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.

So, the question in the title is a bit flimsy, as I wasn't around for starter sets before 4th ed, but while reading through the main rulebook, I came across this on page 340:

Playing a game of Warhammer40,000 involves bringing all the elements of the hobby together to create a fun and rewarding gaming experience.

A game of Warhammer 40,000 is the ultimate expression of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. You get to unleash your carefully painted and assembled collection onto a meticulously fashioned battlefield, retelling a thrilling moment from the history of Warhammer 40,000 or creating your own. You also get to match wits with your opponent in an exciting game!

Playing a game can be as simple as getting together with a friend and lining up your army against his. Games like this are the mainstay of the Warhammer 40,000 community - thousands of us do it every week. This doesn't mean that hobbyists will all enjoy playing games in quite the same way. Some players like to transform their gaming sessions into grand occasions, and spend time before a battle planning the scenario, building bespoke scenic objectives, or painting extra miniatures to help tell a story. Of course, there's no right or wrong way to enjoy the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. If it's fun, and both you and your opponent have a good time, then you have achieved your goal.

Just let that sink in for a moment. This is what 40k was designed, on purpose to be. Think of how different the game would be if everyone read this and took it to heart.

But therein lies the problem. The abridged rulebook from Dark Vengeance does not contain these words, because the mini-book doesn't go past the rules. Not only do you miss out on words like this, but you also miss out on the 200+ pages of hobbying, storytelling, and other bitz of information. Really, with the mini-book, you're only getting about 25% of the game, or, at least, of the rulebook.

In fact, if you read nothing but the mini-book, you might come to the conclusion that 40k is nothing more than a strategy game, and here are its rules.

That makes me wonder if the existence of starter set abridged rulebooks are in the least enabling, or in the most CAUSING the state of "competitive" 40k in our midst.

The stated goal from the rule book is similar to my goal. Which is why I don't use 40K rules. I personally prefer the loose fun of ITEN and FUBAR over the BRB anyday.

I bought Dark Vengeance to get some models.

But not everybody does.

I'm wondering if perhaps what we're seeing in the 40k community isn't the inevitable result of year after year of mini-rulebooks warping how people view the game because they just don't have all the information (because they have the abridged version).

Let me get this straight: you think that the only reason people play 40k the "wrong" way (IOW, not exactly the way you want them to play it) is because they aren't explicitly told not to? Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. People who got into the game purely because of the fluff/models don't need a reminder in the rulebook that the fluff and models are cool, and people who want to play competitively aren't going to stop optimizing their lists because they paid an extra $50 for some catalog pictures of space marines.

But really, your whole "I hate competitive players" thing is getting kind of old. Instead of constantly looking for solutions to nonexistent problems maybe you should consider the possibility that some people just don't enjoy the game the same way you do?

Speaking as someone who'se first WH40k purchase was Assault on Black Reach (what with the mini book), this is often not a problem.

There are four ways to get into 40K:

-Another hobbyist tells you about it (and likely knows some good lore)

-The GW store sells it to you (and you can see gamers painting and discussing 40k things)

- The DoW games made you look it up (meaning you already know there is lore)

-You were already in the market of Miniwargaming, and were looking for something new (meaning you have already gotten through the "strategy game, must win" part of things, and know there is usually lore to these things).

excuse me while i gag, that quote is drivel anyways.

40k isnt dungeons and dragons, i have no idea why they try to market it as such. it's a crap strategy game and a crap RPG as well.

There are some points in the mini rulebook where it says something very similar to your quote from the BRB pg 340. I dont think that the small rulebooks focus on the rules is as stringent as you say. There are lots of points in the book where it talks about the aim being fun, and how to forge a narrative in your games (the little bubbles that include these are actually called 'Forging a Narrative'.
The reason I have the mini rulebook is because the BRB simply costs more than I am willing to pay.

