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.

Hm. I'm pretty sure anyone playing warhammer 40k is kind of interested in the fluff in at least as far as "playing games with pretend sci fi armies using pretend pulse/magical/chainsword weaponry" is fun. Otherwise they'd play something else. Also they like having models and looking at the models and the idea of their daemons/aliens/zombie-robots/librarians all fighting PEWPEWPEW. In space.

Some people don't really care about winning. Some people really care. But everybody is fundamentally doing something really stupid because they grew up on Star Wars and they want to play space fighting.

I guess finding kids that want to play the same way you do can be hard sometimes.

Kholzerino wrote:
I'd be VERY interested to see you friend's data sheet and see how it compares with the current thinking re: competitive armies:

Eldar
Tau
Daemons
Necrons

In that order seems to be how most folk delineate the top four. Personally, I think that's kind of simplistic, and I'm sure that in a couple of months everyone will be decrying how OP Tyranids and Guard are, but only time will tell.

Does your friend's system take survivability into account?

You know, when that time comes, I'll probably That Guy who says: "I started playing Guard before they were super awesome cheese."

Anyways, I admit that I find myself a bit overly-competitive, as some people define it. I have two or three rule disagreements with my friend each game, it seems, but when they pop up, I then realize how silly arguing over what my plastic minis can do and what yours can't. This is not what I think of as competitive. Competitive, from my perspective, is taking any list, from utter fluff to incredibly optimized, and actually thinking through strategies and tactical maneuvers, though this could apply to building your list, too. No cookie-cutter list is the "competitive" that I see so much as clawing for a win without putting in any effort whatsoever.

However, no matter how "competitive" you and your list are, the dice still have the final word. It's really about trying to better your odds without exploiting rules.

 Zweischneid wrote:
What I always wonder about "competitive 40K"

- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

In what way is the game being suitable for competitive play incompatible with it being "lore-heavy" and suitable for narrative approaches? There are two sub-texts to your question - firstly that those of us who like competitive play think we are superior to those who don't. I do not see this (though I do see frequent posts telling us to "get off our crosses" and similar if we complain that it is bad for competitive play). The second sub-text is that it's an either/or. Not only are there no incompatibilities between the game being suitable for competitive play and good for "lore-heavy" and "narrative approaches", but the former actually helps the latter. It's hard to create the narrative story of your choice when you know that the flavourful army you would choose is going to get squashed flat because certain of the units you'd like to use for thematic / style reasons. just aren't effective.

 Zweischneid wrote:

- Do people play competitive first (i.e. for the sake of competing), and think that playing Warhammer 40K is the best game on the market to compete with one another? If so, why is Warhammer 40K of all games out there the game of choice? Even within the narrow field of miniature wargaming, most people seem to think most other games are better suited for the job?

Again, perhaps because I've seen other of your posts on this subject but nonetheless, I'm picking up this sub-text of people being wrong to want WH40K to be a competitive game because you feel that it shouldn't be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
For example, whe you see two teams competing in the superbowl do you see the players sitting around saying "I do say old chap, I hope the other team enjoys the experience of playing in the game. Perhaps we should send them some tea and crumpets".

Actually when I used to play sports more competitively (i.e. squash leagues or on a football team (soccer to you heathen yanks), yes - that was the attitude. Obviously without the mocking re-phrasing you have just done to make it sound stupid, but absolutely I wished my opponent a good game and wanted them to enjoy it. And in squash I'd compliment an opponent on a good rally that they won and vice versa and in no way did it take away from us both trying our best to beat the other and enjoying doing so. What I read from the above is that you are not a sportsman. It is normal to congratulate your opponent on a good game and even to be friendly with them (send them tea and crumpets) pre-match. You even see boxers after a match where they have been doing their best to beat the other senseless, very often speak well of their opponent.

Play some sports before you start promulgating false notions about how we actually are. No, maybe you don't see superbowl players talking about "crumpets" - and quite possibly the media like to hype things up. But I'd be very, very surprised if when talking to the actual players you didn't get a lot of mutual respect and camaraderie between opponents. Have you actually looked? I suspect not.

This is the third time you have told us what you think competitive players are when you have competitive players right here telling you that's not how we are. Instead of talking, listen.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Anyone who claims differently is only lieing to themself.

Firstly, it's "lying". Secondly, don't accuse other people of it without good reason - that's offensive. Thirdly, especially don't tell people you don't know on the Internet that you know how they feel better than they do and are lying about how they think.

40K is the Super Smash Brothers of wargaming.

knas ser wrote:


In what way is the game being suitable for competitive play incompatible with it being "lore-heavy" and suitable for narrative approaches?

Well, mostly it is a question of exclusion vs. inclusion. To make a game more "competitive", presumably more restrictions would be in place (at least that seems to be the general drift I get). Allies should be handled more conservatively, powerful units be available in fewer numbers, the FOC be more restrictive (1999+1 instead of 2000 pts., no "FOC-free" Formations, etc..).

Every restriction,however, will also inhibit a particular story somebody somewhere wants to tell. The more narrative the game, the more freedom there would be for players to pick the models they like based on the narrative, without bothering about "competitive" stuff like FOC, point-values, what army book it comes from, etc..

By and large, these seem incompatible. If "competitive" play is (would be) happy with making their own restriction for the tournaments within a "no-Restrictions" game, we'd not have the problem.

knas ser wrote:


Again, perhaps because I've seen other of your posts on this subject but nonetheless, I'm picking up this sub-text of people being wrong to want WH40K to be a competitive game because you feel that it shouldn't be.

Is it wrong that I like 40K the way it is?

