "Chess", or "Risk", all of which have 'war' themes but don't claim to model actual warfare.
No it's a glorified card game. Line of sight doesn't matter tactics don't matter. Why bring models at all. You're basically playing a game of magic 8thed destroyed the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'd say 8th edition isn't because what few things that really required careful consideration such as vehicle facing, fire arcs, reserves and deepstrike being a gamble. Instead you basically have aura hammer with a bit of CP battery to pull of card combo powers.
I've long said that it's basically magic the gathering than the fanboyism takes over and Reeeeeeeeee!!! 8thed is the BEST!!!!! Reeeeeeeeee!
These useless little gaks trying to Ban people whom don't agree so be careful pointing out facts.
eddieazrael wrote: Bait title i know, but I need to add a lot of context. I first played 'wargames' some 30 years ago, starting with 2nd ed Warhammer, then moving through Space Marine/Epic, 40k,Horus Heresy board game, Battlefleet Gothic, Warmaster etc, until life moved me along and I put away/sold my minis in exchange for a family.
I re-entered the 'hobby' primarily through modelling kits, which led me to historicals (ww2 and moderns) - I've seen the recent partwork Warhammer conquest and thus thought about re-starting 40k. BUT - on reading about 40k as it is now, I see comments about 'tabling the opposition on turn 1' or 'list building'.
When I played those other 'wargames' the focus was generally on replicating tactics (real or imagined) that the troops represented would use in 'real' life - overwatching, combined arms, flanking shieldwalls etc - that doesn't seem to be the playerbase focus in 40k, instead it seems to be about 'gaming' the rules themselves as some artificial construct, with any concept that the activity on the board is in some way representative of how a battle might unfold being coincidental at best.
I'm therefore asking dakka - is this right? My brain tells me the issue as I see it is either 1) the 40k rules themselves are poor 'wargame' rules, and if I want to play superhuman Marines against numberless Xenos hordes in a 'realistic' manner then I should get out my copy of the Tomorrows War ruleset; or 2) The rules themselves are fine, but the playerbase has corrupted the intent of the game (whether through design or accident) away from a game trying to simulate war, into a game about itself - the players are playing "Warhammer 40k" as opposed to "Chess", or "Risk", all of which have 'war' themes but don't claim to model actual warfare.
The thing about games in the current decade is that the objective is to win, and more people are getting involved. This means that being the top dog is harder, and so, in true Darwin fashion, only the fittest survive. This means that the top players, of any game no matter what, are those who use the cheapest, easiest to win tactics possible, regardless of "realism." For example, in Call of Duty I've seen players immediately going prone at every opportunity and shooting the enemy from there, avoiding headshots, as well as the infamous camping strategy. Another game I played when I was a kid was Yugioh - until the game transformed into "whoever goes first wins" because players took it to an extreme, calculating out that 40 cards was far superior to maxed decks, as you have less cards, but also less trash cards, less filler, and more focused on the strategy you tried to play. The best way to play then was to basically prevent your opponent from playing. Cards that stopped Spells, Traps, summons, attacking, effects. Get any 3 of them down and you can wager that you have a good shot. Stop 4 of them and you pretty much win.
40k has kind of taken the same turn. The easiest way to win 40k is simply stop your opponent from playing. Kill all his anti-tank in turn one, then your armour can advance at will and decimate his armour with little fear of retaliation. Its really annoying to be on the receiving end, but undeniably the easiest way to win. It actually does have its beginnings in both real life tactics and Chess. You could compare it to Nazi Germany Blitzkrieg tactics where the Lufftwaffe takes out airfields first, preventing the target from having aerial dominance, minimising Lufftwaffe loses to only AA weapon, and allows the landbound armoured columns to advance without fear of aircraft bombardments. Related to chess, a highly effective strategy to use is the Fork-Check, where you endanger the king, and another piece simulateously. The opponent has no choice but to protect his king, allowing you to take his other piece unopposed.
However, you will find that 40k armies actually replicating their lore tactics is hard to come by. This is due to game balance, with some units being better than others. For example, Tyranids in the lore often show Carnifexes as hulking melee monsters that tear everything apart at close range. Yet, if the tabletop is to believed, EVERY carnifex and hive tyrant comes with 4 Twin Devourers without exception, and the horde has exactly 0 pyrovores. Similarly, it would have you believe that Eldar only ever deploy if they have a Wave Serpent for every 5 or 10 warriors, and that Tau only ever deploy with three Riptides. It would also have you believe that every Space Marine army deploys entirely on bikes, led by their chapter master wielding a Thunder Hammer.
These are all just game balance issues. Chapter Master Smashfether was objectively a better HQ that a captain. Bikers are tougher than other Marines and faster, thereby better at tank hunting. Wave Serpents have their powerful shield, making them much better than other, true tanks. And of course, Carnifexes with melee weapons or combo of weapons is objectively worse than Dakkafexes because of the Dakkafex' overwhelming firepower. And Pyrovores suck, but if the lore and Deathwatch PS4 game are to believed, they strike fear into the hearts of any creature (seriously, they have insane range and damage output). Others like Blood Angels were just stopped entirely from following their tactics (Drop in via jump pack and engage in melee, and in 7th, Assault from Deep Strike is banned)
Some armies still do replicate their lore tactics. The Imperial Guard is one if you take an armoured column. Space Marines to an extent do follow their tactics, with Devastators laying down heavy fire support, tacticals holding key objectives and assault marines engaging foes in close. The issue is that these units that follow the lore aren't taken so often as their elite and superior counterparts.
It's not been a wargame for decades now.
In fact even being compared to a wargame is insulting.
It's only similarities are rolling dice and using a tape measure.
A wargame is something that actually requires a brain and played by people who actually have some pride in what they do.