I love the fluff of 40k, and when I play I much prefer to have a fun game than win, but I can get all the fluff online or by reading BL novels. If I need to know the rules to play the game, then I will buy the rules. If the BRB was more reasonably priced, I might buy it. I do accept that it is a very big, well printed book. But its just a little to costly for me when all I need from it is the rules, and I can get the mini book for £15 on ebay.

Plus the mini rule book it a lot easier to transport

And of course on the other hand, there are the competitive crowd. That's how they like to play, so all the need is the bones of the games, just the rules. They would still exist even if the starter set came with a BRB. Thats just the way some people like to play, the way the rulebook looks has little to no bearing on that.

 Ailaros wrote:
I'm wondering if perhaps what we're seeing in the 40k community isn't the inevitable result of year after year of mini-rulebooks warping how people view the game because they just don't have all the information (because they have the abridged version).

Probably not. Most of the "real" rulebook is filled with pictures of models painted to a standard I will never reach - it's just a glorified marketing brochure. I never bother going past the rules even if I usually buy it (don't need more minis).

If a person can't understand that he's being an arsehat no text in the BRB will help. Just about every RPG produced is also about cooperation, but you always have that one guy who will 1) argue rules endlessly 2) see the GM as an enemy 3) see the other players as tools. It's not a result of the mini rulebooks, honest. More likely a result of the "me me me" you get into by always being the great hero (or villain) in video games. You either play solo or with people you'll never meet so soon you start thinking the guy on the other side of your gaming table is an NPC too.

A comment like that isn't going to change anybody's competative streak. The other books included in the DV set cover that angle anyway as I'm sure I've pretty much read that in the booklet which gives you a run through of a game including the models in the book.

I see massive similarities with this hobby and another I was recently in to (FIFA). Some people take it way too competatively and only think about winning. Others look at it as some fun and a way to spend their time. The two don't mix particularly well and often one upsets the other, either by one not taking it seriously or the other just worried about stomping all over their opponent. This all comes to a head on internet forums. I think this is just human nature.

The 40k players in my group play by the mini-book.
They also HAVE the big book - and probably have the preceding 3 editions also. The fluff hasn't changed THAT radically, but the "how to make terrain" part has changed a lot - Now it's mostly "We also make all of this fantastic terrain to make your games look better - buy them ALL"

The mini book is just easier to carry is all.

I think that the people who play with the quoted approach would play that way regardless of whether or not they read that quote and that those who like krumpin' everyone with the best tourney list would like doing that even if they have read that quote.

After all, I started with a copy of the 5e AoBR book and I still love lascannon-armed Armoured Sentinels.

Lol I remember first ed where building terrain was using sand and plaster to make small dome buildings and large ABS and paper tubing for "skyscrapers". And don't forget the deodorant grav tank.

the game would be better off as competitive. it's a player vs player pick up game played mostly by males.

the rules eventually force you to go non competitive because of how terrible they are.

 Ailaros wrote:
So, the question in the title is a bit flimsy, as I wasn't around for starter sets before 4th ed, but while reading through the main rulebook, I came across this on page 340:

Playing a game of Warhammer40,000 involves bringing all the elements of the hobby together to create a fun and rewarding gaming experience.

A game of Warhammer 40,000 is the ultimate expression of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. You get to unleash your carefully painted and assembled collection onto a meticulously fashioned battlefield, retelling a thrilling moment from the history of Warhammer 40,000 or creating your own. You also get to match wits with your opponent in an exciting game!

Playing a game can be as simple as getting together with a friend and lining up your army against his. Games like this are the mainstay of the Warhammer 40,000 community - thousands of us do it every week. This doesn't mean that hobbyists will all enjoy playing games in quite the same way. Some players like to transform their gaming sessions into grand occasions, and spend time before a battle planning the scenario, building bespoke scenic objectives, or painting extra miniatures to help tell a story. Of course, there's no right or wrong way to enjoy the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. If it's fun, and both you and your opponent have a good time, then you have achieved your goal.

Just let that sink in for a moment. This is what 40k was designed, on purpose to be. Think of how different the game would be if everyone read this and took it to heart.

