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.

PenitentJake wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
It isn't my preference, but I have played a solo game or two. In my case, I do it to advance storylines in narrative campaigns.

My GSC, for example, can only grow their army according to the brood cycle, so purestrains have to infect civilians to create brood brothers, who must then sit battles out in order to gestate and nurture the subsequent generations of hybrids before said hybrids can be added to my list.

So if I want to play my GSC Crusade against and opponent, and I want to bring neophytes, I've got a lot of games I need to play before I can do that, and a lot of folks aren't interested in playing the NPC Civilian factions so that I can grow my Cult.

Wouldn't it be easier and less tedious to handwave that specific part and let it happen in the background between actual games?

It would be easier to start all of my D&D games at level 20 too, but I don't do that either.

I mean yeah, but D&D is a game literally about the adventure and growing your character. That’s kind of the core of it. Where as 40k has some light flavor elements, but most of the character comes from the models themselves.

If your cult is powerful enough to be engaged in a fully fledged campaign against something light Marines, Necrons, Eldar, or the IG proper then it’s definitely competent enough to capture some civilians on the side without suffering noticeable casualties. Or they’d have the infrastructure in terms of turned civilians (so general non combat cultists) that, uh, making more cultists isn’t a real problem.

40k's IGOUGO system already makes it a solo game, just with two players.

 morganfreeman wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
It isn't my preference, but I have played a solo game or two. In my case, I do it to advance storylines in narrative campaigns.

My GSC, for example, can only grow their army according to the brood cycle, so purestrains have to infect civilians to create brood brothers, who must then sit battles out in order to gestate and nurture the subsequent generations of hybrids before said hybrids can be added to my list.

So if I want to play my GSC Crusade against and opponent, and I want to bring neophytes, I've got a lot of games I need to play before I can do that, and a lot of folks aren't interested in playing the NPC Civilian factions so that I can grow my Cult.

Wouldn't it be easier and less tedious to handwave that specific part and let it happen in the background between actual games?

It would be easier to start all of my D&D games at level 20 too, but I don't do that either.

I mean yeah, but D&D is a game literally about the adventure and growing your character. That’s kind of the core of it. Where as 40k has some light flavor elements, but most of the character comes from the models themselves.

If your cult is powerful enough to be engaged in a fully fledged campaign against something light Marines, Necrons, Eldar, or the IG proper then it’s definitely competent enough to capture some civilians on the side without suffering noticeable casualties. Or they’d have the infrastructure in terms of turned civilians (so general non combat cultists) that, uh, making more cultists isn’t a real problem.

Its also kind of weird, since by the logic presented, the cultist army would have to take a break of 15+ years for more neophytes to be of rough fighting age. Actually longer, given the 4 stage cycle of genestealers.
Other issues aside, 'sitting out battles' doesn't produce neophytes or other hybrids. Its 'hyper realism' book-keeping that isn't even true to fiction of the way things work in the setting.

Deadnight wrote:
Fair point on the feint - when you playing solo, you can't really try and 'outwit' the other guy with clever trickery but please don't be dont reduxtive to reduce it to a 'non-game' (which is a bit of a cheeky take imo) that's about 'lining up two forces on opposite sides of an empty field and exchange dice until one side is destroyed' Why can't cover be a thing, for example? Why can't other elements also play a role.

Sure, you can add cover, but that's just adding another factor to the mathhammer calculations. The thing that defines a game vs. an exercise in dice math is the exchange of move vs. counter-move and trying to out-plan the opponent. If all you're doing is scripting out a scenario and rolling dice to see what happens that's not a game. It may have value if dice math is your goal, as in tournament playtesting, but for narrative purposes? No, there's no point to it.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Fair point on the feint - when you playing solo, you can't really try and 'outwit' the other guy with clever trickery but please don't be dont reduxtive to reduce it to a 'non-game' (which is a bit of a cheeky take imo) that's about 'lining up two forces on opposite sides of an empty field and exchange dice until one side is destroyed' Why can't cover be a thing, for example? Why can't other elements also play a role.