40k requires 5 minutes on the net searching for lists to rip off so as to use minimal effort and show no interest in what your doing at all.
eddieazrael wrote: Bait title i know, but I need to add a lot of context. I first played 'wargames' some 30 years ago, starting with 2nd ed Warhammer, then moving through Space Marine/Epic, 40k,Horus Heresy board game, Battlefleet Gothic, Warmaster etc, until life moved me along and I put away/sold my minis in exchange for a family.
I re-entered the 'hobby' primarily through modelling kits, which led me to historicals (ww2 and moderns) - I've seen the recent partwork Warhammer conquest and thus thought about re-starting 40k. BUT - on reading about 40k as it is now, I see comments about 'tabling the opposition on turn 1' or 'list building'.
When I played those other 'wargames' the focus was generally on replicating tactics (real or imagined) that the troops represented would use in 'real' life - overwatching, combined arms, flanking shieldwalls etc - that doesn't seem to be the playerbase focus in 40k, instead it seems to be about 'gaming' the rules themselves as some artificial construct, with any concept that the activity on the board is in some way representative of how a battle might unfold being coincidental at best.
I'm therefore asking dakka - is this right? My brain tells me the issue as I see it is either 1) the 40k rules themselves are poor 'wargame' rules, and if I want to play superhuman Marines against numberless Xenos hordes in a 'realistic' manner then I should get out my copy of the Tomorrows War ruleset; or 2) The rules themselves are fine, but the playerbase has corrupted the intent of the game (whether through design or accident) away from a game trying to simulate war, into a game about itself - the players are playing "Warhammer 40k" as opposed to "Chess", or "Risk", all of which have 'war' themes but don't claim to model actual warfare.
No it's a glorified card game. Line of sight doesn't matter tactics don't matter. Why bring models at all. You're basically playing a game of magic 8thed destroyed the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'd say 8th edition isn't because what few things that really required careful consideration such as vehicle facing, fire arcs, reserves and deepstrike being a gamble. Instead you basically have aura hammer with a bit of CP battery to pull of card combo powers.
I've long said that it's basically magic the gathering than the fanboyism takes over and Reeeeeeeeee!!! 8thed is the BEST!!!!! Reeeeeeeeee!
These useless little gaks trying to Ban people whom don't agree so be careful pointing out facts.
What facts? There was zero factual content in that post.
Here's a fun observation. If you play on an empty table, certain units will be favored. But If you play on a really dense table, a very different set of units will be favored. Hence, not a ccg.
Terrain has never mattered less though. there are hardly any movement modifers, dangerous terrain isn't a thing anymore, cover is a lot harder to get, position barely matters anymore other than having a bit a model in range. Hell terrain in the 8th edition battle primer is a side box, it didn't even get a full page of rules. The only terrain that really matters is if it's a solid LOS blocking piece.
mtg is a game of whoever spends the most money to make their decks most consistent or broken the game.
It really depends on the format in MTG for balance. The main difference with regards to price between MTG and 40k is ultimately down to how products are sold. Most cards are bought on the secondary market so they're susceptible to price changes due to supply and demand. Generally speaking a card is expensive because it is good, not good because it's expensive or rare. 40k you can just buy exactly what you want straight from GW so the price doesn't really change with regards to how good or bad a unit is. Both games are ultimately pay to win if you're just buying whatever is best at the time. The prices in 40k are just less volatile. In MTG there is usually some sort of simple relatively cheap deck though in each format that you can tweak to your taste. 40k doesn't really have that though, you can build something reasonable for death guard relatively cheaply from starter sets but once you start upgrading it it quickly gets up towards the price of every other list.
mtg is a game of whoever spends the most money to make their decks most consistent or broken the game.
It really depends on the format in MTG for balance. The main difference with regards to price between MTG and 40k is ultimately down to how products are sold. Most cards are bought on the secondary market so they're susceptible to price changes due to supply and demand. Generally speaking a card is expensive because it is good, not good because it's expensive or rare. 40k you can just buy exactly what you want straight from GW so the price doesn't really change with regards to how good or bad a unit is. Both games are ultimately pay to win if you're just buying whatever is best at the time. The prices in 40k are just less volatile. In MTG there is usually some sort of simple relatively cheap deck though in each format that you can tweak to your taste. 40k doesn't really have that though, you can build something reasonable for death guard relatively cheaply from starter sets but once you start upgrading it it quickly gets up towards the price of every other list.
Well definitely correct.
but what i was getting at is that in basically every format there are consistent format destroying cards, and more or less the same amount of list variety as 40k does per format. all this obviously applying to competitive magic.
No it's a glorified card game. Line of sight doesn't matter tactics don't matter. Why bring models at all. You're basically playing a game of magic 8thed destroyed the game.
While I would agree with the general sentiment that 40k is extremely thin on actual wargaming mechanics not too dissimilar from Magic, 8E hardly destroyed the game. 6E and 7E demonstrably did, as heavily evidenced by falling revenues and 40k being (at least temporarily) dethroned for the first time in two decades as the largest selling tabletop miniatures game. 7E in particular was an abomination of confused game design and scale conflict.
If I never have to deal with another Challenge, Jink, nested random rolls, Hull Points, or Formations again, it will be too soon.
Being real though, 40k has been very "Wargaming Lite" for most of its existence, with listbuilding being of greater importance than tabletop tactics for pretty much that whole time. 8E is by no means a perfect ruleset, but it does a better job of acknowledging what tabletop 40k really is in GW's eyes, which really nothing more than a framework for playing with plastic toy soldiers.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Terrain has never mattered less though. there are hardly any movement modifers, dangerous terrain isn't a thing anymore, cover is a lot harder to get, position barely matters anymore other than having a bit a model in range. Hell terrain in the 8th edition battle primer is a side box, it didn't even get a full page of rules. The only terrain that really matters is if it's a solid LOS blocking piece.