But therein lies the problem. The abridged rulebook from Dark Vengeance does not contain these words, because the mini-book doesn't go past the rules. Not only do you miss out on words like this, but you also miss out on the 200+ pages of hobbying, storytelling, and other bitz of information. Really, with the mini-book, you're only getting about 25% of the game, or, at least, of the rulebook.

In fact, if you read nothing but the mini-book, you might come to the conclusion that 40k is nothing more than a strategy game, and here are its rules.

That makes me wonder if the existence of starter set abridged rulebooks are in the least enabling, or in the most CAUSING the state of "competitive" 40k in our midst.

Have you ever played any online multiplayer game? There's guys screaming into the mic one match and a couple of stoner's doing what you'd expect them to the round after. It's always personality that decides attitude.

I think if you play Warhammer you generally know that there is a back story and other elements to it. So the lack of fluff or other parts isn't going to turn you into a power gamer or what not.

I'm interested in most parts except the painting, so have both styles of book. Also lugging the big book around is a pain in the ass.

Its possible. I've found the wargaming community in my area is much different than it was 10+ years ago. Seems everyone now days is WAAC. Fluff, painting models, scenarios etc...none of that matters. Seems vast majority of players in my area must win in order to have fun.

 Citizen Luka wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
So, the question in the title is a bit flimsy, as I wasn't around for starter sets before 4th ed, but while reading through the main rulebook, I came across this on page 340:

Playing a game of Warhammer40,000 involves bringing all the elements of the hobby together to create a fun and rewarding gaming experience.

A game of Warhammer 40,000 is the ultimate expression of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. You get to unleash your carefully painted and assembled collection onto a meticulously fashioned battlefield, retelling a thrilling moment from the history of Warhammer 40,000 or creating your own. You also get to match wits with your opponent in an exciting game!

Playing a game can be as simple as getting together with a friend and lining up your army against his. Games like this are the mainstay of the Warhammer 40,000 community - thousands of us do it every week. This doesn't mean that hobbyists will all enjoy playing games in quite the same way. Some players like to transform their gaming sessions into grand occasions, and spend time before a battle planning the scenario, building bespoke scenic objectives, or painting extra miniatures to help tell a story. Of course, there's no right or wrong way to enjoy the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. If it's fun, and both you and your opponent have a good time, then you have achieved your goal.

Just let that sink in for a moment. This is what 40k was designed, on purpose to be. Think of how different the game would be if everyone read this and took it to heart.

But therein lies the problem. The abridged rulebook from Dark Vengeance does not contain these words, because the mini-book doesn't go past the rules. Not only do you miss out on words like this, but you also miss out on the 200+ pages of hobbying, storytelling, and other bitz of information. Really, with the mini-book, you're only getting about 25% of the game, or, at least, of the rulebook.

In fact, if you read nothing but the mini-book, you might come to the conclusion that 40k is nothing more than a strategy game, and here are its rules.

That makes me wonder if the existence of starter set abridged rulebooks are in the least enabling, or in the most CAUSING the state of "competitive" 40k in our midst.

Have you ever played any online multiplayer game? There's guys screaming into the mic one match and a couple of stoner's doing what you'd expect them to the round after. It's always personality that decides attitude.

online multiplayer is usually pretty competitive from what ive seen.

I guess the OP quote fits what with their target market demographic being kids. It kinda reminds me of something your gym teacher would tell you in grade 2. "stay positive! Everyones different, it doesnt matter who wins or loses, we're here to have fun!!!111"

Commissar Benny wrote:
Its possible. I've found the wargaming community in my area is much different than it was 10+ years ago. Seems everyone now days is WAAC. Fluff, painting models, scenarios etc...none of that matters. Seems vast majority of players in my area must win in order to have fun.