I don't mind people wanting WH40K to be different. But it seems odd that people wish for "WH40K to be more like Warmachine, Infinity, etc..", when there already is Warmachine, Infinity, etc.. out there?

Where would this leave people who like WH40K the way it is?

I see no gain in this.

If WH40K stays the way it is, those who like it the way it is can play WH40K, and those who'd want it to be more like (for example) Warmachine, can play Warmachine. Eveybody wins.

If WH40K becomes more like Warmachine, those who liked WH40K the way it is, would have nothing to play (unless, of course, Warmachine became more like WH40K is now).

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


In what way is the game being suitable for competitive play incompatible with it being "lore-heavy" and suitable for narrative approaches?

Well, mostly it is a question of exclusion vs. inclusion. To make a game more "competitive", presumably more restrictions would be in place (at least that seems to be the general drift I get). Allies should be handled more conservatively, powerful units be available in fewer numbers, the FOC be more restrictive (1999+1 instead of 2000 pts., no "FOC-free" Formations, etc..).

Every restriction,however, will also inhibit a particular story somebody somewhere wants to tell. The more narrative the game, the more freedom there would be for players to pick the models they like based on the narrative, without bothering about "competitive" stuff like FOC, point-values, what army book it comes from, etc..

By and large, these seem incompatible. If "competitive" play is (would be) happy with making their own restriction for the tournaments within a "no-Restrictions" game, we'd not have the problem.

I disagree. You talk about competitive games needing more restrictions to function, and that these restrictions detract from the story.

This is not the case with games like warmachine and infinity (which you mention). Here's the thing: I'm not talking about turning 40k into either of those games, but in warmachine, everything g can be built into a game winning strategy. In infinity, the community attitude is 'it's not your list, it's you'. Contrary to your assertions, in these games, being competitive does not necessarily come at the expense of the story (or the telling of it) or the background information. In layman terms, I have far more freedom to create accurate, and yet functional armies in these systems, without any house rules, gentleman agreements, self restraint/self policing, social pressure, or terms/conditions imposed by the player base.

I feel your assertion is only correct in the context of gw games, and more specifically, the gw playing community where there is such a huge (and false, IMO) distinction, and mutually exclusive separation between 'fluff/fun' and 'competition'.

Beyond that, then I sorry, but there is no reason in principle to see a competitive-focus, and lore-focus as separate beasts.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Is it wrong that I like 40K the way it is?

I don't mind people wanting WH40K to be different. But it seems odd that people wish for "WH40K to be more like Warmachine, Infinity, etc..", when there already is Warmachine, Infinity, etc.. out there?

Where would this leave people who like WH40K the way it is?

I see no gain in this.

If WH40K stays the way it is, those who like it the way it is can play WH40K, and those who'd want it to be more like (for example) Warmachine, can play Warmachine. Eveybody wins.

If WH40K becomes more like Warmachine, those who liked WH40K the way it is, would have nothing to play (unless, of course, Warmachine became more like WH40K is now).

Not true. 40k has issues, and lists of bugs. Other companies seem to be able to avoid those bugs in the products they offer. it's not that we want 40k to be warmachine or Infinity (as you correctly point out, we have those games already in order to play those games) - it's that I (and folks like me, presumably) see gw constantly being short of the mark in comparison, with regards to game features such as rules clarity, balance, and community support. I don't want 40k to be infinity or warmachine, I simply want it to be a better, more professional, and less hamfisted/awkward game than what it is.

Now, for you zweischneid, I have two questions for you:

You say you like 40k 'as it is'. Fair enough. Firstly, what is it you like about 40k?

And secondly, What is it that you get out of 40k is that is (seemingly) mutually exclusive from what you or I can get out of games like warmachine, and infinity?

Deadnight wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


In what way is the game being suitable for competitive play incompatible with it being "lore-heavy" and suitable for narrative approaches?

Well, mostly it is a question of exclusion vs. inclusion. To make a game more "competitive", presumably more restrictions would be in place (at least that seems to be the general drift I get). Allies should be handled more conservatively, powerful units be available in fewer numbers, the FOC be more restrictive (1999+1 instead of 2000 pts., no "FOC-free" Formations, etc..).

Every restriction,however, will also inhibit a particular story somebody somewhere wants to tell. The more narrative the game, the more freedom there would be for players to pick the models they like based on the narrative, without bothering about "competitive" stuff like FOC, point-values, what army book it comes from, etc..

By and large, these seem incompatible. If "competitive" play is (would be) happy with making their own restriction for the tournaments within a "no-Restrictions" game, we'd not have the problem.

I disagree. You talk about competitive games needing more restrictions to function, and that these restrictions detract from the story.

This is not the case with games like warmachine and infinity (which you mention). Here's the thing: I'm not talking about turning 40k into either of those games, but in warmachine, everything g can be built into a game winning strategy. In infinity, the community attitude is 'it's not your list, it's you'. Contrary to your assertions, in these games, being competitive does not necessarily come at the expense of the story (or the telling of it) or the background information. In layman terms, I have far more freedom to create accurate, and yet functional armies in these systems, without any house rules, gentleman agreements, self restraint/self policing, social pressure, or terms/conditions imposed by the player base.

I feel your assertion is only correct in the context of gw games, and more specifically, the gw playing community where there is such a huge (and false, IMO) distinction, and mutually exclusive separation between 'fluff/fun' and 'competition'.

Beyond that, then I sorry, but there is no reason in principle to see a competitive-focus, and lore-focus as separate beasts.

