"Just play Narrative..."

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Purifier**

Deadnight wrote:
Purifier wrote:

I was taught that some things, like sticking your hand in the toilet and eating the contents found there, don't need to be tried to know it's a bad idea.

Cute. Here's the thing about anecdotes - anything can be one. Like try a holiday to a foreign country. Try a different show on tv. Try a sport. Different hobby. Play a game a different way...

Purifier wrote:
Get off your high horse.

No high horse here bud and I really my don't appreciate the condescension and 'high horse' comment here. Maybe it's Internet and tone, but for the record I'm not trying to be a jerk to you and I sîncerely hope it's the same from the other end here...

like I've said. It's Just a different perspective. I play narrative and I play matched play. It's not an abstract concept to me. I appreciate the value in both. I've seen both work, and I've seen both fall apart, so to me it's the implementation that matters more. Both scratch different itches at the end of the day, which is why I try and encourage both..

Purifier wrote:
You're saying that you know how to balance better than anyone else,

Go ahead. Quote me saying that. Or else take that back and stop putting words in my mouth and mischaracterising my arguments.

I've said we've played narrative games for four years and have had immense amounts of fun from them, and only once have we ever played out something that was truly 'broken' and there was literally from chucking everything 'early war' onto the board.

Purifier wrote:
like the highly competitive gamers with a lot of background in hosting huge events that GW are now assembling. You do you. But doesn't convince me one bit.

Uh huh, and what exactly does this show? Other people can organise events? Well done To them. No, seriously - well done to them. I've put together tournaments in the past. I know how much organisation and work needs to go into those thing s and I don't envy the guys one bit, but again, as has been pointed out before, organising things for 'matched play' and pugs/tournaments is different to narrative play. What works to organise those large events isn't what work said to organise or approach a narrative game. And before you try to strawman me again, let me be clear - I play matched play. I enjoy pick up gsmes and I enjoy tournaments (used to play WMH to a decently high level too - even scalped a former U.K. Masters winner... with mk2 strakhov, of all casters!)immensely. I also value and enjoy narrative play. I really don't have favourites here.

Purifier wrote:
But doesn't convince me one bit.

*shrug* that's a shame - it really is. I'm genuinely not trying to be cheeky or anything purifier, and I really don't appreciate your high horse comments. Myself and my mates have played various wargames this way for about four years now, and we've had a blast all this time. Maybe that doesn't convince you, but it doesn't stop me, or us, or any of the other narrative gamers out there doing the same thing from having fun doing it. Maybe it's something that has to be seen first hand rather than typed up, because a lot of it tends to be rather nebulousness and free-form rather than 'hard coded' in structure... for what it's worth, I'm sure you'd probably enjoy a game or two with our group.

Like I said, I recommended some people who are far more eloquent than I am at this sort of thing. Speak to them? Mongoosematt especially Or don't. Up to you really. But i think it's a shame that you aren't even giving it a chance-there is a lot of value from also taking a different approach. For what it's worth, it's done nothing but expand my appreciation for table top gaming. But hey, your choice in the end.

Purifier wrote:
You say points are flawed, so instead you want to use... other points. Because they're better. Ok. Whatever. Your arguments are bloody weird and not worth my time.

Quote me saying they're 'better' please. All I've ever said is it's a different way to approach wargames and it's an approach with merit and value, and it's one that I have had a lot of enjoyment out of. That's 'bloody weird'? Ok then...

Regarding points, I will say this: I like points, for what they are and within the right contexts, theyre perfectly fine. However points on their own are not the answer. Points are a tool. When used right, they are a very effective tool, but they are not the only one (you can't build a house with only a hammer!) Points can only go so far, and can only carry so much weight. Points work within a system where all the other variables are reduced - for example, a unit might be worth its points in one scenario, and overcosted for another (say, the ability to ignore terrain on a terrain heavy board, versus a 'naked' board - solution being to define the amount of terrain, and thereby reduce the variable). Perfectly fine. But raising and lowering the points costs of things isn't the only lever to pull either. Warmachine, for example isn't balanced because the points costs are right (it's points costs are generally pretty robust though). There are enough hard counters and 'silver bullets' in that game that some 75point lists are not the the equal of other 75point lists (and you won't find man you WMH players who will dispute that), but this is largely mitigated by other factors like multiple lists in tournaments, multiple win conditions (scenario. Assassination etc). So when I talk about other things being needed for balance, that's the kind of thing I am talking about.