Sure, you can add cover, but that's just adding another factor to the mathhammer calculations. The thing that defines a game vs. an exercise in dice math is the exchange of move vs. counter-move and trying to out-plan the opponent. If all you're doing is scripting out a scenario and rolling dice to see what happens that's not a game. It may have value if dice math is your goal, as in tournament playtesting, but for narrative purposes? No, there's no point to it.

Because the dice always roll average, right? It's physically impossible for a unit that should easily wipe the last man standing on an objective to fail!

Seriously-you can't even complain that this is intruding on your fun because it's literally solo gameplay. Other people enjoy it-you don't get it, but don't say they're having fun wrong because you can't understand how to enjoy it.

PenitentJake wrote:
And that can make it SOUND like the story, where I have army list exclusions until I achieve particular story events, is boring. It isn't.

You can say it isn't boring but the reality is that it's incredibly boring. As you said yourself, "a lot of folks aren't interested in playing the NPC Civilian factions so that I can grow my Cult". All that behind the scenes stuff is of zero interest to anyone else, just like your D&D character's daily bathroom activities. So why do you need to explicitly roll dice to decide what happens? Just pick a story you like and declare that's the background fiction for your army.

I'm not sure how many brood cycles the Cult will end up with, but I feel like the first of those brood cycles will end up being analogous to the first five levels

Not at all. Levels 1-5 in D&D are an engaging story, not merely a background detail to rush through as fast as possible to get to the real game. Your GSC stuff is a bunch of background fluff that nobody else in your group cares about, merely a prerequisite that has to be checked off before you can begin the real game. The actual equivalent is all the level 0 stuff your character does as a commoner, before starting the game at level 1, which is all handled by writing up a backstory document to give the DM before the game.

That's basically what I'm doing when I skip ahead in 40k- testing something out before deciding whether or not I want to grow into it back in the ongoing narrative.

Why do you need to have a special story game to test something before including it in the narrative? Can't you just put models on the table and play a game of 40k? Or get out the calculator and do some dice math?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because the dice always roll average, right? It's physically impossible for a unit that should easily wipe the last man standing on an objective to fail!

Of course it's possible. You can even do the full dice math to get the probability distribution and see exactly what the chance of that happening is. But that doesn't make it a game.

Id rather run a game than try and mathhammer it out.

 Blndmage wrote:
Id rather run a game than try and mathhammer it out.

Sure, which is why tournament playtesters do it, and I know why that has value. I just don't see the appeal when the goal is to tell a story or play a game, not just to figure out what your win probability is in a given matchup.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Id rather run a game than try and mathhammer it out.

Sure, which is why tournament playtesters do it, and I know why that has value. I just don't see the appeal when the goal is to tell a story or play a game, not just to figure out what your win probability is in a given matchup.

Because it's not about the numbers, but the spectacle.

Example of one I've planned, but I'm waiting for a day when I have the spoons for it:

Seahawk's army (Oops, All Shields)
Adeptus Custodes- Aquillian Shield
Patrol detachment 20PL -2CP (So 1 to start)
Shield Captain 7PL -1CP
Revered Champion, Supreme Creation, Misericordia
3x Shield Guard 7PL
Vexilus Praetor 6PL -1CP
Vexila Impierus, Misericordia

Vs

Mine "Classic Necron assault*
NECRON patrol 21PL
Isolationists, Rad Wreathed
Lord 5PL
Veil of Darkness, Resurrection Orb, Staff of Light
Thrall of the Silent King
20x Warriors with Flayers -12PL
5x Scarab Swarm

The thought was to run a 300esq thing, the terrain narrowing to a corridor, with the Custodes holding an objective at one end of the board.

Can the Custodes survive to hold the point?

I don't want to "just decide" what happens, I don't want to run it through a computer. I want to see it, to see what heroic things develop. So, make sure I've got the energy, and I set it up and run it.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Sure, you can add cover, but that's just adding another factor to the mathhammer calculations. The thing that defines a game vs. an exercise in dice math is the exchange of move vs. counter-move and trying to out-plan the opponent. If all you're doing is scripting out a scenario and rolling dice to see what happens that's not a game. It may have value if dice math is your goal, as in tournament playtesting, but for narrative purposes? No, there's no point to it.

Disagree. Sure, thats one definition, quite specific to multi-side adversarial games. It doesnt really work for any single-player game/activities, like, say, Solitaire. And note there are other definitions- a game can most easily be defined as an activity one does for fun.