I think there is, though. I think it'd be awesome to mix Khador and Cygnar armies to fight against a Hordes opponent, but I can't, because restrictions. I think it'd be awesome for Behemoth to carry a shield in place of one of his armor-piercing fists, but I can't, because restrictions. I'd like to be able to build my own army's warlord, so that I felt more in-tune with him on the battlefield. All of these things, however, you can do in Warhammer 40,000: ally armies, adjust wargear, build your own lord, et cetera.

I don't know that much about infinity, but I do know it is a skirmish game and so is not really the type of gameplay I'm interested in, really, at all.

They both are WAAAY more restrictive in playstyle than 40k is, and I don't like that. I don't even play Warmachine anymore, because it just wasn't engaging enough.

Deadnight wrote:


I disagree. You talk about competitive games needing more restrictions to function, and that these restrictions detract from the story.

This is not the case with games like warmachine and infinity (which you mention). Here's the thing: I'm not talking about turning 40k into either of those games, but in warmachine, everything g can be built into a game winning strategy.

Can't really comment on Infinity, but Warmachine is one of the most restrictive, creativity-inhibiting game-settings/systems I've come across.

As said, there are no allies, no "Khador"-second-founding factions to make your own, no "white spots" on the map to place your own faction based in (an amalgam) of the 4 or 5 (double that with Hordes) pre-made example factions provided by PP.

It's probably the best example where there is absolutely no way to break out of the stuff that's chewed for you and drip-fed to you by the game-making company, and any attempt to do something creative outside that framework, to actually use your imagination as a hobbyist, is dismissed immediately by the "Warmachine-community".

The whole "mental frame" surrounding Warmachine is why I love 40K the way it is. Warmachine is the living proof that "tight competitive" rules stifle experimentation, creativity and freedom.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think there is, though. I think it'd be awesome to mix Khador and Cygnar armies to fight against a Hordes opponent, but I can't, because restrictions.

Not really. Because:
(1) why would I, as a khador player wish to ally with those yellow bellied southern dogs.
(2) secondly. Take two armies. Versus 1 hordes army. Apply scenario. Done.
(3) traitor format games. Warcaster (and possibly warjacks) from one faction, units from another.
(4) mercenaries, and certain theme lists (Magnus and his bad seeds springs to mind of a mercnar hybrid army.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think it'd be awesome for Behemoth to carry a shield in place of one of his armor-piercing fists, but I can't, because restrictions .

The khadoran mechanics would disagree with you. Armour piercing rocket fists are cooler than any shield.
And yet, whilst you can't customise the behemoth, you can field the behemoth. There is no social pressure against it. You won't get called a tfg, or accused of cheese or being un fluffy if he is in your army. No, there are any number of reasons why the behemoth in a khador army makes sense. And he'll pull his weight. Slap a vendetta on the table, or a few riptides and you'll hear the whining in all corners of the internet within seconds.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

. I'd like to be able to build my own army's warlord, so that I felt more in-tune with him on the battlefield.

I disagree. I see no place for 'my' warcaster. The setting is small. Having 'your' footprint in the game cones at the expense of the shared narrative. Write all you want about 'your' caster and it mean very little to your opponent as he has no connection to them, and no investment. Frankly, I don't care who he is, and neither will a lot of your opponents. It's 'your' caster, in 'your' story, not 'ours'. Talk about a shared character like the butcher, and it's something everyone gets behind. There is a reason people talk about Caine, kromac, eldrad and Calgary, instead of colonel du Gaulle of the 531st warhawks.

I find it easier to engage with a 'name' in a shared story, rather than my own fanfiction. With respect, the same applies to what you bring to the table.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

. All of these things, however, you can do in Warhammer 40,000: ally armies, adjust wargear, build your own lord, et cetera.

I find folks are more interested in the illusion of choices than the choices themselves. Your correct in what you say -you can do all those things, but despite this, of all those options, you only ever see a bare handful of builds. He'll back in fourth, every chaos lord I saw was the same bloody guy, and every chaos army was identical! And sc's still turn up far more regularly than generic commanders in my opinion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't know that much about infinity, but I do know it is a skirmish game and so is not really the type of gameplay I'm interested in, really, at all.

They both are WAAAY more restrictive in playstyle than 40k is, and I don't like that. I don't even play Warmachine anymore, because it just wasn't engaging enough.

So you know nothing about infinity, and yet are content to say its way more restrictive than 40k? Yeah, pull the other one.

Infinity has a lot of lots of options, lots of variety, very little dead weight, and an experience system in campaign paradiso for creating your own spec ops trooper.

As to restrictive in play style, I disagree. Despite the lack of customisation in warmachine (I see it as a feature, not a bug) I have far more options for valid builds with a khador, or circle army than I do with your 40k factions, my factions carry far less dead weight, since everything can be built into an effective strategy, and since I don't face any social pressure or whining when I put the army I want to play on the table top, I also know it's fully functional, fits the world and it can do well on the table top. Heck with infinity, I can put the models I like on the board and know they'll do well.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


I disagree. You talk about competitive games needing more restrictions to function, and that these restrictions detract from the story.

This is not the case with games like warmachine and infinity (which you mention). Here's the thing: I'm not talking about turning 40k into either of those games, but in warmachine, everything g can be built into a game winning strategy.

Can't really comment on Infinity, but Warmachine is one of the most restrictive, creativity-inhibiting game-settings/systems I've come across.

As said, there are no allies, no "Khador"-second-founding factions to make your own, no "white spots" on the map to place your own faction based in (an amalgam) of the 4 or 5 (double that with Hordes) pre-made example factions provided by PP.