Ruins allow freedom of movement to infantry, while walls block movement for many other units. Playing on a table full of ruins hurts units like tanks a lot. It also helps things like elite infantry, as they can engage against small portions of the enemy at a time, concentration of force matters more. Not to mention the inability of some units to gain access to levels of a ruin other than the first.
mtg is a game of whoever spends the most money to make their decks most consistent or broken the game.
It really depends on the format in MTG for balance. The main difference with regards to price between MTG and 40k is ultimately down to how products are sold. Most cards are bought on the secondary market so they're susceptible to price changes due to supply and demand. Generally speaking a card is expensive because it is good, not good because it's expensive or rare. 40k you can just buy exactly what you want straight from GW so the price doesn't really change with regards to how good or bad a unit is. Both games are ultimately pay to win if you're just buying whatever is best at the time. The prices in 40k are just less volatile. In MTG there is usually some sort of simple relatively cheap deck though in each format that you can tweak to your taste. 40k doesn't really have that though, you can build something reasonable for death guard relatively cheaply from starter sets but once you start upgrading it it quickly gets up towards the price of every other list.
Well definitely correct.
but what i was getting at is that in basically every format there are consistent format destroying cards, and more or less the same amount of list variety as 40k does per format. all this obviously applying to competitive magic.
The thing is, while maintaining four formats of highly competitive constructed play, MtG also supports commander and limited formats as well, plus it works really well in casual setting where everyone is just building cards from whatever and playing them.
You can easily build well-rounded decks for 60-70 euros and do relatively well in casual setting, while you can spend hundreds of euros on a well.rounded WH40k army which has no chance of winning because you happend to paint your space marines in the wrong color and/or brought the wrong units unless your opponent invests more money to make his army weaker.
The difference between a Plateau (120€) and a Clifftop Retreat (0.95€) is basically non-existent compared the difference between a Knight and a Gorkanaut.
As for the top competitive scene - a standard meta that is considered very well balanced and fun usually has a maximum of 5 to 6 top tier decks. So I think for the top competitive, GW is on a good path, but there is still an entire iceberg below the surface that also needs to be addressed.
As for the top competitive scene - a standard meta that is considered very well balanced and fun usually has a maximum of 5 to 6 top tier decks. So I think for the top competitive, GW is on a good path, but there is still an entire iceberg below the surface that also needs to be addressed.
mmmmm well i guess thats a matter of opinion as i find this to be the weakest part of any competitive setting. its incredibility sucky to see the same 5-6 lists win constantly. its really really REALLY boring.
but then im a brewer and i enjoy messing with more tuned casual decks than focusing on top level meta decks.
It's hilarious that some people are such uptight snobs about mucking about with toy soldiers that they're willing to go to this level of semantic hair-splitting in a bid to convince themselves they're better and smarter than the toy soldier hoi polloi.
In the strictest sense, yes 40k is still a war game. You have large scale armies, you have a battlefield with terrain, you kill each other with dice and movement is done by tape measure. All components of anything I would define as a war game .
However the fact is that GW has no interest in really making the rules into something that resembles an actual balanced experience. They take no responsibility or pride in why you enjoy the game itself, there is no attempt at balance, point costs are wildly out of whack for things like how many points an individual wound is worth, they push out(admittedly very pretty and awesome) titanic models that just dont feel like they should ever have a place in a battle at the scale that is happening and then print rules out that just feel...wrong in a fluff and competitive setting. A group of guardsman shooting lasguns at a knight and they wound it? Really? Thats like me and a group of my friends attacking a small mountain with handguns, it makes no sense that it should be a thing and yet they put it in and then wonder why people are fine with lists where you have 3 models that can actually hurt something and then you just hurl dice at anything else until it falls over out of pity.
Compare this to a war game like Warmachine where the company's goal is to provide a balanced experience, where the vast majority of lists you build can have a real chance at winning a game, a yearly scenario pack that provides options for winning where board control and positioning can play such a significant role in the game that sometimes a game will be won with a minimal number of models killed. Terrain rules that actually significantly influence the game, point costs that make sense, every faction getting similar numbers of releases and new models, and consistency in the balance changes they make compared to "Well we think this turn one deep striking is a real problem so we're gonna significantly weaken it....except for all these exceptions where you can still absolutely deep strike turn one completely ignoring the change we just made, there did we fix it?"
Any game where you need something like the character rule in order to make lists playable has real problems, maybe 9th edition will be better.
eddieazrael wrote: Bait title i know, but I need to add a lot of context. I first played 'wargames' some 30 years ago, starting with 2nd ed Warhammer, then moving through Space Marine/Epic, 40k,Horus Heresy board game, Battlefleet Gothic, Warmaster etc, until life moved me along and I put away/sold my minis in exchange for a family.
I re-entered the 'hobby' primarily through modelling kits, which led me to historicals (ww2 and moderns) - I've seen the recent partwork Warhammer conquest and thus thought about re-starting 40k. BUT - on reading about 40k as it is now, I see comments about 'tabling the opposition on turn 1' or 'list building'.
When I played those other 'wargames' the focus was generally on replicating tactics (real or imagined) that the troops represented would use in 'real' life - overwatching, combined arms, flanking shieldwalls etc - that doesn't seem to be the playerbase focus in 40k, instead it seems to be about 'gaming' the rules themselves as some artificial construct, with any concept that the activity on the board is in some way representative of how a battle might unfold being coincidental at best.
