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.

I'd just like to get the ball rolling for a discussion covering two main topics.

1) Since cinematic play seems to be tthe writing on the wall for 6th ed does anyone know of great ways to increase that in play? I find custom scenarios to work quite often especially with a special rule or two added.

2) Given the discussions that often occur around TFG articles maybe we could discuss how to make the game not more enjoyable for yourself but for your opponent. This can be both cometitive anf fluffy play. (I'll insert bath here before the trolls get to it) I find taking 5 minutes to define all the terrain at the start of the game is a must.

Have at it dakka.

i'm not really sure about 'more cinematic'. personally I really like the changes from 5th to 6th, but I'm not quite sure about how they give a more cinematic game, except perhaps there's less need for tough units to hug cover quite as religiously as they did in 5th.

As regards making the game more enjoyable, I completely agree that terrain needs to be gone through beforehand to avoid problems.

I aso think it's courteous to remind people of special rules your army has that may affect their choices before those choices become irrevocable. ie when an opponent declares a charge, I'd remind him if the unit had Counterattack. I wouldn't expect everyone to do this, but I do find that being as upfront as possible and not expecting the opposing player to remember evcerything about my list fosters a better atmosphere in both casual and competitive play.

I also find that letting my opponent have his way over one rules question often means he gives me the benefit on the next. I tend only to argue the toss with people I already know so we can sort it out for future games (of course not everyone reciprocates with rules queries, but quite honestly I don't think the game's worth upsetting someone I don't know who's determined to have his way. of course this isn't particular to 40K). Some of this can be done pre-emptively before the game, like asking your opponent whether he wants the prows on DE raiders to count as hull or not.

I did have an idea about how to make t seem more realistic. I thought maybe if one of the players had an Ipod they could take maybe 5-10 minutes of various noises, (orders being shouted, explosions, gunfire) and just set it to play the entire game it would make the game a lot more dynamic.As long as it isn't so loud you can't hear one another anyway. Music can also add to a game, as long as it's more of an orchestra type music (this is used in movies more often anyway.)

Here is a list of music that I would use in a game if I were to...
(by the way this is just a copyright protection so I won't get sued or anything..I do not own any songs, names, or groups mentioned here)

Reqiuem For a Dream--Performed by London Ensemble

Hand of Doom-- performed by Manowar

Dragon Age 2 Main Theme--Inon Zur
Actually anything by Inon Zur, they do a lot of sound tracks for video games and their music is very fitting

The Riders of Rohan- Howard Shore--Lord of the Rings Soundtrack

The Bridge of Khazad-Dhum--Howard Shore--LOTR soundtrack

Helms Deep--Howard Shore--LOTR soundtrack

Just some ideas, definately try music though, you'd be surprised the affect it will have ( just not too loud!

"Cinematic gaming" for me centers around your overall approach to game prep when it comes to terrain, scenario choice, and army design for said scenario: making choices that establish a theme/feel for a given game as the primary motivator.

When two or more players/teams have a shared goal of setting up a cinematic "what if" scene and then playing it out you get some great narrative/cinematic play.

Instead of "hey I have this killer tournamant list I want to try", the initial discussion starts with a desire to play a "last stand" or a "sewer sweep", or a "convoy ambush" or a "battle in a swamp", etc. Setting or an archetypical cinematic theme become the focus, not externally designed lists as is often the case. It is a totally different approach to the game in which you are working with your opponent to create a narrative as opposed to simply showing up to play chess.

For example in the narrative campaign I have been playing with my sons (see sig) we use the setting we have established as a basis for setting up our games, and build onto and expand it as we play more and more games.

In our campaign setting a city (Golov) is under siege by invading Orks. I recently made a themed table that represents a blasted apocalyptic wasteland of burning craters and blasted ruins. But how to use it in our campaign?