It's probably the best example where there is absolutely no way to break out of the stuff that's chewed for you and drip-fed to you by the game-making company, and any attempt to do something creative outside that framework, to actually use your imagination as a hobbyist, is dismissed immediately by the "Warmachine-community".

The whole "mental frame" surrounding Warmachine is why I love 40K the way it is. Warmachine is the living proof that "tight competitive" rules stifle experimentation, creativity and freedom.

That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

 jonolikespie wrote:


That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

Sure it is.

For most of 5th Edition (and still), I couldn't do the Ultramarines 1st Last Stand on Maccragge, because all-Terminator-Ultramarines are "No-No".

I couldn't do a Rogue Successor Chapter allying with Tau.

I couldn't play the official Space Wolves/Eldar or Blood Angels/Necron team-ups as they appeared in the actual books.

I couldn't have my Black Tempars aquire a Storm Raven (possibly against the AdMech's consent).

I couldn't do this...

I couldn't do that...

Restrictions eveywhere.

Creativity denied.

I still can't do Genestealler Cults, etc.., still can't field an army entirely made of the cool new Ravenwing Knight Models without that ugly old Sammael (Azrael) Finecast trainwreck.

If anything 6th Edition still has far, far, far too many restrictions.

Let me play with the miniatures I want to use. The models I find appropriate for my story. Stop telling me "you can't do that" because of ... what? ... A few hundred tournament players who want to turn 40K into Warmachine?, yet can't be fethed to actually play Warmachine when they want to play Warmachine?

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think there is, though. I think it'd be awesome to mix Khador and Cygnar armies to fight against a Hordes opponent, but I can't, because restrictions.

Not really. Because:
(1) why would I, as a khador player wish to ally with those yellow bellied southern dogs.
(2) secondly. Take two armies. Versus 1 hordes army. Apply scenario. Done.
(3) traitor format games. Warcaster (and possibly warjacks) from one faction, units from another.

1) Because sometimes it's better to crush those pesky hordes.
2) You can totally do that - although I'm pretty sure a tournament wouldn't let you. Are there rules for fielding 2 armies? Do you lose if just 1 warcaster dies?
3) I am unfamiliar with this, but sure.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think it'd be awesome for Behemoth to carry a shield in place of one of his armor-piercing fists, but I can't, because restrictions .

The khadoran mechanics would disagree with you. Armour piercing rocket fists are cooler than any shield.
And yet, you can field the behemoth. There is no social pressure against it. You won't get called a tfg, or accused of cheese or being un fluffy. No, there are any number of reasons why the behemoth in a khador army makes sense. And he'll pull his weight.

Whatever the Khadoran mechanics say, I like being able to customize my wargear. Arm 24 imo is better than +1 open fist. Just imo, of course, but at least I'd have the option.

Yes, I can. Its true. But I can also field anything I would want to field with my current 40k group and not be called a TFG. Because I don't want to field TFG things.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

. I'd like to be able to build my own army's warlord, so that I felt more in-tune with him on the battlefield.

I disagree. I see no place for 'my' warcaster. The setting is small. Having 'your' footprint in the game cones at the expense of the shared narrative. Write all you want about 'your' caster and it mean very little to your opponent as he has no connection to them, and no investment. Talk about a shared character like the butcher, and it's something everyone gets behind. There is a reason people talk about Caine, kromac, eldrad and Calgary, instead of colonel du Gaulle of the 531st warhawks.

I find it easier to engage with a 'name' in a shared story, rather than my own fanfiction.

I disagree. I think out of an entire continent, there are generals out there who haven't yet been named. I would behave, live, breathe differently than every available Khador warcaster, and I cannot identify with any of them - they all have such extremities of character that I am reluctant to put myself in their shoes.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

. All of these things, however, you can do in Warhammer 40,000: ally armies, adjust wargear, build your own lord, et cetera.

I find folks are more interested in the illusion of choices than the choices themselves. Your correct in what you say -you can do all those things, but despite this, of all those options, you only ever see a bare handful of builds. And sc's still turn up far more regularly than generic commanders in my opinion.

I don't know what 40k you play, but look at my army thread. An Armored Regiment - not a netlist build. And with names for the warlords too! God forbid I don't play one who isn't already in the fluff! And maybe in your meta the SCs turn up everywhere, but I don't use one because there really isn't one that conforms to my vision of what my regiment would have.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't know that much about infinity, but I do know it is a skirmish game and so is not really the type of gameplay I'm interested in, really, at all.

They both are WAAAY more restrictive in playstyle than 40k is, and I don't like that. I don't even play Warmachine anymore, because it just wasn't engaging enough.

So you know nothing about infinity, and yet are content to say its way more restrictive than 40k? Yeah, pull the other one.

Infinity has a lot of lots of options, lots of variety, very little dead weight, and an experience system in campaign paradiso for creating your own spec ops trooper.

I know that you can't field an armored regiment, which means it doesn't have enough options for me. Because I like tanks.

Deadnight wrote:

As to restrictive in play style, I disagree. Despite the lack of customisation in warmachine (I see it as a feature, not a bug) I have far more options for valid builds with a khador, or circle army than I do with your 40k factions, since everything can be built into an effective strategy, and since I don't face any social pressure or whining when I put the army I want to play on the table top, I know it can do well. Heck with infinity, I can put the models I like on the board and know they'll do well.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Can't really comment on Infinity, but Warmachine is one of the most restrictive, creativity-inhibiting game-settings/systems I've come across.

As said, there are no allies, no "Khador"-second-founding factions to make your own, no "white spots" on the map to place your own faction based in (an amalgam) of the 4 or 5 (double that with Hordes) pre-made example factions provided by PP.
.