Luciferian wrote:The idea that people should instinctively know the relative value of each model and its options, and that they should be expected to spontaneously and efficiently organize balanced games based purely on good will and their subjective experience of the game, is frankly ludicrous.

I hope you are not suggesting that's people should organise games based on something like nastiness and spite then instead of good will towards their fellows and peers in their community? Personally I always thought it was better to play against like minded fellows, and friends and people whose company I enjoyed but hey, that's probably 'bloody weird', right?

You're right - I don't expect anyone to 'instinctively know the relative value' of things. I've never even said such a thing. I've always said it's an approach that takes a bit of time, and it requires knowledge and experience, but for what it's worth it's an approach that I have personally found great enjoyment from, hence why I am here trying to encourage it.

For what it's worth, I don't see it as 'frankly ludicrous' to 'game-build' with my friends and have a go at homebrewed and often assymetric games. If it sounds interesting, I'll consider it. I can meet you half way, I'll make an attempt to accommodate. At the very least, have a chat and see if we are on the same page. You are my opponent, i regard you as an equal, I owe you that at least. If everyone has a subjective view on things, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing either - I just see it as an opportunity for more vairiety.

You MUST be

ing me? You're not being condescending? "well you see, I'VE been raised to..." and you start sentences with things like "Cute." It's not like one little thing. Everything is saturated with it.

And you ask me to quote you on saying that? You need to read back on what you're defending. Tneva82 said "narrative is the game mode that you can get closer to the unarchievable balance"
I said "how?" and that's where you come in, answering my how. It was what we were talking about. It was what I was asking, and you replied on the how. There is nothing else that you could have been defending, other than the statement that narrative play has better balance than matched play.,

**ross-128**

Narrative definitely cannot have the same delicate balance as matched. There's one simple reason: in Narrative, a bone-stock SM squad with nothing but bolters, and a tricked-out SM squad with heavy weapons, special weapons, and all the fanciest wargear are the same cost!

Narrative sacrifices balance for speed (you can throw a list together MUCH faster when you don't have to worry about every little detail) and flexibility. It's just a tradeoff you make, and which one you go with is just a matter of what matters more in your group, fluff or crunch.

Of course, as long as you're just playing with friends, you could always do a sort of Matched Lite: use matched points, but with the looser rules of narrative. Ain't nobody there to stop you. Mixing and matching rules in your garage isn't going to get you a visit from the Adeptus Legatus.

Full matched rules would only be likely to come into force in a formal setting, like tournaments. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that there are things that are fine in your garage, that absolutely won't fly in a tournament. Tournaments have to use a much higher standard of balance because of the higher stakes, it's just the nature of the thing.

**Lythrandire Biehrellian**

Narrative lets me just use what I've modeled. Nobody who is a fan of narrative play has piles of identically maxed out squads kitted with the most expensive option and says "see it's balanced!"

I've got Corsairs and harlequins. I use power swords and splinter rifles,, I use flamers and melta guns. Hell, my heavy weapons teams had mixed splinter cannon and missile launchers.

In the new eddition I am not wasting points. It isn't a drawback to throw power weapons on all my squads because my barons and felarchs were gifted with blades when they proved their "loyalty" (cause, you know, pirates) with the power level I can just say "my power level is 100" and we can figure out where we are from there. Easy peasy.

**theocracity**

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Narrative lets me just use what I've modeled. Nobody who is a fan of narrative play has piles of identically maxed out squads kitted with the most expensive option and says "see it's balanced!"

I've got Corsairs and harlequins. I use power swords and splinter rifles,, I use flamers and melta guns. Hell, my heavy weapons teams had mixed splinter cannon and missile launchers.