I'm therefore asking dakka - is this right? My brain tells me the issue as I see it is either 1) the 40k rules themselves are poor 'wargame' rules, and if I want to play superhuman Marines against numberless Xenos hordes in a 'realistic' manner then I should get out my copy of the Tomorrows War ruleset; or 2) The rules themselves are fine, but the playerbase has corrupted the intent of the game (whether through design or accident) away from a game trying to simulate war, into a game about itself - the players are playing "Warhammer 40k" as opposed to "Chess", or "Risk", all of which have 'war' themes but don't claim to model actual warfare.
I concur with your observations and I think that 1) is the clear explanation.
This is a problem that started with 3rd ed. GW observed that gamers wanted to field bigger armies but 2nd ed became clunky when armies exceeded a few dozen models. 3rd ed was rushed out and while it was successful in creating a game that could be played in a few hours with much larger armies than were common in 2nd ed, it stripped out much of the flavour of 2nd ed.
GW spent the best part of two decades trying to inject flavour back into the 3rd ed format but the problem was systemic. The biggest problem with 40k post 3rd ed is a lack of congruence between the physical scale of the game and the scale of the models. GW wants to have its cake and eat it - it wants to sell 28mm models and allow players to field huge armies. Individual 28mm models are a sub optimal scale for the latter.
2nd ed had its flaws but they were mostly flaws in the details - bloated psychic phase, complex wargear, persistent effects, time consuming combat system etc. Skirmish scale games such as Necromunda show that t's a pretty decent system for a game in which each individual is represented by a single independent model. It's a system that scales downwards very well but it doesn't scale as well in the opposite direction. It was never intended to be played with more than a few squads and vehicles.
3rd ed took the game into no mans land. It tried to transition the system from platoon scale to company scale. This would have been better represented by a model scale in between 2nd ed 40k and Epic. It's no coincidence that many of the frustrations of 3rd to 7th ed relate to the treatment of individual models in a more abstract system (e.g. wound allocation). Moving from a less abstract system such as 2nd ed to a more abstract system such as 3rd ed changes the manner in which tactics are addressed. In a less abstract system units are allowed to perform certain actions and players develop bespoke tactics based on those available actions. A more abstract system will tend to be more prescriptive and will introduce a specific mechanic to address a particular tactic (e.g. pinning). IMO, this has made 40k less fun because it has removed the meaningful interaction of models with their environment characteristic of 2nd ed and has replaced it with a halfway house company level game which doesn't really introduce the requisite level of company level tactics to make it compelling due to being hamstrung by the physical scale.
8th ed was the first genuine attempt to fix all this and it's a mixed bag. It's a much cleaner ruleset but it suffers from even more of the over abstraction that plagued 40k since 3rd ed. This solidifies my view that the problem is incongruence between the physical scale and the rules scale.
I find myself in a similar boat as the OP. I’m not going to debate arbitrary definitions but something that has bugged me a lot about this edition is that whenever I’m spectating a game and I look at the board it just looks like complete nonsense, whereas most other editions of the game have had some semblance of diorama. Tanks were (generally) facing towards enemies and units were spread out across the board, in cover if they could etc.
The spectacle has always been a big part of the allure to me. A table with two painted armies and decent terrain just looked cool. Even if you didn’t play the game you could make some sense of what was happening. At first I thought the removal of templates and facings would make the game look even better on the table. People could line up guardsmen firing in ranks and you could finally make dense swarms of Gaunts etc. but instead all I see are nonsensical Conga lines of infantry “bubble wrapping” parking lots of vehicles facing random directions because that’s what the rules encourage. Outsiders and newcomers can’t possibly understand what is going on because there’s no real-world touchstone for that.
Granted, no one is preventing people from playing the game diroma style, but people are going to naturally gravitate towards what the rules encourage them to do. In some ways I think that also “back in the day” the only way to really see how the game was meant to be played was GW-owned media like white dwarf. So we naturally tended to emulate the WD battle reports, where the diorama/spectacle was a high priority both from a design culture and marketing perspective. I think the (not unrelated) decline of WD and the rise of fan-made video battle reports meant that GW weren’t the ones really setting the norms anymore and the community decided that battles looked like something else entirely.
Desubot wrote: but then im a brewer and i enjoy messing with more tuned casual decks than focusing on top level meta decks.
Same here, I dropped actively playing competitive magic years ago.
I firmly believe that WH40k has the potential to allow list building to be as varied on casual levels as it is for MtG, so I hope GW will fix those balancing problems at some point in the near future.
Desubot wrote: but then im a brewer and i enjoy messing with more tuned casual decks than focusing on top level meta decks.
Same here, I dropped actively playing competitive magic years ago.
I firmly believe that WH40k has the potential to allow list building to be as varied on casual levels as it is for MtG, so I hope GW will fix those balancing problems at some point in the near future.
The main problem for that becoming a thing is that a casual list costs roughly the same as a more competitive list assuming both are all plastic for 40k. Like, I like the death guard daemon engines and in my last two 1000 point games my opponents haven't killed a single unit and my list is nowhere near optimised. Granted they had very poor target priority and that's on them but it just feels bad for new players to spend as much or maybe even more than their opponent and come out so much worse in the game.
The casual approach is best for people who've already built up their collection over time and don't have to worry about feeling like the money spent on those units was wasted as much. I know when I used to play in 5th I had a pretty casual marine list and it was fun. The people I played with had a similar mindset so we enjoyed our games. Then 6th dropped and made my army completely useless so I stopped playing until recently.
To be fair there isn't really much we can do about this because the prices are basically fixed. Whereas in MTG you can build a fun casual deck for much cheaper than a competitive one. The best we can do is try to help players make as educated a decision as they can when building an army so their list suits their playstyle and level of competition.
Desubot wrote: but then im a brewer and i enjoy messing with more tuned casual decks than focusing on top level meta decks.
Same here, I dropped actively playing competitive magic years ago.