You've got mercenaries, and there is no reason you can't write about the 85th regiment of the second khadoran army , the 'wild boars', describe their status (stationed in the the thorn wood, conducting anti cryxian sweeps), their composition (mainly winter guard, with some iron fang support, and a compliment of 60 warjacks) and a list of their commanders, and warcasters most commonly associated with them. Don't assume creativity needs white spots.

There is no reason you can't create your don game formats either - I've seen some really fun rules for things like cage matches etc. also, despite the restrictions on conversions (like for like weapons et ) ive seen some stellar creativity from the community - the storm hammer/assault on sul, Rico stormwall and baby mammoth spring to mind immediately. Beyond thid, I've seen done excellent terrain and board projects.

 Zweischneid wrote:

It's probably the best example where there is absolutely no way to break out of the stuff that's chewed for you and drip-fed to you by the game-making company, and any attempt to do something creative outside that framework, to actually use your imagination as a hobbyist, is dismissed immediately by the "Warmachine-community".

See above. There are some very talented hobbyists involved in the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

The whole "mental frame" surrounding Warmachine is why I love 40K the way it is. Warmachine is the living proof that "tight competitive" rules stifle experimentation, creativity and freedom.

You have a very skewed opinion of our community my friend. Shame, really.

Deadnight wrote:


You've got mercenaries, and there is no reason you can't write about the 85th regiment of the second khadoran army , the 'wild boars', describe their status (stationed in the the thorn wood, conducting anti cryxian sweeps), their composition (mainly winter guard, with some iron fang support, and a compliment of 60 warjacks) and a list of their commanders, and warcasters most commonly associated with them. Don't assume creativity needs white spots.

And I've seen some very good Tournament formats for Warhammer 40K. A competitive event doesn't need a single official format to exist.


There are some very talented event-organisers involved in the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

Sure it is.

For most of 5th Edition (and still), I couldn't do the Ultramarines 1st Last Stand on Maccragge, because all-Terminator-Ultramarines are "No-No".

I couldn't do a Rogue Successor Chapter allying with Tau.

I couldn't play the official Space Wolves/Eldar or Blood Angels/Necron team-ups as they appeared in the actual books.

I couldn't have my Black Tempars aquire a Storm Raven (possibly against the AdMech's consent).

I couldn't do this...

I couldn't do that...

Restrictions eveywhere.

Creativity denied.

I still can't do Genestealler Cults, etc.., still can't field an army entirely made of the cool new Ravenwing Knight Models without that ugly old Sammael (Azrael) Finecast trainwreck.

If anything 6th Edition still has far, far, far too many restrictions.

Let me play with the miniatures I want to use. The models I find appropriate for my story. Stop telling me "you can't do that" because of ... what? ... A few hundred tournament players who want to turn 40K into Warmachine?, yet can't be fethed to actually play Warmachine when they want to play Warmachine?

Ignoring the bull about people wanting the game to turn into warmachine THE QUALITY OF RULES ARE NOT TO BLAME THERE.

What you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with how clear, and problem free the rules are. You are complaining that there is a structure to the game.

I'll give you that the point you are trying to make is valid, there are restrictions in place to stop you playing the game you want and yes, there are people saying there should be more but that is totally different to what the majority of us mean when we say we want a tighter ruleset.

All we are asking for is wording in the rulebook that doesn't leave any ambiguity about how a special rule from a unit in X codex interacts with a special rule in Y codex. This is super simple stuff here. I just want a ruleset that I can take to a tourney and not have to have to ask a TO about a RAW vs RAI question.

On top of that some balance would be nice. Note that balance does not mean 'hey Riptides are OP, no one should be allowed to take more than 1, it means that Ripetides should either not be that strong or cost more. The game should be built in a way that if someone wants to field.. was 8 the max you could get by allying tau with tau and taking a tau formation? Anyway you should be allowed to bring 8. And that list should have equal odds of winning against wave serpent heavy eldar as it does against... a really bad list. Marine heavy chaos marines with no helldrakes? No one runs that right? Point is if someone wants to bring 12 ripetides they should be allowed, but that list should have a roughly 50/50 chance of beating any other list out there before taking player skill into account.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

Sure it is.

For most of 5th Edition (and still), I couldn't do the Ultramarines 1st Last Stand on Maccragge, because all-Terminator-Ultramarines are "No-No".

I couldn't do a Rogue Successor Chapter allying with Tau.

I couldn't play the official Space Wolves/Eldar or Blood Angels/Necron team-ups as they appeared in the actual books.

I couldn't have my Black Tempars aquire a Storm Raven (possibly against the AdMech's consent).

I couldn't do this...

I couldn't do that...

Restrictions eveywhere.

Creativity denied.

I still can't do Genestealler Cults, etc.., still can't field an army entirely made of the cool new Ravenwing Knight Models without that ugly old Sammael (Azrael) Finecast trainwreck.

If anything 6th Edition still has far, far, far too many restrictions.

Let me play with the miniatures I want to use. The models I find appropriate for my story. Stop telling me "you can't do that" because of ... what? ... A few hundred tournament players who want to turn 40K into Warmachine?, yet can't be fethed to actually play Warmachine when they want to play Warmachine?

Ignoring the bull about people wanting the game to turn into warmachine THE QUALITY OF RULES ARE NOT TO BLAME THERE.

What you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with how clear, and problem free the rules are. You are complaining that there is a structure to the game.

You are missing the point.

Are the Warhammer 40K rules perfect? No. Far from it. I am not claiming that. It's not what this discussion is about.

This is a discussion about the stupid claim that a "perfectly balanced, competition-friendly game" would have no trade-offs for narrative gaming. It's about this constantly perpetuated myth that making the game more competitive would benefit narrative player just as much.