We decided that a whole corridor of land along the southern boarder of the city had to be orbitally bombarded to stop the massive approaching ork hordes from pouring into the city. We added this to our campaign narrative and described that the Imperial forces have set up long range artillery batteries to continue to bombard this area in response to continued ork advances through what is now a blasted wasteland. The Imperium has also established numerous forward observation bases to direct this fire. and deployed armoured battlegroups to patrol it's edge as a way to respond quickly to any ork breakthroughs.

So what does this all mean?

We used this narrative to shape games in that region of our campaign setting. We are about to play a "Purge the Alien" scenario in this region that will use this themed table/terrain. My son will be fielding an IG armoured company (IA list) to with an allied detachment of Cadians filled with mortars, griffons, basalisks, aegis line, etc. to represent one of the FOBs. The armoured company will have a number of the artillery strike choices to represent te long range artillery, Our fluff has shaped the table setup and roughly what the IG force should contain.

Likewise we determined that the orks know that trying to footslog across this no-mans-land is suicide and so have taken to trying to rush across it in trukks, on bikes, etc. Thus my force must all be a vehicle or be units in transports.

Narrative determines and guides setup. It is a challenge for my son to consider what those Imperial forces should be comprised of given the narrative, etc.

Terrain and army design sets a scene and meets a theme.

I like what i'm seeing so far. I haven't tried the music but i've heard people talk about it before. As for the narrative that works in the context of a campaign for sure, but can it work realistically for friendly and casual games? Anyway these are great ideas and since i'm working on another summer campaign at my FLGS and i'll be introducing a couple of new players to the game it might be a good idea to integrate these things.

@Blood and slaughter i have mixed feelings about the letting someone "take back" moves ect (such as reminding them they can fire overwatch or ask if they are sure they want to charge said unit). While i often do that, and allow friends to even fire twice some unit if they forgot to fire it the previous turn, occaisionally i've wondered if it just handicaps people from thinking for themselves and becoming better players. Still the goal is to have fun no matter what so that needs to be kept in mind.

to play a truely cinematic game - play infinity.

I think because the opponent can shoot back or react in your turn, it adds another level of interaction and involvment to the game.

So if you wanted to transplant that to 40k, I suggest involving the opponent (beyond handling him some dice for armour saves) in your turn.

KoganStyle wrote:to play a truely cinematic game - play infinity.

I think because the opponent can shoot back or react in your turn, it adds another level of interaction and involvment to the game.

So if you wanted to transplant that to 40k, I suggest involving the opponent (beyond handling him some dice for armour saves) in your turn.

Over watch is a reaction to being charged. Not as complex as infinities ARO system, but they made efforts with 6th in this direction.

We can't change the rules, but what we CAN change is the terrain, and our armies.

Great terrain really sets the scene. I'm talking about terrain that not only looks great, but matches well and plays well. A table full of themed terrain that is finished to a high standard will almost tell a story itself, and when laid out correctly will produce natural results to the game with some areas being hotly contested control points, other areas being open to fire and some being filled with dense terrain that blocks LOS and slows models down.

Playing on mis-matched terrain that's just been throw onto the table is no where near as much fun.

And for the love of god, paint your armies! You can't have a cinematic game with proxies or unpainted models.

i have mixed feelings about the letting someone "take back" moves ect (such as reminding them they can fire overwatch or ask if they are sure they want to charge said unit

In general (unless I'm playing someone who's not very experienced when I will almost always allow them to 'take back' something that's clearly foolhardy if they want to), that's not quite what I was meaning. i was meaning more that if I (say) have an ability that let's me overwatch at full BS, I'd remind my opponent of that when they declare a charge on the unit in question, in case they had forgotten the power was in effect, or that the unit could do that. While I think experienced players should know the core rules and theor own rules well enough not to need reminders, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to remember things they may not encounter very frequently. I do realise there's a school of thought that says you should not do that in competitive games, but I do find it generally makes the experience friendlier.