In the new eddition I am not wasting points. It isn't a drawback to throw power weapons on all my squads because my barons and felarchs were gifted with blades when they proved their "loyalty" (cause, you know, pirates) with the power level I can just say "my power level is 100" and we can figure out where we are from there. Easy peasy.

Yeah, same. That's why I don't get a lot of the arguments about how Narrative play lets players max out their squads - as a Narrative gamer it's more important that my army looks cool, than that it's good at winning games. I'm not going to equip all my squads with the best weapon in the metagame, because that's boring to build and paint and I don't want to have to buy all those extra boxes for those single bits that don't actually improve what I find interesting about the hobby. I'll just build with a mix of weapons that look cool, regardless if they're competitive.

I sort of get the idea that Narrative games benefit from Matched play balance. The main problem with that in my mind, though, is that Narrative games are expected to involve scenarios that are inherently unbalanced in some way (and usually with little guidance in terms of point values to compensate for any imbalance). At that point the idea that Points are ensuring a competitive scale for both players has already gone out the window. Why not just let players build their armies how they want without worrying about whether 5 points for a power sword ultimately matters within the variables of a narrative scenario?

**Waaargh**

It's cool that you'll get narrative to work. The criticism come, I believe, from people who doesn't get it to eork and maybe who doesnt get W40k to work to a balanced level.

I find the reason for 40k to have issues is because it IS buildt on a narrative foundation. That's how it has always been presented in White Dwarf. When this is tried to suit competitive games it fares less than great.

I have one issue with the narrative crowd. In AoS land there has been a lot of asking for ideas to the narrative play, and few have helped out there. Had been nice if peeps with experience could give some advice. There are many ways to get info on netlists, there are not so many ways to find The Good Narrative.

I guess debate over a grand new edition make the narrative crowd come out of the woodwork.

**Deadnight**

Purifier wrote:

You MUST be ing me? You're not being condescending? "well you see, I'VE been raised to..." and you start sentences with things like "Cute." It's not like one little thing. Everything is saturated with it.
,

No, I'm not 'bleep'ing you, and I really don't appreciate either your tone or your attitude here. I've tried to explain my position repeatedly. And I've tried to be polite and speak with respect, after some of the spiteful and aggressive things you have said to me to belittle and mischaracteris what ive said (like equating 'try something new' with 'sticking your hands in the toilet'), can you blame me for saying things like 'cute'? But fair enough, I will retract that statement.

Purifier wrote:

And you ask me to quote you on saying that? You need to read back on what you're defending. Tneva82 said "narrative is the game mode that you can get closer to the unarchievable balance"
I said "how?" and that's where you come in, answering my how. It was what we were talking about. It was what I was asking, and you replied on the how. There is nothing else that you could have been defending, other than the statement that narrative play has better balance than matched play.,

So in other words you can't quote me saying it.just because someone comments on a post doesn't necessarily mean they agree with one side or the other. In answer to your assertion my point was that experience, knowledge and understanding were what you used in narrative play to judge what will be a good fit for your games and to endure a good match up.

Now, you ask What was I defending? I'll be clear. Because maybe there was a mistranslation on my part? I'd rather clear the air here as well. What I was defending was Nothing more than the idea that narrative works (or rather, can work!), and that yes, you can get balanced and interesting games from this approach. Matched play is generally fine and enjoyable but a lot of things get savrificed on the altar to make it a thing. A lot of those things are fun and narrative is an approach that lets you build games you wouldn't necessarily see in matched play. When I answered how, it was with regard to what I've found he you need to make narrative work. Experience. Knowledge. Understanding.because those are things you need to judge what is balanced.

Regardless, I'm done here. We're talking past each other at this point and I don't see us coming to any understanding. I'm bowing out. Good day sir.

**Purifier**

Why did you answer my question with something completely unrelated? I asked how narrative was more balanced, you go into an enormous rant and now you're bragging that you completely misunderstood the question and I can't quote you on actually answering my question. In the future, don't butt into conversations you have not actually read just because you have to have your say. If you didn't actually respond to my question, you just replied to me only to create confusion, and every single post we've had since can be safely deleted, because we're arguing clmpletely different points. Next time, read what you're responding to. You've wasted both our times.