I firmly believe that WH40k has the potential to allow list building to be as varied on casual levels as it is for MtG, so I hope GW will fix those balancing problems at some point in the near future.
The main problem for that becoming a thing is that a casual list costs roughly the same as a more competitive list assuming both are all plastic for 40k. Like, I like the death guard daemon engines and in my last two 1000 point games my opponents haven't killed a single unit and my list is nowhere near optimised. Granted they had very poor target priority and that's on them but it just feels bad for new players to spend as much or maybe even more than their opponent and come out so much worse in the game.
The casual approach is best for people who've already built up their collection over time and don't have to worry about feeling like the money spent on those units was wasted as much. I know when I used to play in 5th I had a pretty casual marine list and it was fun. The people I played with had a similar mindset so we enjoyed our games. Then 6th dropped and made my army completely useless so I stopped playing until recently.
To be fair there isn't really much we can do about this because the prices are basically fixed. Whereas in MTG you can build a fun casual deck for much cheaper than a competitive one. The best we can do is try to help players make as educated a decision as they can when building an army so their list suits their playstyle and level of competition.
The big issue for new player is all those "trap" units you can buy into which basically just accelerate you getting tabled. Unlike in MtG where 80%+ of the cards are filler, WH40k has no place for fillers, every single unit must be viable. Not top level tournament material, but it should have a reason to exists (no one needs a unit that is strictly worse than another) and be able to perform its intended role (no one needs a close combat specialist unit that gets beaten up in combat by things that are not close combat specialists).
Something I wish GW would do is create a guide for every army how to build a well-rounded list for a 1500/1750/2000 army and keep those guides up to date. And by that, I mean real guides, not the stuff they have been doing in the past, where they tell players to buy one of everything and then go on about how awesome they look on the battlefield.
For example a Death Guard guide would look like this:
Spoiler:
1) Buy two boxes of DI and share them with a friend or "enjoy collection two awesome armies from the Warhammer 40.000 universe" (=give us twice as much money). That way you both have all the rules you need, plus a sizable army to start playing right away.
2) Currently your units of Plague Marines only have one special weapon, so buy the ETB plague marines to have a champion with a plasma gun and another marine with a blight launcher. If you bought two boxes of DI, you can shuffle around the models so you have one unit with three plasma guns!
3) You have probably realized that your Lord of Corruption is quite slow and has trouble catching up with things he wants to smash. It's time for a boon of Nurgle, upgrade him to a Daemon Prince! A daemon prince is faster, stronger, can cast psychic powers, prevents nearby plasma from overheating and flips tanks on their backs.
4) Still having trouble with those tanks? Try some helbrutes, plagueburst crawlers or a blight-hauler - but keep in mind blight haulers only unleash their full potential when there are three of them.
A new player will then end up with a semi-decent army that works on the tabletop, but won't be winning tournaments any time soon.
Repeat for each faction, bonus point for the "start Collection boxes" actually containing things worth fielding.
Jidmah wrote: The big issue for new player is all those "trap" units you can buy into which basically just accelerate you getting tabled. Unlike in MtG where 80%+ of the cards are filler, WH40k has no place for fillers, every single unit must be viable. Not top level tournament material, but it should have a reason to exists (no one needs a unit that is strictly worse than another) and be able to perform its intended role (no one needs a close combat specialist unit that gets beaten up in combat by things that are not close combat specialists).
Something I wish GW would do is create a guide for every army how to build a well-rounded list for a 1500/1750/2000 army and keep those guides up to date. And by that, I mean real guides, not the stuff they have been doing in the past, where they tell players to buy one of everything and then go on about how awesome they look on the battlefield.
For example a Death Guard guide would look like this:
Spoiler:
1) Buy two boxes of DI and share them with a friend or "enjoy collection two awesome armies from the Warhammer 40.000 universe" (=give us twice as much money). That way you both have all the rules you need, plus a sizable army to start playing right away.
2) Currently your units of Plague Marines only have one special weapon, so buy the ETB plague marines to have a champion with a plasma gun and another marine with a blight launcher. If you bought two boxes of DI, you can shuffle around the models so you have one unit with three plasma guns!
3) You have probably realized that your Lord of Corruption is quite slow and has trouble catching up with things he wants to smash. It's time for a boon of Nurgle, upgrade him to a Daemon Prince! A daemon prince is faster, stronger, can cast psychic powers, prevents nearby plasma from overheating and flips tanks on their backs.
4) Still having trouble with those tanks? Try some helbrutes, plagueburst crawlers or a blight-hauler - but keep in mind blight haulers only unleash their full potential when there are three of them.
A new player will then end up with a semi-decent army that works on the tabletop, but won't be winning tournaments any time soon.
Repeat for each faction, bonus point for the "start Collection boxes" actually containing things worth fielding.
I don't see them doing a guide like that because it's essentially talking people out of buying other models. I could see them potentially doing articles that are overviews of what a unit actually wants to do in game though. Saying what it ideally wants to target, things to keep in mind while moving, etc. Essentially a more refined family friendly version of the 1d4chan tactica unit analyses. Obviously they'd minimise the negative points but at least then someone isn't buying tactical marines thinking they're a balanced unit of elite soldiers that can take out anything from a grot to a knight.
Ideally they'd have print outs in GW stores to show prospective new players or give them as a little bonus with a start collecting box. Better to give it with the box than to include it in the box so they don't need to update the box itself if the sheet gets updated. Boxes should have something directing them to the warhammer community site though to a digital version of it for people who buy it from third party retailers.
Nah, the guide pretty much stops at 2000 points. You could finish with a list of things they could get next and eventually they will buy more or move to a new army to collect.
At this point, they've also sold 2 DI boxes, a Plague Marine ETB kit, a daemon prince and one vehicle box.