Are you sure you're just not letting nostalgia cloud your memory? Before LA battlebunker closed I knew two guys there (they may have been related, I forget), one who had been with the hobby since 3e the other all the way back since Rogue Trader. One time we were talking about the current state of game (this was just after the GK codex was released) and the 3e guy was bemoaning, much like you are now, that the hobby was now all about winning and not about "fun" like when he first started. The older RT guy laughed at him and told him that there have always been players like that, all the way back since RT, he just never saw when he started out because he was only ten years old back then so he didn't pay attention to any of that...

Of course the game is competitive. It's supposed to be. Monopoly and scrabble are also competitive. No one person is more competitive than the next. The only difference is some people just can't take a loss as well as others. And as such list Taylor to try and bring a strong army to reduce the risk of loosing, as in there mentality loosing a game is as bad as having a small manhood. And it's the same thing in a game like monopoly, and monopoly only has a leaflet rule book. A small rule book that is not filled with useless stuff like photos I can see on any web page for instance, does not make competitive players. The game makes competitive players. A fluff less rule book has nothing to do with it. In fact it's bloody handy, if you really want to lug around a book that weighs a ton, become is contains pictures that's fine. For me the only reason I take my small little rule book around is because when I'm playing a game I don't want to stop half way through and read fluff or look at pictures. I just want the rules. I play pre heresy as well. And would kill for a small fluff less rule book especially when now I. Going to have to carry around book one and book 2 if I'm playing other armies.

Not from my perspective. My first 40k purchase was going halves on AOBR with a friend who needed more Orks. I got the SM half and the paraphernalia, including the mini rulebook. Despite not having access to the 5th ed BRB and it's extra material (including that paragraph), I quickly descended into non-competitive, fluffy happiness. By contrast, my friend (who had the BRB), is the most competitive player in our group (he still loves his Orky fluff though ).

I was happy to design special missions and campaigns for tournaments, as well as a ruleset for a game we played at high school, in which everyone brought one Troops squad to the table. I didn't need the mini rulebook to know that the narrative/fluffy/make-stuff-up-as-you-go-along side of 40k existed. Granted, some people may not see past the ruleset- but I only know of one guy locally who is afflicted in that regard, out of a lot of players.

There is also a ton of fluff and storytelling in any of the codexes. This is often enough to hook people into the fluffy side of 40k, where Lexicanum, borrowing friend's codexes and the Black Library can do the rest.

There are international championships for Rock, Paper, Scissors. Let that sink in for a minute, a game you learnt as a toddler has international tournaments with thousands of dollars in prize money.

As long as a game has a winner and a loser there will always be people playing to be the best.

Human fething nature.

So can we please stop with the YOU'RE PLAYING THE GAME WRONG! posts. Some people have never played a game in their life but spend hours perfecting a single model. Others field armies of grey marines having never picked up a paintbrush.

Neither of these people are doing it wrong.

Ruining the game? By NOT using the mini rulebook and nothing but house rules ruins the game.

I own both, but I'll be damned if I carry a 400+ page, 5 lbs book along with the rest of my army to the game store to play a game. Especially when playing the game, I'm only using about 100 pages of that 400+ page book. Why wouldn't I use the small rulebook to reference during a game?

The 300+ pages of fluff and pictures are interesting and pretty, but the fluff changes so much and all the time with the release of a new codex that the BBB is pretty much DOA as soon as its published.

IMHO, the best BBB ever written was 3rd Ed. Sure, it was black and white, but it had everything in it. Army rules, a little fluff/blurb on each army, only about 200 pages, well laid out, and fantastic appendix/rules. Only thing it lacked was a proper index.

Sure, I guess. People might behave a little differently if they took that blurb a little more to heart, but you will always have those who want to play in sort of competitive environment. There's a disconnect between the two for no reason other than a poor rule set creating the divide.

If that blurb was followed up by a truly well put together set of rules that breeded balance instead of power level creep, you could pit a fluff/scenario gamer against a competitive player, and they could both enjoy the game.

There's nothing wrong with seeking out players who want to play the game in a similar manner, but I think its a bit of an excuse for poor rules writing.