I have never argued that narrative "can't work," quite the opposite. My only argument was "how the hell can you say narrative is inherently more balanced than matched" and that's where you forced yourself in. Can you see how much we could have avoided, had you cared to know what you were responding to?

**Dakka Wolf**

Do people really find list building so painful?

**Lythrandire Biehrellian**

Dakka Wolf wrote:
Do people really find list building so painful?

No. But with power levels it is now faster and easier to throw models down and play a game.

I never know what everyone will bring in regards to points for our monthly all day Warhammer get together. A lot of time gets put into "well, let me knock off 500 points..." Or "I only have this selection of minis, do you want a game?"

Now I can just go, "ok, what's your power level?" And my army can just be thrown together on the table in three to five minutes. Instead of worrying about getting the right number of points I can instead ask what they brought and make an army that will.give them a good game.

They took a lot of big guns, I'll throw a couple tanks or a wraith construct in there. A flamer or two, I will drop at least one squad of Corsairs on foot to give them viable targets. I can build an army where I ensure I have answers and vice versa without needing to get down the minutia of the more granular points system.

The power levels let me do this by giving me an estimate to work with in order to keep from overwhelming them on the table. I might want to take my wraithknight, but power level might make me take a lord instead.

**Wayniac**

Dakka Wolf wrote:
Do people really find list building so painful?

No, I find the attitude that goes along with it painful. The idea to boil everything down to a contest, and often go for as close to pure parity as possible. We each line up across the board from each other, can't have asymmetrical deployments because that's "not fair" to the person who starts off with a small force trapped in the middle, and the rest coming in as reinforcements at a later turn. Can't have different missions, that's "not fair" to the person whose mission is perceived as harder than the other. Basically, the attitude of list building goes right to trying to min-max on purpose to eke out any tiny advantage to win, often including "Mathhammer" of "Well this weapon is 32.333% better in most situations than this other weapon, so there's zero reason to ever take the lesser weapon" kind of stuff. It pushes the game too far to a simulation that might as well be run on a computer instead of with models, because everything is stripped of what makes it interesting and it turns into a straight conflict.

I see this in AOS a lot. The pitched battle missions are boring as all hell; sure they offer some tactical maneuvers, but they are just abstract objectives with forces deployed across from each other. The narrative scenarios are IMHO much better because they often have different victory conditions for each player, or different deployment zones for each instead of I'm on this side, you're on that side, let's throw down. I find a lot of the mindset comes from people who want to turn everything into a competitive focused game, and who seem to ONLY find enjoyment in the game when they are playing hardball, trying to win at all costs against an opponent trying to do the same, with a min-maxed list designed expressly to be the best it can be. Basically in my experience it devolves the game into pushing everything on list construction trying to gain any advantage as possible.

I find it no surprise a lot of the competitive people would hate a system wherein you don't pay for every little advantage, because to them there is absolutely zero reason to not take the "best" item in that case, if it's free. These are the same people who would spam Scatter Lasers in 7th edition Eldar because the cost was the same as the Shuriken Cannon but in many cases it was the superior weapon due to volume of shots. The concept of not taking it was lost on these people because it's "better" and every choice has to be something that improves their chance of winning the game, with everything else being secondary or of no concern at all.

**auticus**

Dakka Wolf wrote:
Do people really find list building so painful?

I reached a point many years ago where min/maxing on a spreadsheet got to be tiresome so I prefer not having to fidget to get every ounce of power out of my list to abuse the game. I'd rather use power levels personally.

But for me if someone says "why would I never do this if its free, I'm going to take as many as I can then" then I dont' play them outside of a tournament because the point of narrative games eludes them.

**theocracity**

Wayniac wrote:
Dakka Wolf wrote:
Do people really find list building so painful?