Someone who has decent success with a 2000 point army is much more likely to buy more than someone who is getting his teeth kicked in every game. Most of those people will leave the game and not spend more money to get better at it.
Jidmah wrote: Nah, the guide pretty much stops at 2000 points. You could finish with a list of things they could get next and eventually they will buy more or move to a new army to collect.
At this point, they've also sold 2 DI boxes, a Plague Marine ETB kit, a daemon prince and one vehicle box.
Someone who has decent success with a 2000 point army is much more likely to buy more than someone who is getting his teeth kicked in every game. Most of those people will leave the game and not spend more money to get better at it.
Giving someone a list of things to buy is a pretty terrible idea IMO though. As is telling players they need 2000 points. Show a new player a 2000 point list when they walk in the store with an interest in 40k and saying buy this will make most just turn around and walk out. Especially if that potential player is a kid with their parent/guardian.
A much better approach is to have some guidelines for some 1000pt ish lists. Less money to outlay, less overwelming and it's better to start with smaller games to get the hang of things anyway. Selling an army list also takes away one of the big draws of the game for a lot of people, they're not really your dudes if you just bought a list some guy gave to you without any thought of your own. Whereas if they have a sheet with overviews of units and a couple suggested playstyles for the army you're making choices. That makes it your army. Even if the suggestions are as simple as "consider these units if you want to be stabby" and "consider these units if you want to be shooty".
Straight up giving them a list takes away the agency of the player and a full sized army will overwhelm a new player. Whereas if they choose a list from some guidelines they're more invested in the army. Then if the army doesn't work out the way they want it to after a few games or they feel like something is missing they'll have the unit overviews. They might decide they need more anti-tank or their opponent may suggest they get some more anti-tank. Then they look at or remember the guidelines and choose their next unit.
Just straight up giving someone a list no matter how good is never going to get someone as invested in the game/hobby as them making their own army. Just ask all the people who build an army for their friends only to have them play one game then just walk away forever.
8th ed was the first genuine attempt to fix all this and it's a mixed bag. It's a much cleaner ruleset but it suffers from even more of the over abstraction that plagued 40k since 3rd ed. This solidifies my view that the problem is incongruence between the physical scale and the rules scale.
Scale has definitely been an issue for 40k for years, increasingly exacerbated as time went on. Having to work out challenges in melee combat between individual squad sergeants and worry about what type of blade their powerweapon had, in a tabletop battle between a tank company and infantry battalion, was reaaaaally ridiculous. 8E dropped the worst excesses of the failed 6E/7E paradigm take on the 3E ruleset, but still struggles with those issues.
I have basic guardsmen as the first wave. My stormtroopers kill high value targets and capture tactical objectives lightning fast. My Custodes and assassins surprise anyone who thought they are only to be slaughtering basic troopers. My Shadowsword and other warmachines bring swift end to all who think they can survive or let alone, win.
I do think the biggest problem is that GW makes it sound like you want to care about the spectacle: Fully painted armies with a variety of units (not just spamming the same unit over and over), on a table with themed terrain and a narrative story to the game. As far back as I can remember in White Dwarf, that's how they present things. You rarely, if ever, see armies that aren't diverse in their selections.
Yet in the same breath, they make most choices no good to where you only want to take 1 out of maybe 5 weapon options, to say nothing of ignoring half the units, and try to pitch the game as being a competitive game where you can show your tactical acumen.
The fundamental issue is trying to make 40k all things to all people, with a design team that seemingly cannot do what that entails.
I though the whole competitive thing was a very very recent thing...... well iirc they tried in 3rd..4th? edition but went right back to FORGE DA NARRATIVE by 6th.
auticus wrote: Complex wargames where battlefield tactics are the core avenue of winning went out of style 15 or more years ago.
Sadly I think this is spot on.
It is something that I have struggled to come to terms with, 40k simply is no longer a game I enjoy, and I am not their target audience. I have outgrown it. The setting is something that was a big escapism during my formative years, so that could be one of the things that keeps me coming back. I think I am going to slowly wean myself off 40k. I really wish that KoW had a following here in rural Ireland. That is a game I could be quite content in playing as my main miniatures game, sadly it seems to be mainly 40k here.
Oh well, might be that the gaming aspect of the hobby is on hold for me for the time being.
There is always konflict 47. bolt action system is a ton of fun, terrain matters, movement matters, every shot matters even if it doesnt do damage, and you cant fully count on going first with random dice pulls which also keeps both players active at all times rather than me getting a 20 minute smoke break while my opponent does his full movement.
Heard good things about Konflict '47, doubt anyone in these parts would be interested sadly. Is there a mod to use 40k factions? If so that might help convert people over.
stonehorse wrote: Heard good things about Konflict '47, doubt anyone in these parts would be interested sadly. Is there a mod to use 40k factions? If so that might help convert people over.
I believe i saw something about konflict 40k somewhere so i know some one is doing it but then you could always do chaos vs imperium, running guards vs cultists in most things and add in space marines for the heavy infantry running around.
Star Breach (find it by adds here on dakka) is free and really well done, has like 20factions, and is designed to be model agnosticism, so you can use 40k, Star Wars, etc any 25-28mm scale SciFi models.
The scale is part of the problem, and removing all super heavies, gargantuans and perhaps fliers would help make infantry matter more.
However, there is still the main problem: the core of the game is not deep/complex/well-built enough to allow for anything past move, cast powers, shoot, and stab. Until they add more to do past those few actions, the game will continue to be one-dimensional.
Things like suppression, AA, more actions a unit can declare when they activate than move or attack, impactful terrain, maneuver actually mattering past getting guns in range, giving everything facings etc. There simply isn't much to think about or consider in a game of 40k. Less vertical design, more horizontal. It doesn't even need to be complex/complicated either. Offering a bit more variety and thinking in gameplay (while balanced) would do it.