Youre being reductive again in reducing it to 'dice math' or claiming the only value is tournament playtesting and has no value for narrative gaming. I get it, that's your focus and that's fine- but tournament gaming is not the gold standard nor is it the ultimate expression of 40k. At its most basic 'narrative' gaming is just visualising the dice results in the theatre of the mind.

'Playing out a scenario' as the goal of your activity absolutely has a point. Like I said, take a step back as a player and a step forward as a director. The narrative stems from that. It's just a different way of playing. It might not be for you, and that's fine. But please don't be so rude as to claim there is no point to it.

Deadnight wrote:
It doesnt really work for any single-player game/activities, like, say, Solitaire.

I don't know that I'd call solitaire much of a game, it's more like an idle fidget toy than a real game. There are few decision points and most of them are resolved purely by RNG.

A quality single-player game relies on complex AI, careful scripting, and well developed mechanics to create the illusion of an adversarial game against another player. The dragon your D&D party is fighting may not be controlled by a human DM but it has enough unpredictability to be a functional equivalent and still be a meaningful game. But when you're playing single-player 40k there's no unpredictability. You control both sides and any "AI" is so shallow and stupid it's little better than nothing. An "AI" script or RNG table for 40k will never act intelligently or respond to your actions like a human player will so there's no back and forth, only playing out the results of a mathhammer simulation.

I get it, that's your focus and that's fine- but tournament gaming is not the gold standard nor is it the ultimate expression of 40k.

I never said it is. In fact I greatly prefer narrative gaming over tournaments. But single-player 40k is a miserable narrative experience and the only real value in single-player 40k is treating it as a more detailed mathhammer simulation for playtesting and list development. It still won't be fun but if winning is your goal you need to slog through the boring parts get the knowledge required to go into the competition with a reasonable hope of victory.

Like I said, take a step back as a player and a step forward as a director.

But then why not take another step back and just write the story? If 95% of the outcome of the game is going to be determined by which choices you pick for each side then why bother with all the work of setting up and "playing" a 40k game? What value are you getting out of that small chance that RNG disrupts the script you created?

So its clear some people never had toy tanks or soldier when young and would re-enact battles with them over shoeboxes, shoes and into the far vast reaches of the dinner table.

Or if you did then you've put such things away and don't do them any more.









Some people still do it, they just use a groundwork of some basic game rules to help re-enact their imagination. And they use toys that are more expensive than a bucket of green or brown plastic soldiers.

For others some find it easier to visualise events by creating them instead of using fully abstract math-hammer (which can also sometimes make things feel more like a work than a hobby).



In the end, logically speaking, playing a solo game of 40K without any form of AI system for controlling the opposing side(s) means that a person cannot do a whole range of tactical options that would normally be accessible during a game. It can also run the risk that if you try to use that to learn tactics, you will fail because you can't perfectly simulate an opponent etc... Even against an AI you won't simulate an opponent. However you can have some fun at the very least.

As a training exercise sometimes setting out models and playing through can help you reinforce your level of understanding of the rules. It's correct that if you are making mistakes it will reinforce those mistakes until such time as you are corrected by an outside element. Practice is important, but at the same time outside input from a more experienced person will generally accelerate any training way more than any person operating in isolation. The risk is if you've practiced a lot on your own you have to unlearn the mistakes that you've learned.





In the end we all play with our toys in different ways and rarely do we only play in one set way. Understanding the pros and cons is fine, just as is accepting that different people approach the hobby in different ways. Some want a fully tactical game, a battle of wits between two players; some just want to re-create their imagination and kids games with some structure. And a whole rafter of other possibilities.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


I don't know that I'd call solitaire much of a game, it's more like an idle fidget toy than a real game. There are few decision points and most of them are resolved purely by RNG.