Though I will say that a lot of people could use a change of pace and do some fun scenarios or campaigns that shake up the norm a little. Miniature wargaming, in its totality, has always been about moving painted models around a scenic table enacting out an abstraction of tactics and strategy on a variety of scales.

 Ailaros wrote:
So, the question in the title is a bit flimsy, as I wasn't around for starter sets before 4th ed, but while reading through the main rulebook, I came across this on page 340:

Playing a game of Warhammer40,000 involves bringing all the elements of the hobby together to create a fun and rewarding gaming experience.

A game of Warhammer 40,000 is the ultimate expression of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. You get to unleash your carefully painted and assembled collection onto a meticulously fashioned battlefield, retelling a thrilling moment from the history of Warhammer 40,000 or creating your own. You also get to match wits with your opponent in an exciting game!

Playing a game can be as simple as getting together with a friend and lining up your army against his. Games like this are the mainstay of the Warhammer 40,000 community - thousands of us do it every week. This doesn't mean that hobbyists will all enjoy playing games in quite the same way. Some players like to transform their gaming sessions into grand occasions, and spend time before a battle planning the scenario, building bespoke scenic objectives, or painting extra miniatures to help tell a story. Of course, there's no right or wrong way to enjoy the Warhammer 40,000 hobby. If it's fun, and both you and your opponent have a good time, then you have achieved your goal.

Just let that sink in for a moment. This is what 40k was designed, on purpose to be. Think of how different the game would be if everyone read this and took it to heart.

But therein lies the problem. The abridged rulebook from Dark Vengeance does not contain these words, because the mini-book doesn't go past the rules. Not only do you miss out on words like this, but you also miss out on the 200+ pages of hobbying, storytelling, and other bitz of information. Really, with the mini-book, you're only getting about 25% of the game, or, at least, of the rulebook.

In fact, if you read nothing but the mini-book, you might come to the conclusion that 40k is nothing more than a strategy game, and here are its rules.

That makes me wonder if the existence of starter set abridged rulebooks are in the least enabling, or in the most CAUSING the state of "competitive" 40k in our midst.

Having read quite a few of your posts over the year or so i've browsed the forums, it has become increasingly clear that you have a fixed idea of what is the 'right' way to play the game, and therefore all other play styles are 'wrong'. you play the right way, everyone who doesn't play your way is playing the game wrong. If you aren't having fun with your regular crowd, find another one, or adapt your playstyle to theirs. If they like fluffy take whatever i want armies, do the same. if they like ultra competitive, spammy points efficient lists, do the same.

but never say they are wrong, because with your demonstrated attitude, despite the fact that my group, on the tabletop, will try to extract your testicles and throw them in your face, you would be the one who is left in the rain when we all pile into the pub to get drunk afterwards. I also don't know whether you would (willingly) do the gallon of milk challenge (he who throws up first, loses) or the beer challenge (he who throws up, or passes out first, loses) but these are exactly the things that people who have a demonstrated desire to crush your army ruthlessly are capable of.

Look at how YOU play and YOUR attitude before you find fault with everyone elses. if you find yourself in the minority, which by the tone of the forums you are, then its not everyone else who is playing the game wrong, but in fact you.

madtankbloke wrote:
Look at how YOU play and YOUR attitude before you find fault with everyone elses. if you find yourself in the minority, which by the tone of the forums you are, then its not everyone else who is playing the game wrong, but in fact you.

Even if you are in the minority it doesn't mean you're wrong. As in the OP quote from the rulebook it say's how people play the game differently and that neither is right or wrong. Playing for fluff or play for competition are both completely fine. It's all down the the individual.


For that reason it really grinds my gears when people imply there is a right style to paying the game, or when people say others are missing the point of how 40k is "supposed" to be played.

You have casual and competitive gamers. As well as those in a mix. Deal with it, it's up to them how they want to play the game. And if you can't accept that then don't play with those people. Just don't go sprouting how you think the correct way to play is. Keep it to yourself if that's the way you feel as people don't want to be told they are wrong due to your standards and your ideals, as it comes off as elitist and they most likely don't care that they don't meet some stranger from over the internet's standard.