Blastaar wrote: However, there is still the main problem: the core of the game is not deep/complex/well-built enough to allow for anything past move, cast powers, shoot, and stab. Until they add more to do past those few actions, the game will continue to be one-dimensional.
Things like suppression, AA, more actions a unit can declare when they activate than move or attack, impactful terrain, maneuver actually mattering past getting guns in range, giving everything facings etc. There simply isn't much to think about or consider in a game of 40k. Less vertical design, more horizontal. It doesn't even need to be complex/complicated either. Offering a bit more variety and thinking in gameplay (while balanced) would do it.
This is a good point. I think that since 5th edition there has been too much focus on shooting and not enough focus on assault. The problem with a focus on shooting is that it tips the game towards list building as players will focus on fitting in as much firepower as possible. A better way of putting it might be that the game doesn't encourage or demand that players develop a range of tactical approaches. Whether you choose to focus on shooting or assault is largely a question of preference/flavour rather than being different tactical techniques required to master the game.
Shooting should massacre units in the open but be largely ineffective at killing units that are dug in. A decent suppression mechanic would prevent this from turning into a dull stalemate as the early game turns would become a focus on gaining a tactical advantage whereby you can execute assault manoeuvres to destroy the dug in enemy units in the latter turns.
I would also like to see a deeper combat system. 2nd ed's combat system was too time consuming for large games but I really like the fact that every unit is useful in combat, especially when used in conjunction with combat specialists. For example, in 2nd ed using Storm Guardians in conjunction with Banshees or Scorpions was a highly effective tactic due to the rule that for each additional combatant you have in B2B with an enemy model you receive +1 to your combat score. This alone made fairly modest units far more useful and tactically flexible than they are now. From 3rd onwards there is no such synergy.
stonehorse wrote: Heard good things about Konflict '47, doubt anyone in these parts would be interested sadly. Is there a mod to use 40k factions? If so that might help convert people over.
Have you considered Killteam or Apocalypse? I have about 8K of fully painted Ultramarines languishing away and almost as many older tyrannids. For me 40k died quite a while back, and then GW killed fantasy. I missed a lot of the drama due to work and life changes, but I swear some things don't ever change with GW. So it goes.
I really like Warlords of Erehwon and the Bolt Action mechanics, so I skipped right over BA and bought up a bunch of Russians for Konflict '47. You can get a K47 starter army for about a hundred dollars and go from there. Honestly, I started with GW, and I still am thinking about Killteam and Apocalypse, but my FLGS is over an hour away, they play Warlord games and 40K is just not for me anymore. Too old to care about tournamnets, but fun is good. If you can't get around how expensive Warlord models can be when you compare those models to GW's quality and style, you can always use your marines, eldar etc. with OnePageRules. No fluff or storyline but a lot more balance. So far I am glad to be back to the hobby if for no other reason than building and painting models is relaxing and the grandsons love it. Saga and SPQR look interesting, and I am definitely thinking on Hail Caesar if I can find the time and some historical players...
So I'm in it for Warlords of Erehwon and Konflict '47. I hope they can persist like 40K without wrecking the rules, producing ridiculously large, expensive models that you can see from space, or producing models that look like drag queens...
I think a lot of people (myself included) are always keeping an eye out for alternate rules to use their 40K minis with. There are even some aftermarket rules aimed suspiciously at the game (I have a PDF of a generic sci-fi game aimed at the models used in 40K but I can't recall the name at the moment).
The issue obviously becomes opponents. You really only need one like-minded friend who's in it with ya. My 40K playing dropped off quickly recently when I played five or six games in a row and simply didn't enjoy myself. Then I played some Old West and some dungeon crawls and found myself thoroughly enjoying them...so it's probably time for a break.
I am, however, considering a 2nd edition/8th edition + alternate activations mega-bash at some point. Again, just need to find some opponents. I've always preferred rules written by companies which were not attached to miniatures sales. Basically independent game studios, or authors published by Osprey, etc. The reason is simple: they're selling rules, not models. GW is selling models, not rules. By definition you'll get a better product from someone who is selling their rules based solely on their merit, rather than a miniatures delivery device. There are some stonkingly good historical wargames which make GW titles look like a joke. They can do this because they're not selling minis, they're selling a game - and you, as the consumer, figure out the models you want to buy and from who.
I will admit it's tough though. The more non-GW games I play (and I took a good 10 year hiatus from GW), the more difficult it is to go back and play GW games. I'll be holding onto my armies but I no longer rush to put them on the table.
6th of August will see the release of Planetfall. I will enjoy mechanics like Overwatch, Stagger (Suppression), flanks, firing arcs, etc.
It's a foolish notion to think such features will ever be present again in 40K.
I don't think anyone expects those things to return to a game like 40K, but some people have jimmies rustled when it's pointed out that 40K is barely much of a wargame anymore. That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable or people can't have fun with it, but it's just stretching the definition. It's more of an action-combo game...if that's a thing.
I don't hate 8th edition but yea at this point 40k is essentially a trading card game with plastic/metal/resin models. Most of 8th revolves around reroll auras and farming CP to pull of some special snowflake strat combo. LOS, positioning (outside of auras and screening to stop deep striking), facing and cover have never mattered less.
one of the big issues is 40k wants to be everything, Its gritty sci fi, Fantasy with the want for lots of close combat. Giant anime mechs with heavy and less graceful mechs.
Heros and super heroes all mixed in without care from the people running the IP.
When flyers come out, it was very much a good idea put together by a group of people with no idea how to implement it. Super heavys much the same, things that had a place in the game. But pushed out without any real good thought into the plans for the game as a whole. 8th was rather lacking to start, But at a 8th edition they should probably at least have a good base by now.