And yet, Solitaire is undeniably a game, whether you like it or not. And its just on example - theres plenty single player games/activities that dont involve complex back and forth adversarial actions. hell i just got 'perfection' in stardew valley and thats a single player farming sim. And I'm not having a go here Aecus but if i may, while you probably dont intent it, please consider being careful about talking about 'real' games - that's where elitism and snobbery starts - 'real' men act like x, 'real' fans like 'y' etc etc. We get enough of that in this hobby with bs divides between board games, ccgs, rpgs wargames etc.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


A quality single-player game relies on complex AI, careful scripting, and well developed mechanics to create the illusion of an adversarial game against another player. The dragon your D&D party is fighting may not be controlled by a human DM but it has enough unpredictability to be a functional equivalent and still be a meaningful game. But when you're playing single-player 40k there's no unpredictability. You control both sides and any "AI" is so shallow and stupid it's little better than nothing. An "AI" script or RNG table for 40k will never act intelligently or respond to your actions like a human player will so there's no back and forth, only playing out the results of a mathhammer simulation.

So stardew valley isn't a quality single player game then?

I mean, to be fair, 40k is such a shallow game anyway, an ai script doesn't have to be massively complex either, never mind player decisions. And depending on how much work you want to put into it, you can keep.it basic or absolutely go to town on it. Why can't the ai in a gane of 40k be as complex as your dnd dragon?

And bear in mind - if you'd read my first point in this, I did point to using 'ai scripts' like in Blackstone fortress to run one, or even both sides. Saying there is no unpredictability and you control both sides is wrong. You can include it. You can't plan for the ai - it's actions will be unpredictable and that is engaging. Acting 'intelligenty' is all well and good, but acting 'characterfully' or 'irationally' is also interesting, and often its not the 'intelligent' approach - and imo 'interesting' trumps the efficiency of the 'best/most optimal' choices based on the gods eye view of a player.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

I never said it is. In fact I greatly prefer narrative gaming over tournaments. But single-player 40k is a miserable narrative experience and the only real value in single-player 40k is treating it as a more detailed mathhammer simulation for playtesting and list development. It still won't be fun but if winning is your goal you need to slog through the boring parts get the knowledge required to go into the competition with a reasonable hope of victory.

Interesting - apologies I thought you were coming at this from a tournament focus. Thanks for correcting me.

Thing is 'fun' is subjective. Like lego, I can see the value in building something, in this case, 'a system' and watching it play out. I'd prefer to play/interact with people but if circumstances were to happen where I was on my own (eg living rurally, no community etc etc) I would absolutely try something like this at least once, just to see what happens.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

But then why not take another step back and just write the story? If 95% of the outcome of the game is going to be determined by which choices you pick for each side then why bother with all the work of setting up and "playing" a 40k game? What value are you getting out of that small chance that RNG disrupts the script you created?

It's like you didn't read my first post mate. I literally said it there. Because dice happen. And because i dont want to write it. When youre writing stuff you know where its going. The dice, on the other hand, dont care about your plans and seeing how it falls out is what i would find engaging. And because I also want to move my wee painted dudes around my nice board with my nice terrain - rather than sit behind a bloody screen typing - I do enough of that in my job, thanks!

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Like I said, take a step back as a player and a step forward as a director.

But then why not take another step back and just write the story? If 95% of the outcome of the game is going to be determined by which choices you pick for each side then why bother with all the work of setting up and "playing" a 40k game? What value are you getting out of that small chance that RNG disrupts the script you created?

Because some people find it fun? Because playing out a scenario and letting the dice decide is engaging for some people?

Personally, I wouldn't find it fun and therefore wouldn't bother. Other people obviously do find it fun and worthwhile to play out the game, letting the dice have a hand in determining what would otherwise have been a purely scripted event. I don't get why you seem so bothered about how other people choose to game, given it has no impact on you whatsoever. They find fun in it. That's basically all you need to know.

There is a long history in the wargaming world of folks playing solo games, There are a subset of gamers who almost exclusively solo game and it is by no means limited to games that have specific solo-play mechanics. Remember wargames are "played" and "play" can happen in a group or on one's own.

It's certainly not everyone's cup-of-tea (it's definitely not mine) but there are alot of folks who enjoy the experience of playing out a battle on their own. They might enjoy exploring the ruleset, working out a narrative, refighting a historic/iconic battle, experimenting with particular tactics or unit combinations or any combination of reasons. Those who don't get it, won't get it, but there's no reason to denigrate those who enjoy solo play.

firespace wrote:
Who else plays 40k solo? I am new to the game but I found solo patrol/incursion games really helps me understand the rules better. I play my own turn first. Then I think of what the 2 or 3 more likely things my opponent would do and then I roll off a D6 and do whatever the dice says. If it's 3 things then I count the dice as D3 and just choose accordingly.