That is horsegak.

If you make a game to target (more-or-less) competitive "gamers" first and foremost, narrative "storytellers" will have to take the back-seat, work within the narrow confines of "official" fluff or houserule.

If you make a game to target (more-or-less) narrative "storytellers" first and foremost, you'll need a more free-form system, than competitive player will most likely have to add a few houserules of their own to make the game "tournament-viable".

I hope the miniature wargaming scene will always have both types of game.

But... it will never have both represented perfectly in the same game. It's impossible, because there are, in fact, trade-offs (unless you have a horribly limited, stifled view of "narrative" gaming).

Now, whether or not Warhammer 40K does either of these goals well (enough) is another discussion.

 Zweischneid wrote:
You are missing the point.

Are the Warhammer 40K rules perfect? No. Far from it. I am not claiming that. It's not what this discussion is about.

This is a discussion about the stupid claim that a "perfectly balanced, competition-friendly game" would have no trade-offs for narrative gaming. It's about this constantly perpetuated myth that making the game more competitive would benefit narrative player just as much.

That is horsegak.

If you make a game to target (more-or-less) competitive "gamers" first and foremost, narrative "storytellers" will have to take the back-seat, work within the narrow confines of "official" fluff or houserule.

If you make a game to target (more-or-less) narrative "storytellers" first and foremost, you'll need a more free-form system, than competitive player will most likely have to add a few houserules of their own to make the game "tournament-viable".

I hope the miniature wargaming scene will always have both types of game.

But... it will never have both represented perfectly in the same game. It's impossible, because there are, in fact, trade-offs (unless you have a horribly limited, stifled view of "narrative" gaming).

Now, whether or not Warhammer 40K does either of these goals well (enough) is another discussion.

Ok, let me see if I can make this any clearer.

I've just jumped over to the you make da call forum and the first big discussion I saw was about whether or not someone can fire both interceptor and overwatch in their opponent's turn. The poll seemed very close and as far as I saw 8 pages of discussion hasn't led to a consensus one way or the other.

Having a note in the rulebook next to interceptor or overwatch that says 'A unit can/cannot use this and [the other] in the same turn' or a note next to the rule about only shooting once per turn that says 'with the exception of/including overwatch and skyfire' can't possibly hurt narrative play, but it would do wonders for the competitive scene.

 jonolikespie wrote:


Ok, let me see if I can make this any clearer.

I've just jumped over to the you make da call forum and the first big discussion I saw was about whether or not someone can fire both interceptor and overwatch in their opponent's turn. The poll seemed very close and as far as I saw 8 pages of discussion hasn't led to a consensus one way or the other.

Having a note in the rulebook next to interceptor or overwatch that says 'A unit can/cannot use this and [the other] in the same turn' or a note next to the rule about only shooting once per turn that says 'with the exception of/including overwatch and skyfire' can't possibly hurt narrative play, but it would do wonders for the competitive scene.

Now, but throwing out stupid and restrictive crutches like the FoC would help make it easier to collect the models they like, rather than being forced to buy, say, two units of Firewarriors or Kroot, even though the model I "want" and think is cool is the Riptide. And it would help remove the stigma for somebody bringing their 100 meticulously painted Ultramarines 1st Company Terminators to play, only to have some TFG tell them "nooooo you need two troop-choices and they cannot hold objectives and you're 50 points over the "limit" and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda,....)

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


Ok, let me see if I can make this any clearer.

I've just jumped over to the you make da call forum and the first big discussion I saw was about whether or not someone can fire both interceptor and overwatch in their opponent's turn. The poll seemed very close and as far as I saw 8 pages of discussion hasn't led to a consensus one way or the other.

Having a note in the rulebook next to interceptor or overwatch that says 'A unit can/cannot use this and [the other] in the same turn' or a note next to the rule about only shooting once per turn that says 'with the exception of/including overwatch and skyfire' can't possibly hurt narrative play, but it would do wonders for the competitive scene.

Now, but throwing out stupid and restrictive crutches like the FoC would help make it easier to collect the models they like, rather than being forced to buy, say, two units of Firewarriors or Kroot, even though the model I "want" and think is cool is the Riptide. And it would help remove the stigma for somebody bringing their 100 meticulously painted Ultramarines 1st Company Terminators to play, only to have some TFG tell them "nooooo you need two troop-choices and they cannot hold objectives and you're 50 points over the "limit" and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda,....)

I'm curious, if you're just interested in collecting the models you like and telling a story why don't you just play a RPG? The Fantasy Flight ones cover a decent chunk of the 40k universe.

I'm not trying to tell you go away and play an RPG, wargaming is for comp play only, I'm legitimately curious. Is finding a group that much harder than finding a game of 40k, or does it not interact with the universe on a big enough scale for you (I could definitely understand how 3-5 characters might not be enough when what you want is a marine company, but then with a good GM you could be 3-5 characters leading a marine company).
I understand where you are coming from when you say you want to tell a story and all that but it sounds like you only have any interest in telling the story, which makes me wonder why you're trying to do that with a wargame and not an RPG.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


Ok, let me see if I can make this any clearer.

I've just jumped over to the you make da call forum and the first big discussion I saw was about whether or not someone can fire both interceptor and overwatch in their opponent's turn. The poll seemed very close and as far as I saw 8 pages of discussion hasn't led to a consensus one way or the other.

Having a note in the rulebook next to interceptor or overwatch that says 'A unit can/cannot use this and [the other] in the same turn' or a note next to the rule about only shooting once per turn that says 'with the exception of/including overwatch and skyfire' can't possibly hurt narrative play, but it would do wonders for the competitive scene.