And they still do not, Even space marines tend to just Derp into battle since movment and tactics worst enemy is bad rules.
Its just a little disappointing, Considering how many good rulesets would work fantastically well for 40k. If GW was willing to come to terms with there own setting.
nomadimp wrote: I find myself in a similar boat as the OP. I’m not going to debate arbitrary definitions but something that has bugged me a lot about this edition is that whenever I’m spectating a game and I look at the board it just looks like complete nonsense, whereas most other editions of the game have had some semblance of diorama. Tanks were (generally) facing towards enemies and units were spread out across the board, in cover if they could etc.
The spectacle has always been a big part of the allure to me. A table with two painted armies and decent terrain just looked cool. Even if you didn’t play the game you could make some sense of what was happening. At first I thought the removal of templates and facings would make the game look even better on the table. People could line up guardsmen firing in ranks and you could finally make dense swarms of Gaunts etc. but instead all I see are nonsensical Conga lines of infantry “bubble wrapping” parking lots of vehicles facing random directions because that’s what the rules encourage. Outsiders and newcomers can’t possibly understand what is going on because there’s no real-world touchstone for that.
Granted, no one is preventing people from playing the game diroma style, but people are going to naturally gravitate towards what the rules encourage them to do. In some ways I think that also “back in the day” the only way to really see how the game was meant to be played was GW-owned media like white dwarf. So we naturally tended to emulate the WD battle reports, where the diorama/spectacle was a high priority both from a design culture and marketing perspective. I think the (not unrelated) decline of WD and the rise of fan-made video battle reports meant that GW weren’t the ones really setting the norms anymore and the community decided that battles looked like something else entirely.
This lack of realism breaks my brain.
To try to sort this out
(and a bit inspired by the "off the rails" thread under tournament discussions here on Dakka)
I watched some live streaming "competitive" games the other day
and noted the way that terrain is built,
to serve as paintball barricades..
Given the 40k began as a snarky stab at the rotted side of empire,
with orks and marines only differing in the shape of the boot that crushes you,
(both systems work from blind faith)
with a twist of 'yeah its all fake news but we live here so make the best of it'
the fake scenery and fake vehicle facings and fake tactics that make up the contemporary 40K table
shows how completely lost from home the game is right now.
It might be that the original state of mind
is simply not accessible to anyone inured from the decay that supports their active corruption
of what was a wargame, and is now 40K the Gathering.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strg Alt wrote: 6th of August will see the release of Planetfall. I will enjoy mechanics like Overwatch, Stagger (Suppression), flanks, firing arcs, etc.
It's a foolish notion to think such features will ever be present again in 40K.
Planetfall, huh...
searching...
searching...
Ah.
Video game.
Yeah, funny how video games get more realistic,
and tabletop wargames using real models painted to look as realistic as possible are becoming stripped down card games.
Almost as if people aren't able to invent their own worlds anymore,
and can only live within structures of another's creation.
Maybe this is related to so many lately living with their parents forever.
So, the mind reaches equilibrium by learning to stay so embedded,
thereby forcing the limited engagement with 40K 'reality' as well.
Blastaar wrote: The scale is part of the problem, and removing all super heavies, gargantuans and perhaps fliers would help make infantry matter more.
However, there is still the main problem: the core of the game is not deep/complex/well-built enough to allow for anything past move, cast powers, shoot, and stab. Until they add more to do past those few actions, the game will continue to be one-dimensional.
Things like suppression, AA, more actions a unit can declare when they activate than move or attack, impactful terrain, maneuver actually mattering past getting guns in range, giving everything facings etc. There simply isn't much to think about or consider in a game of 40k. Less vertical design, more horizontal. It doesn't even need to be complex/complicated either. Offering a bit more variety and thinking in gameplay (while balanced) would do it.
And yet, the VAST majority of players (most especially the ones who make posts like this one) are completely incapable of using the tactics that ARE in the game.
I cannot tell you the number of games I've won entirely because my opponent had no fething idea what to do in the charge phase.
You can add all of that stuff back in if you want, but I guarantee that 90% of the people who b***h moan about 'muh complexity' aren't good enough to do anything with it anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: I don't think anyone expects those things to return to a game like 40K, but some people have jimmies rustled when it's pointed out that 40K is barely much of a wargame anymore. That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable or people can't have fun with it, but it's just stretching the definition. It's more of an action-combo game...if that's a thing.
Like I've said before, the biggest problem with people thinkong the game is entirely about 'tcg style combos' with little to no actual tactics, are simply people who aren't good enough at the game to understand the tactics that are there.
Are there big TCG style combos? Yes. Is there an emphasis on screening and maintaining auras? Yes. But even ignoring those things, the movement phase is still the most important phase of the game AND is a phase a shockingly small percentage of the player base can do well. The charge and combat phases no one has any gorram idea about until top 75 or so ITC.
Could they add more complexity to the game? Sure, and it would probably be great for those who can handle it, but considering most people, especially on dakka, suck at the game as it is, it would be pointless. Ya'll are dual core Pentiums trying to pair up with a RTX 2080ti.
How about you get good enough to handle intel integrated graphics first?
Elbows wrote: I don't think anyone expects those things to return to a game like 40K, but some people have jimmies rustled when it's pointed out that 40K is barely much of a wargame anymore. That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable or people can't have fun with it, but it's just stretching the definition. It's more of an action-combo game...if that's a thing.
Without these mechanics 40K is one thing only:
A colossal waste of time. After I have played Planetfall, I will add a few things from this video game to my custom rule set of 40K.
A "wargame" is only a game that tries to "simulate" warfare. Board game, card game, computer game, miniatures game are just different ... media? genres? of wargame. Running around the garden with sticks shouting "bang! you're dead!" is a wargame, albeit a fairly simplistic one. 