Oh alright, i guess i misunderstood you. I guess you meant things like the iron arm psychic power, if your oppoent is used to charging MC's it's not the same as if that MC has+3str and t (especially with no visual indicator).

Speaking of which: visual indicators. Besides cotton for smokescreens does anyone use any to enhance gaming experience?

As far as a more Cinematic Game, I am not sure yet. I know that it has become more Character Driven. From the point of view of my Space Wolves this is the way it should be, my guard is unsure at the moment.
The allies can make for a more Dynamic Game, you will really have a hard time coming up with you Take On All Comers List. I know I am going to be picking up a lot of different Battle Forces to get some Allies together.

As far as being nice to new players it tend to use the advice of the Master.

I guess you meant things like the iron arm psychic power, if your oppoent is used to charging MC's it's not the same as if that MC has+3str and t (especially with no visual indicator).

Yes, absolutely. If you can't see something, it's ahrder to remember it's there, especially something that was cast in the movement phase but lasts a full turn.

Visual indicators are great. I keep meaning do make more but getting round to it seems to take ages . . .

As well as cotton wool smoke/wrecked markers, I have red tags I use for wound markers (I hang them off weapons) for my paladins and characters, and they double as hull point markers now too, which is nice.

I started making counters to show what psychic powers I had in effect but as I no longer take a Librarian, the one I'd finished (Sanctuary, Shrouding) are worthless to me now. I know the effect only lasted one phase, but I found having the counter there made everything crystal clear.

I'm just going to copy and paste one of my posts from another thread, since it's relevant to this one:

Fafnir wrote:For all this talk about "cinematics," I think that not only is GW just throwing the word around as a token buzzword, but many of the people who fall for it, and on a fundamental level, GW themselves, don't even understand the concept.

The game and its designers, by extension, aren't supposed to develop "cinematics." That's what film and other non-participatory mediums are for. A game should be bound, rather, by its ludic elements, ie the elments of play and the elements that enhance play. Increased random elements that remove control from the player (essentially, random elements acting not as rngs, but as a back-end form of control) end up taking away from this ludic context.

Cinematics are not the job of the game designer. Cinematics, the stories themselves, come from the players. "Cinematics" are a side element of games, an element that develops in the presence of strong ludic context. They're not what happens on the table, but the stories that players take with them beyond it. You can't design a game around that.

CT GAMER wrote:"Cinematic gaming" for me centers around your overall approach to game prep when it comes to terrain, scenario choice, and army design for said scenario: making choices that establish a theme/feel for a given game as the primary motivator.

When two or more players/teams have a shared goal of setting up a cinematic "what if" scene and then playing it out you get some great narrative/cinematic play.

Instead of "hey I have this killer tournamant list I want to try", the initial discussion starts with a desire to play a "last stand" or a "sewer sweep", or a "convoy ambush" or a "battle in a swamp", etc. Setting or an archetypical cinematic theme become the focus, not externally designed lists as is often the case. It is a totally different approach to the game in which you are working with your opponent to create a narrative as opposed to simply showing up to play chess.

For example in the narrative campaign I have been playing with my sons (see sig) we use the setting we have established as a basis for setting up our games, and build onto and expand it as we play more and more games.

In our campaign setting a city (Golov) is under siege by invading Orks. I recently made a themed table that represents a blasted apocalyptic wasteland of burning craters and blasted ruins. But how to use it in our campaign?

We decided that a whole corridor of land along the southern boarder of the city had to be orbitally bombarded to stop the massive approaching ork hordes from pouring into the city. We added this to our campaign narrative and described that the Imperial forces have set up long range artillery batteries to continue to bombard this area in response to continued ork advances through what is now a blasted wasteland. The Imperium has also established numerous forward observation bases to direct this fire. and deployed armoured battlegroups to patrol it's edge as a way to respond quickly to any ork breakthroughs.

So what does this all mean?