No, I find the attitude that goes along with it painful. The idea to boil everything down to a contest, and often go for as close to pure parity as possible. We each line up across the board from each other, can't have asymmetrical deployments because that's "not fair" to the person who starts off with a small force trapped in the middle, and the rest coming in as reinforcements at a later turn. Can't have different missions, that's "not fair" to the person whose mission is perceived as harder than the other. Basically, the attitude of list building goes right to trying to min-max on purpose to eke out any tiny advantage to win, often including "Mathhammer" of "Well this weapon is 32.333% better in most situations than this other weapon, so there's zero reason to ever take the lesser weapon" kind of stuff. It pushes the game too far to a simulation that might as well be run on a computer instead of with models, because everything is stripped of what makes it interesting and it turns into a straight conflict.

I see this in AOS a lot. The pitched battle missions are boring as all hell; sure they offer some tactical maneuvers, but they are just abstract objectives with forces deployed across from each other. The narrative scenarios are IMHO much better because they often have different victory conditions for each player, or different deployment zones for each instead of I'm on this side, you're on that side, let's throw down. I find a lot of the mindset comes from people who want to turn everything into a competitive focused game, and who seem to ONLY find enjoyment in the game when they are playing hardball, trying to win at all costs against an opponent trying to do the same, with a min-maxed list designed expressly to be the best it can be. Basically in my experience it devolves the game into pushing everything on list construction trying to gain any advantage as possible.

I find it no surprise a lot of the competitive people would hate a system wherein you don't pay for every little advantage, because to them there is absolutely zero reason to not take the "best" item in that case, if it's free. These are the same people who would spam Scatter Lasers in 7th edition Eldar because the cost was the same as the Shuriken Cannon but in many cases it was the superior weapon due to volume of shots. The concept of not taking it was lost on these people because it's "better" and every choice has to be something that improves their chance of winning the game, with everything else being secondary or of no concern at all.

And to be fair - that kind of competitive perspective is totally valid! If you enjoy testing your skill against an opponent who's doing the same, you want to have complex list building, a statistical perspective on unit efficiency and neutral scenarios. Those give you the maximum chance to utilize your skill against your opponent.

That kind of play is still supported in 8th, perhaps better than it was before because there's not the expectation that fluffy armies need to be fully represented in Matched rules, regardless if they're potentially problematic from a competitive perspective.

Personally, though, I'm only playing Narrative from here on out. List building honestly was a chore for me - I'm pretty sure I've spent more time tweaking my list than I've spent playing. Most of the time those tweaks would involve trying to find ways to keep my fun but non-ideal equipment or units while still having a competitive list. It was honestly a drag, and I'm glad Power levels are here to cater to my interests.

**Wayniac**

auticus wrote:
Dakka Wolf wrote:
Do people really find list building so painful?

I reached a point many years ago where min/maxing on a spreadsheet got to be tiresome so I prefer not having to fidget to get every ounce of power out of my list to abuse the game. I'd rather use power levels personally.

But for me if someone says "why would I never do this if its free, I'm going to take as many as I can then" then I dont' play them outside of a tournament because the point of narrative games eludes them.

Precisely; jumping on "Well its free so nothing stops me from taking as much as I can just because I can" they don't have the right mindset for narrative gaming. I think ultimately I'll just do both (maybe even, gasp! Open Play!). I want to focus on narrative, but if someone is die-hard "points and pay for everything and pretend it's a tournament" then I'll go to Matched. I might even have lists for both, and ask which my opponent wants and say I'd prefer Narrative but am willing to do Matched. In my own social group I'm going to push narrative hard.

**Purifier**

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

**icn1982**

Dakka Wolf wrote:
Do people really find list building so painful?

I find 'competitive' list building tedious. I know that I might want to deploy maybe a couple IG infantry platoons with some artillery support. I really don't care what weapons they have beyond that, just go with WYSIWYG. So grab the models that look cool, or haven't seen much playtime (heavy bolters come to mind) and lets go.

I think power levels make it easier to build an army that has the 'look' you want. Hell, I have some of the old metal guard models of each of the different regiments that haven't seen play for years (at the time they only came in a box of 10 models including the special weapon and the heavy weapon associated with the regiment), they make a great looking remnants force - the last survivors of several regiments in a warzone.