This is a perfectly fine way of enjoying the game. Whether or not they learn the "best" way to play or have every rule perfect is really unimportant. If/when you do go to play other people, you will certainly have a better grasp on the rules than someone who has not played at all.

There are only a few official GW avenues to do solo play, but for those truly interested in solo play and not necessarily needing to us the 40k rules, there are a large and growing number of games specifically targeted at such play. Two Hour Wargames is an excellent place to start as they have a well-regarded reaction system mechanic (for both solo and VS play) that they utilize across a wide variety of genres, a number of sci-fi rulesets that will accommodate 40k figures, and also a free simple version of their games engine so you can try it out for yourself.

Space Station Zero and Rangers of Shadowdeep, are two other games that have solo and co-op options that spring to mind if you want to explore that sort of gaming.

@firespace,
It's your game. Game your way and stuff the naysayers.

Wasn't there a Kill Team rule set in 4th edition's Core Rule rule book that, with some mild tweaking, could let someone play solo?

I personally barely remember it, something along the lines of: Player 2 gets a set amount, I think 150% more points then whatever Player 1 brings , and is just a D&D GM using single models to patrol around the map while trying to stop Player 1's 5-man team... while both are under "Night Fighting" rules for LoS, I think.

Makes me wish I didn't bin that rule book when cleaning/condensing years ago.

Enigma117 wrote:
Wasn't there a Kill Team rule set in 4th edition's Core Rule rule book that, with some mild tweaking, could let someone play solo?

I personally barely remember it, something along the lines of: Player 2 gets a set amount, I think 150% more points then whatever Player 1 brings , and is just a D&D GM using single models to patrol around the map while trying to stop Player 1's 5-man team... while both are under "Night Fighting" rules for LoS, I think.

Makes me wish I didn't bin that rule book when cleaning/condensing years ago.

Yarp. The original KT would work just fine for solo play. The person playing the brutes had very little autonomy to begin with, and most of their decisions were largely decided via dice.

There are a lot of haters in this thread lol. You want to play solo you play solo. If it’s fun for you, do it.

There are plenty of board games nowadays that are designed for solo/coop play and those of the dungeon crawl genre are hardly much different from your average mass-appeal miniatures wargame like warhammer.

You can try to incorporate some of the AI algorithms found in such games, like Gloomhaven or Machina Arcana or Hunters AD2114 - and have another great solo game to play if you buy them to study their AI mechanics

Proper board games (but not GW ones) should also have their rules available online for you to read through so that you don't buy them blindly.

I would also think solo play has more for someone who is more about simulation play vs. competitive play. Then it's less about what combo you can stack and more about the flow of the units. But, my perspective is coloured by my wants/needs.

I've attempted three solo games of 9th and have too many other edition still in my head so the games were gibberish. I don't like most of 9th and kept trying to cut bits out, I wont be doing that again. Not with 9th anyway. Maybe 3rd or 4th but not 9th.
On a positive note it let me try out Orks for 9th as with the changes to points and stats from 8th to 9th I needed to see what I was going to try to work with but meh. I don't recommend games over 1500 points solo maybe smaller. The first attempt took me over 5 hours. So much stopping to look up rules or stats. At that time I had not even played 10 games of 9th.
Best of luck.

When I was a new player I would play solo quite a bit, but also with the understanding that I might be doing something wrong. I'd try to take my lessons learned from each game back to my home, or to vassal and try to grow myself as a player and train myself to understand my army and my opponents army.

That was back in 5th. Today, there are so many additional rules and strategms that I can no longer play multiple armies easily as just one army takes most of my brain bytes... and has actually been a contributing factor to me playing much much less.

We've found solo games work best at lower points, what with the layer after layer of rules.

But, it also lets us try out things like the various Theaters of War and other thematic rules.

Solo games are pretty easy to pull off when a horde is marching down your gun line. For other scenarios you would need to put a bit of thought in. Fighting off more than 200 plague zombies with four Imperial Knights was definitely fun.