We used this narrative to shape games in that region of our campaign setting. We are about to play a "Purge the Alien" scenario in this region that will use this themed table/terrain. My son will be fielding an IG armoured company (IA list) to with an allied detachment of Cadians filled with mortars, griffons, basalisks, aegis line, etc. to represent one of the FOBs. The armoured company will have a number of the artillery strike choices to represent te long range artillery, Our fluff has shaped the table setup and roughly what the IG force should contain.

Likewise we determined that the orks know that trying to footslog across this no-mans-land is suicide and so have taken to trying to rush across it in trukks, on bikes, etc. Thus my force must all be a vehicle or be units in transports.

Narrative determines and guides setup. It is a challenge for my son to consider what those Imperial forces should be comprised of given the narrative, etc.

Terrain and army design sets a scene and meets a theme.

This post is truly phenomenal.

This is exactly what "cinematic" means. "Cinematic" does not, as some have wrongfully characterized it, mean "random" or "whacky." It is the story that answers the great question, "Why?" Why are these armies fighting each other? Why are they composed of the units that they are? Why are we fighting in an open field/desert/city/wasteland? What happens if I win? What happens if you win? Do we simply go on Dakkadakka and change our win/loss ration in our signature, or does something much more meaningful take place? I think "Forging a narrative" is a much more accurate term than "cinematic."

Need ideas? Pages 341 - 399 in the new rulebook contains loads of great example missions and characterful rules to spark narrative-based games.

Gordy2000 and his friends post some of the most well done narrative campaigns in the battle reports section. They are incredible from a story, gameplay, and visual standpoint. If you want to know the difference between a cinematic game and a non-cinematic game, read a "1850 GK v. BA ROFLSTOMP" battle report, then read a Gordy2000 Shadow of the Hive Mind report.

Fafnir wrote:For all this talk about "cinematics," I think that not only is GW just throwing the word around as a token buzzword, but many of the people who fall for it, and on a fundamental level, GW themselves, don't even understand the concept.

The game and its designers, by extension, aren't supposed to develop "cinematics." That's what film and other non-participatory mediums are for. A game should be bound, rather, by its ludic elements, ie the elments of play and the elements that enhance play. Increased random elements that remove control from the player (essentially, random elements acting not as rngs, but as a back-end form of control) end up taking away from this ludic context.

Cinematics are not the job of the game designer. Cinematics, the stories themselves, come from the players. "Cinematics" are a side element of games, an element that develops in the presence of strong ludic context. They're not what happens on the table, but the stories that players take with them beyond it. You can't design a game around that.

I think both are important.

Firstly, I disagree that taking control away from the player is bad. If a player has full control, then he wins. It's that simple. He has full control over the game, so he simply says "I win" and it is so. Obviously then, a player cannot have full control. Control must be shared between players. Further, I believe that if player control is determined to some extent by random elements, then the player has the opportunity to display his ability to react to unplanned or unlikely circumstances by maneuvering his resources and adding elements of redundancy and contingency to his planning.

But with regards to 'cinematic' gaming: To me this does not simply refer to the stories and narratives the players come up with. It also refers to the game playing in a way that matches our preconceptions: we want our heroes to be heroic, our villains to be devious, our monsters to be monstrous, and so on. If we rely on 'gamey' mechanics we don't get that 'cinematic' feel. Like, for example, in 4th edition where you would create a narrow line of sight corridor with two vehicles, so that the only model you could see in the enemy unit was the character or heavy weapon specialist, and then you would kill them.

Anpu42 wrote:
As far as being nice to new players it tend to use the advice of the Master.

That advice is perfect.

Fafnir wrote:I'm just going to copy and paste one of my posts from another thread, since it's relevant to this one:

Fafnir wrote:For all this talk about "cinematics," I think that not only is GW just throwing the word around as a token buzzword, but many of the people who fall for it, and on a fundamental level, GW themselves, don't even understand the concept.