**Wayniac**

Purifier wrote:
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

If I may, I think it's more the general min-max/powergamer attitudes that seem to go along with it. It's the fact there always ends up a hard divide between both crowds. I realize your post was mod-blammed but still, I think it was a valid concern.

**Martel732**

Optimal choices are too tempting for many players.

**Wayniac**

Martel732 wrote:
Optimal choices are too tempting for many players.

That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.

**Blacksails**

The big issue isn't from the people deliberately picking the best things because they're the best, its the people who just happen to like the powerful things for other reasons, like how cool the model is or the fluff.

Plus, given the choice between two similar and thematic options, I think most people would steer towards the better of the two.

**MagicJuggler**

What about the "three types of players" idea, where you have your Timmies, Johnnys, and Spikes? Non-tournament play can also mean anything from working with willful handicaps so you can adapt if similar scenarios do come up in a tournament, experimenting/playtesting, or even a narrative/map campaign.

What is best can end up being subjective in many cases after all. Yes, there are ballpark rules like "Bike characters are preferable to infantry characters", or "don't mix and match special weapons in the same unit" (and even that rule has its own edgecase exceptions), but there are also many Gamebreakers that aren't, and many cases where the "best option" isn't as apparent. Sometimes, the right player can even take bad units and make good lists out of them.

**dosiere**

I think it might be important to clarify what is meant by narrative. In the current GW bubble, it's a synonym for non-competitive/casual pick up games, and that's about it.

When I think of narrative games, I'm thinking of cool scenarios, campaigns, alternate game modes (GMs, cooperative), and customtzation. The point is to have a more in-depth experience than your typical matched game. Sometimes that means intentional imbalances, and sometimes not. It certainly doesn't help to start off with imbalances when trying to figure out how to realize your ambitions. Generally the tighter, more balanced ruleset is actually going to be easier to fiddle with, which is why I don't understand why GW narrative is designed to be the less accuarate point system. It should be the other way around, if anything.

Check out your local neckbeard historical fans. The guys and girls who are really invested in those systems usually have the most expereince running real narrative events. I took part in a Bolt Action D-Day game with 5 people and it was awesome. It is ultimately all about the spectacle, the awesome terrain and painted models (which sadly is often lacking in your typical game of AoS/40K), but having a tight ruleset with points helped a great deal to figure out what would make for an engaging game while you're enjoying it.

**theocracity**

Blacksails wrote:
The big issue isn't from the people deliberately picking the best things because they're the best, its the people who just happen to like the powerful things for other reasons, like how cool the model is or the fluff.

Plus, given the choice between two similar and thematic options, I think most people would steer towards the better of the two.

Keep in mind we're mostly talking about wargear here. If a player likes a powerful model like a Knight, they're still paying for it via Power level. Loading up on extra wargear is nice, but I don't think there's that big of a list of units that become truly broken from being kitted out (and most of those are just because of the number of models in the unit who have access to specials).

Besides, the scenario can always be shifted to balance things out. If you're truly playing Narrative with only powerful units because you think they're cool, and not because you're there to crush your opponent, a scenario-based handicap shouldn't be a big deal.

**BunkhouseBuster**

dosiere wrote:
I think it might be important to clarify what is meant by narrative. In the current GW bubble, it's a synonym for non-competitive/casual pick up games, and that's about it.

When I think of narrative games, I'm thinking of cool scenarios, campaigns, alternate game modes (GMs, cooperative), and customtzation. The point is to have a more in-depth experience than your typical matched game. Sometimes that means intentional imbalances, and sometimes not. It certainly doesn't help to start off with imbalances when trying to figure out how to realize your ambitions. Generally the tighter, more balanced ruleset is actually going to be easier to fiddle with, which is why I don't understand why GW narrative is designed to be the less accuarate point system. It should be the other way around, if anything.

Check out your local neckbeard historical fans. The guys and girls who are really invested in those systems usually have the most expereince running real narrative events. I took part in a Bolt Action D-Day game with 5 people and it was awesome. It is ultimately all about the spectacle, the awesome terrain and painted models (which sadly is often lacking in your typical game of AoS/40K), but having a tight ruleset with points helped a great deal to figure out what would make for an engaging game while you're enjoying it.