/rant

So, the question in the title is a bit flimsy, ...

Honestly, everything in that first post is flimsy. The fact that the tiny book omits a page which contains three small paragraphs (paragraphs that I'm willing to bet few would be reading anyway - I have the BRB and I've never seen those), has ZERO bearing on anything. Yes, the BRB also has all the fluff pages, but even with that, I can't begin to fathom the mental gymnastics required to make that leap. Of course, you also once tried to "scientifically quantify" LUCK so I suppose you're capable of anything. lol

"Competitive" 40k as you call it has been around since 2nd ed. The only reason Rogue Trader wasn't that competitive was because it was barely playable. Also, second ed had the full size rule book. It was also the dawn of competitive 40k. I'm not really sure what you're after here. I would say that it sounds like you need to find a different play group as maybe your preferred style doesn't match your group's preferred style, but from reading your battle reports, it doesn't appear that your group runs super tough or optimized competition lists, so yeah. Just not sure what your real point is. I mean, to me, the key element in the passage you quoted is this one:

"This doesn't mean that hobbyists will all enjoy playing games in quite the same way."

That alone sort of nullifies your point about "what 40k was designed to be". I could just as easily read those three paragraphs and come back with a completely different impression of the game than you and you know what? We would BOTH be right. What 40k was designed to be is a game. How you play that game and in what spirit is completely up to you and your friends. My group playing hard competition style games doesn't effect your group's fluffy narrative forging one iota. If we decide to have our groups meet - we will just agree to a middle ground of some sort. I'm not sure what's so hard about this.

That may be how 40k was designed in spirit of, but people are always going to have their own connotations on how the game should be played. Really there is no "right" or "wrong" way - this was just how the designers of the game want it to be like. Not everybody is in the same boat.

I love my gigantic rulebook . It's like a big ritual whenever I get it out for anything other than rule checking. But I never had the big version back in 5th - just a little AOBR one. But that still didn't change how I wanted to play the game - for fun over competition. Everyone will have their own mindset on how they want the game, regardless if they have read all the fluff and hobby stuff or not. Personally I believe that that stuff is important, but that's my opinion. The mini rulebook is for the rules - that is what it was designed for. I highly doubt it will change a gamer's mindset on 40k - it certainly didn't to me.

G.A.

i think Fluff is an important aspect of this game.

I agree with the OP and think that leaving it out for any new players is a mistake.

especially considering that the game has gone through 6 editions, lots of fluff to keep track of.


I started the game in 2nd edition. I didn't have friends to play with at the time and wasn't old enough to really grasp the complex rules.. but i read every bit of story on all the armies a dozen times over. Even though i hardly played i was happy to be part of the WH40k universe.

GIVE THE PEOPLE FLUFF!!

I don't hate competitive players at all. It's NOT the players fault that GW can't math their way out a wet paper bag. GW obviously doesn't care about balance or they intentionally imbalance the game to get people to buy new stuff.

Of course, I could believe the latter more if their codex creep was consistent. But it isn't Exhibit A: The new SM codex that still gets vaporized a majority of the time by Tau/Eldar. This is not whining: this is a statement of mathematical mechanics.

I have two minds about this.

I do believe that there should be something to set the tone of the game.
Something that says "hey, grab a brew and a bro and get your game on!" instead of "casual gamers need not apply!"

The full 6th ed rulebook sets a great casual mood when you first crack the book. I have not yet obtained a short edition rulebook yet so I cannont comment on its contents.

Here is my problem:

It is my understanding that a large % of the populous do not read manuals...ever.

When they do, it's because they are looking for either
A) Something specific --> not going to read the fluff
B) Have OCD and read the thing from front to back. (I fit more into this group)

I feel the codicies should contain the fluff and marketing material to make someone want to game. The rulebook should be just that, a book to show you how to do it correctly.

as for competativeness...that is 100% made up of the individual and their playgroups. If there is imbalance, the competative types will exploit it. Second place is first losser after all.