The game and its designers, by extension, aren't supposed to develop "cinematics." That's what film and other non-participatory mediums are for. A game should be bound, rather, by its ludic elements, ie the elments of play and the elements that enhance play. Increased random elements that remove control from the player (essentially, random elements acting not as rngs, but as a back-end form of control) end up taking away from this ludic context.

Cinematics are not the job of the game designer. Cinematics, the stories themselves, come from the players. "Cinematics" are a side element of games, an element that develops in the presence of strong ludic context. They're not what happens on the table, but the stories that players take with them beyond it. You can't design a game around that.

While i see your point i believe that a game can be cinematic, not in the way of passivity but in the way of imagery and impact. I believe things such as tyranid hive tyrant standing over a smouldering dreadnought roaring it's triumph or a line of guardsmand desperately shelling the berzerkers running across a broken no-man's land can be much nicer and more compelling than things such as the 4th ed LOS sniping.

In the end i guess what i'm saying is that it is possible to tell a story, with the participation of your opponent, while both trying to win, through the medium of paintes plastic.

Edit: i read gordy2000's reports beforehand and i must admit i did have them in mind when i started this topic.

Thanks for the shout-out G. Whitenbeard - my group does love our narrative "cinematic" reports.

All our campaigns are story driven and it makes them a lot of fun. We are still getting the hang of 6th, but it does seem to mesh well with our preferred style.

Having a story/characters/terrain set-up really sets the scene and makes the game mean something. In our last game (yet to be posted) one side got an absolute pasting. The scenario really was stacked against them, but it wasn't about winning, it was about having fun and advancing the story.

CT Gamer runs a great on-going campaign with custom terrain, great models and plenty of character. Personally, I'll read those type of reports all day and just skip the tourney/killer list ones with unpainted models (or worse, no pics!). That's not a criticism, just a preference.

In summary, paint your armies and terrain, design a background story/narrative to drive the game play and have fun! The cinematic stuff will then come naturally.

KoganStyle wrote:to play a truely cinematic game - play infinity.

I think because the opponent can shoot back or react in your turn, it adds another level of interaction and involvment to the game.

So if you wanted to transplant that to 40k, I suggest involving the opponent (beyond handling him some dice for armour saves) in your turn.

Don't be "that guy".

Gordy2000 wrote:Thanks for the shout-out G. Whitenbeard - my group does love our narrative "cinematic" reports.

All our campaigns are story driven and it makes them a lot of fun. We are still getting the hang of 6th, but it does seem to mesh well with our preferred style.

Having a story/characters/terrain set-up really sets the scene and makes the game mean something. In our last game (yet to be posted) one side got an absolute pasting. The scenario really was stacked against them, but it wasn't about winning, it was about having fun and advancing the story.

CT Gamer runs a great on-going campaign with custom terrain, great models and plenty of character. Personally, I'll read those type of reports all day and just skip the tourney/killer list ones with unpainted models (or worse, no pics!). That's not a criticism, just a preference.

In summary, paint your armies and terrain, design a background story/narrative to drive the game play and have fun! The cinematic stuff will then come naturally.

Thanks.

Not to turn this into a self-admiration society, but the poster before hit it on the head: IF you want to see what a "cinematic game" looks like check out Gordy2000's batreps. When people get narrative gaming right it just looks and feels right and can elevate the game. Gordy2000 gets it right, and players looking to expand their narrative/cinematic play should use his reps as a blueprint.

Also, some want to claim that "cinematic play" and "forging the narrative" are somehow marketing gimmicks spawned for 6th edition. WRONG. Some of us have been playing with those concepts as the focus for decades and even across different game systems. Try it, you just might like it...

CT GAMER wrote:
Also, some want to claim that "cinematic play" and "forging the narrative" are somehow marketing gimmicks spawned for 6th edition. WRONG. Some of us have been playing with those concepts as the focus for decades and even across different game systems. Try it, you just might like it...