Well said. Narrative is far more than what so many players think it is. A Narrative game can use Matched Play points, and a Competitive tournament can have a story emerge from how the games are played or won.

Matched Play =/= Competitive Play

And at the same time:

Narrative Play =/= Casual Play.

Two different game modes, two different playstyles. Sure, there are some aspects about the different modes and playstyles that mesh well together, but they are not exclusive to those playstyles. You can have a Casual tournament using Matched Play rules, and you can have a Competitive Narrative campaign with a prize at the end of it.

In my experiences with Age of Sigmar, you can mix and match the various aspects of Matched and Narrative Play. To stick with one version for your desired playstyle is fine. But keep in mind that others are going to want different kinds of games from you, and that is okay. Different is not wrong, especially when it comes to playing with plastic toys. I had issues when I was a new kid in a new school, that when I tried to play with them, I couldn't do what they were doing. "You can't do dropkicks in kickball, but we can!" "You have to stay still in freeze-tag, but I can move!" That same mindset is starting to pop in 40K now. We need to not be like those kids who won't let others play differently, and instead focus on having fun and enjoying the game.

**icn1982**

dosiere wrote:
I think it might be important to clarify what is meant by narrative. In the current GW bubble, it's a synonym for non-competitive/casual pick up games, and that's about it.

When I think of narrative games, I'm thinking of cool scenarios, campaigns, alternate game modes (GMs, cooperative), and customtzation. The point is to have a more in-depth experience than your typical matched game. Sometimes that means intentional imbalances, and sometimes not. It certainly doesn't help to start off with imbalances when trying to figure out how to realize your ambitions. Generally the tighter, more balanced ruleset is actually going to be easier to fiddle with, which is why I don't understand why GW narrative is designed to be the less accuarate point system. It should be the other way around, if anything.

I disagree about it being the other way around. While I agree that Narrative should be story driven, when deciding a force for such games, I would describe the forces as "a company of Imperial Guard holding back the tide of Orks while the planets VIPs can escape." You have a power level for the Imperial Guard (just go by the IG fluff for the number of units in a company), and you build an Ork hoard to match.

**Earth127**

They've already said most scenarios as well as planetstrike and cities of death are narrative. So they should have interesting scenarios more or less covered.

They've also in one the articles said that in matched play both players have the same objectives to ensure an equal playing field. I get the feeling matched is more limited then some people seem to think.

@dosiere more scenarios make precise points impossible. If you scenario is all about killing armor banshees are gna be worth way less than in a kill that horde of tyranids scenario. so powerlevels being less precise doesn't matter.

**Humble Guardsman**

I'd always dreamed of developing a full AirCav IG list. I guess it's still possible, but I'll have to use them in tandem with my existing infantry guard in larger matches.

Didn't GW say that 8th will include rules for Planetstrike? I suppose deep-strike armies could use that as a way of getting around it.

**Elbows**

There's also nothing stopping you from playing how you want, with what you want - just find an opponent willing to do so. If you wanted to rock a full air cavalry IG force - I'd let you. I'd make up some sweet freakin' scenario for it too...and you could even use Matched points, who cares.

I don't understand the "we're hemmed in by THE RULE BOOK" mentality. And if you're a tournament going player - that should be the case, because hopefully they managed some form of balance.

**Martel732**

Wayniac wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Optimal choices are too tempting for many players.

That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.

For me, everything might as well be a tournament.

**ERJAK**

Martel732 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Optimal choices are too tempting for many players.

That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.

For me, everything might as well be a tournament.

I have this issue after a while because I tend not to purchase anything that isn't tournament caliber.

I actually had a moment when 8th was announced when I looked at my SM and said, 'do I even like space marines?' I actually had to take a good few days to figure out what in the SM range I actually liked vs what I played because it was good.

**Dakka Wolf**

Go figure.
I was playing MtG before I started 40k and my tabletime is horribly limited, so sadly I average about ten lists for every game I get to play.