Now, but throwing out stupid and restrictive crutches like the FoC would help make it easier to collect the models they like, rather than being forced to buy, say, two units of Firewarriors or Kroot, even though the model I "want" and think is cool is the Riptide. And it would help remove the stigma for somebody bringing their 100 meticulously painted Ultramarines 1st Company Terminators to play, only to have some TFG tell them "nooooo you need two troop-choices and they cannot hold objectives and you're 50 points over the "limit" and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda,....)

I'm curious, if you're just interested in collecting the models you like and telling a story why don't you just play a RPG? The Fantasy Flight ones cover a decent chunk of the 40k universe.

I'm not trying to tell you go away and play an RPG, wargaming is for comp play only, I'm legitimately curious. Is finding a group that much harder than finding a game of 40k, or does it not interact with the universe on a big enough scale for you (I could definitely understand how 3-5 characters might not be enough when what you want is a marine company, but then with a good GM you could be 3-5 characters leading a marine company).
I understand where you are coming from when you say you want to tell a story and all that but it sounds like you only have any interest in telling the story, which makes me wonder why you're trying to do that with a wargame and not an RPG.

Because, as you say but seemingly fail to grasp, an RPG does not allow me to make a story with 30 Leman Russ tanks, 6 Baneblades, two Commissar tanks, ten stormtroopers, thirty one guardsmen, three Chimeras, three Hydras, a Recovery tank, six Techpriests and thirty Servitors, a Thunderbolt fighter, and a Vendetta gunship as the characters.

 jonolikespie wrote:


I'm curious, if you're just interested in collecting the models you like and telling a story why don't you just play a RPG? The Fantasy Flight ones cover a decent chunk of the 40k universe.

I'm not trying to tell you go away and play an RPG, wargaming is for comp play only, I'm legitimately curious. Is finding a group that much harder than finding a game of 40k, or does it not interact with the universe on a big enough scale for you (I could definitely understand how 3-5 characters might not be enough when what you want is a marine company, but then with a good GM you could be 3-5 characters leading a marine company).
I understand where you are coming from when you say you want to tell a story and all that but it sounds like you only have any interest in telling the story, which makes me wonder why you're trying to do that with a wargame and not an RPG.

Fair enough. I often do, but I am also excited to see 40K moving away from a restrictive game, leaving things like FoC behind. It's a good development, is all.

Also, I do enjoy "competitive games" too. I am even a half-descent chess-player (at least I like to think so of myself). I've won the England South-West Regional for DreadBall not to long ago (not Chess, admittedly). I dabble in X-Wing. Etc... But when I want to play "competitively", I simply don't think reaching for my 40K collection is the smart decision. It's not what the game wants to be.

Again, it comes back down to picking the "right game" to "scratch the right itch".

Maybe 40K is the wrong game for what I am looking for. Most likely though, 40K is also the wrong game for a lot of "competitive gamers" out there too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


1) Because sometimes it's better to crush those pesky hordes.
2) You can totally do that - although I'm pretty sure a tournament wouldn't let you. Are there rules for fielding 2 armies? Do you lose if just 1 warcaster dies?
3) I am unfamiliar with this, but sure.

(1) aye, and I'm not doing it by dishonouring myself by allying with those southern pigs.
(2) who said anything about a tournament? Us warmachine players do friendly pick-up games all the time as well. And they have rules for loss of warcasters in multiple warcaster games. I'd go with them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Whatever the Khadoran mechanics say, I like being able to customize my wargear. Arm 24 imo is better than +1 open fist. Just imo, of course, but at least I'd have the option.
.

The 'option' or the best possible option, because that is all it boils down to. Arm24 is a significant skew (arm 27 on harkevich's feat turn) and extremely problematic for a lit of armies. No, I prefer pp's rather more effective approach of making sure the game is actually balanced, rather than worrying about options that could break it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I disagree. I think out of an entire continent, there are generals out there who haven't yet been named. I would behave, live, breathe differently than every available Khador warcaster, and I cannot identify with any of them - they all have such extremities of character that I am reluctant to put myself in their shoes.

Would you? Or would you be as patriotic and as unbending as the rest of your comrades, having grown up in a state that emphasises aggressive nationalism, expansion, and khadoran is best to the extent that khador does?

You'd behave, live and breathe differently to all other khadoran caster? Then you're being disrespectful to the fluff. That Kinda reads like having 'nice marines who believe in friendship, love and democracy' in 40k. Beyond that, how about characters like kromac? Kromac is, by definition, the only tharn warlock. He shouldn't exist. Having other special snowflake tharn warlocks simply does not work.

Honestly, I find characters like the butcher to be both engaging, fascinating and deeply tragic. Who honestly cares about who 'I' write, other than myself? This is a shared universe, and a single player experience detracts from that. Like I said, it's easier to get behind shared characters than personal, and private ones. Feel free to disagree though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't know what 40k you play, but look at my army thread. An Armored Regiment - not a netlist build. And with names for the warlords too! God forbid I don't play one who isn't already in the fluff! And maybe in your meta the SCs turn up everywhere, but I don't use one because there really isn't one that conforms to my vision of what my regiment would have.
.

Like I said, of the thousands of options available, you only ever see a handful of builds. Especially beyond local metas. Back In Ireland, in fourth Ed, wherever I went, all I saw was daemon prince, nike lord, 2x infiltating squads, basic, 3x3 obliterators and 3x tank hunting auto cannon havok squads. When I played tau, every list was 80% identical. And im sorry to say, but 40k has always been this way. Third ed boiled down to a handful of effective builds, as did fourth and fifth. All those options? I never saw them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I know that you can't field an armored regiment, which means it doesn't have enough options for me. Because I like tanks.
.