That's not what we're claiming. We're claiming that GW talking about these concepts like they were brand new things made up by them is just a marketing gimmick spawned for sixth edition.

Fafnir wrote:


That's not what we're claiming. We're claiming that GW talking about these concepts like they were brand new things made up by them is just a marketing gimmick spawned for sixth edition.

Yes they have chosen to market the game more strongly and directly as a narrative game in this addition.

What is your point exactly?

Why is this bad if this is their vision for the game?

I see a lot of nerdrage over a non-issue tbh.

Because they use 'cinematics' and 'narrative' as a thinly veiled excuse for poorly written rules that remove elements of gameplay in favour of random chance.

I could develop a stellar narrative around Snakes and Ladders, but that doesn't change the fact that Snakes and Ladders is a terrible game.

On a similar end, Infinity has an excellently written ruleset (if at times convoluted) that reflects the strong narrative of its universe far better than 40k, and yet the Infinity rulebook and design team doesn't have to constantly beat you over the head with how "cinematic" or "narrative" it is.

Fafnir wrote:Because they use 'cinematics' and 'narrative' as a thinly veiled excuse for poorly written rules that remove elements of gameplay in favour of random chance.

I dont see the two as related to be honest.

The change in focus to narrative play is a good thing regardless of the rules themselves imho.

As for the rule changes related to randomness. They have actually added gameplay layers by forcing players to consider potential thrat ranges far more and to work to mitigate them i multipe ways, etc. You cant always know an enemies threat range exactly, you have to factor in multiple things now and play acordingly. I see this as MORE tactical and challenging. Again: a good thing.

[shrug]

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote:


That's not what we're claiming. We're claiming that GW talking about these concepts like they were brand new things made up by them is just a marketing gimmick spawned for sixth edition.

Yes they have chosen to market the game more strongly and directly as a narrative game in this addition.

What is your point exactly?

Why is this bad if this is their vision for the game?

I see a lot of nerdrage over a non-issue tbh.

It isn't bad for the 40k design team to push a more cinematic or narrative driven game, but it doesn't excuse some of the things people are viewing as bad for the game either. Give us a solid rule-set, and then release some supplement books. Blood in the Badlands is a wonderful example of how GW did this very thing for Fantasy WH. Battle Missions was another good book that offered some cool narrative scenarios. Give us scenarios in each month's WD and I bet you'd see subscriptions skyrocket.

CT GAMER wrote:
As for the rule changes related to randomness. They have actually added gameplay layers by forcing players to consider potential thrat ranges far more and to work to mitigate them i multipe ways, etc. You cant always know an enemies threat range exactly, you have to factor in multiple things now and play acordingly. I see this as MORE tactical and challenging. Again: a good thing.

There's a difference between random elements that the player must take into account when making decisive decisions, and random elements that replace decisive decisions. Most of 6th ed's random elements are a motion towards the latter.

Maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is to do something a lot of players have forgotten how to do: have fun.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is to do something a lot of players have forgotten how to do: have fun.

Or maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is that it's a copout to excuse poor game design on GW's part.

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics' (whatever the feth GW wants that to mean). "Cinematics" is what occurs between the players, not the game. The game is only a tool that the narrative builds itself around.

Fafnir wrote:As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics' (whatever the feth GW wants that to mean). "Cinematics" is what occurs between the players, not the game. The game is only a tool that the narrative builds itself around.

And as I've said, that's only half true.

If your models don't behave in the way we expect them to, it's not cinematic. This is governed by the rules, and not the players.

That's irrelevant. The players (assuming an ounce of creativity) should be able to create a cinematic flair to any ruleset. That said, if the ruleset is well written and, most importantly, engaging, then the 'cinematic flair' becomes more involving, and the players are drawn further into the narrative.

I can create a narrative around snakes and ladders, but because the game is entirely random, there's no personal investment on my part.