There is mire to wargaming than just tanks try the game, I'd genuinely recommend it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I see the lack of customization as a feature as well - but not a feature in which I am interested. So why would you try to foist that feature upon me by reducing the customization in 40k? And I disagree - I think there are fewer units in the entire Khador army list than there are in my armored battlegroup army list alone. And I haven't faced too much social pressure in Real Life (tm). I see it all the time on the internet, but when it comes down to it, people are usually willing to compromise from either direction to have a wonderful game.

Here's the thing - I'm not seeing the lack of customisation as the end of the road to the extent you do. But I do feel I have far more variety, and far more choice in the unit selection of my khador and circle armies than I ever did with my tau. Tau for me boiled down to one decently powerful build with a lot of dead weight (fire warriors, vespids, stealth suits. Sniper drone teams, gun drones, sky rays, about 90% of crisis suit options! etherials, etc) and only some situationally useful units. With khador, all my casters bar zerkova are viable. I don't feel suckered with any of the jacks (bAr sheer preference) and in terms of unit validity, I have huge choice in what I take, and what I take alongside them. There is no one way to build a good, so.id khadoran army. To be, that takes precedence over whether I give my jacks a shield or an axe.

Feel free to differ though, you're fully entitled to your pov

I feel like you're missing my point. Some people don't care about running the very few competitive options that are available. Some people (myself) would rather run stuff that's fun to use.

This means that I'm like a kid in a candy store with Warhammer 40,000. There's tens of thousands of options (probably), and I get to pick the ones I like best for a truly unique army and hobby experience.

I feel that Warmachine, lacking as many options, is basically the same thing as 40k if you limited yourself to only taking good options, i.e. watering down the 10,000 odd options to only Tau with allied Chaos (or whathaveyou).

And I recognize that warmachine players play pickup games, but every time I bring my warmachine to the FLGS I get told that they're practicing for a tournament and I am unwelcome.

Yes, in a competative game, you might want the other team to enjoy the game but your lying to yourself if you dont say that winning is the top of the priority list.you never hear someone going into a tournement saying " i sure hope i lose today". you might hear someone say " If I dont win, i hop you do". but those are two totally seperate statements and even in the second, you get the qualifier 'If I dont win,"

 EVIL INC wrote:
Yes, in a competative game, you might want the other team to enjoy the game but your lying to yourself if you dont say that winning is the top of the priority list.you never hear someone going into a tournement saying " i sure hope i lose today". you might hear someone say " If I dont win, i hop you do". but those are two totally seperate statements and even in the second, you get the qualifier 'If I dont win,"

Third time, then I'm just reporting you as a troll. Stop telling people what they really think after they flat out tell you that they don't. There's nothing incompatible about wanting the other person to enjoy the game and wanting to win. Enjoyment of competing is not dependent on winning. It is dependent on trying to win. Some of the most fun matches (sports and gaming) I have ever had, I have lost. Which quite simply demonstrates that the pleasure of winning and the pleasure of competing are not the same thing. And there is nothing at all in the latter that requires one put someone else's enjoyment higher or lower or anywhere else on the "priority" scale. You are clearly not a sportsperson. That is fine. But just because you do not understand a mindset, does not mean you get to dismiss it. If you call me a liar one more time - as you do every time you post that people of my position are "lying", or tell me that you know how I feel better than I do, then we are done here.

knas ser wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Yes, in a competative game, you might want the other team to enjoy the game but your lying to yourself if you dont say that winning is the top of the priority list.you never hear someone going into a tournement saying " i sure hope i lose today". you might hear someone say " If I dont win, i hop you do". but those are two totally seperate statements and even in the second, you get the qualifier 'If I dont win,"

Third time, then I'm just reporting you as a troll. Stop telling people what they really think after they flat out tell you that they don't. There's nothing incompatible about wanting the other person to enjoy the game and wanting to win. Enjoyment of competing is not dependent on winning. It is dependent on trying to win. Some of the most fun matches (sports and gaming) I have ever had, I have lost. Which quite simply demonstrates that the pleasure of winning and the pleasure of competing are not the same thing. And there is nothing at all in the latter that requires one put someone else's enjoyment higher or lower or anywhere else on the "priority" scale. You are clearly not a sportsperson. That is fine. But just because you do not understand a mindset, does not mean you get to dismiss it. If you call me a liar one more time - as you do every time you post that people of my position are "lying", or tell me that you know how I feel better than I do, then we are done here.

This I agree with. While I love the choice of 40k and consciously choose an army which is suboptimal, winning remains on my priority list for each individual game (even if it is not the top!) and I do try to play with grace, skill, and victory in mind.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

Sure it is.

For most of 5th Edition (and still), I couldn't do the Ultramarines 1st Last Stand on Maccragge, because all-Terminator-Ultramarines are "No-No".

I couldn't do a Rogue Successor Chapter allying with Tau.

I couldn't play the official Space Wolves/Eldar or Blood Angels/Necron team-ups as they appeared in the actual books.

I couldn't have my Black Tempars aquire a Storm Raven (possibly against the AdMech's consent).

I couldn't do this...

I couldn't do that...

Restrictions eveywhere.

Creativity denied.

I still can't do Genestealler Cults, etc.., still can't field an army entirely made of the cool new Ravenwing Knight Models without that ugly old Sammael (Azrael) Finecast trainwreck.

If anything 6th Edition still has far, far, far too many restrictions.

Let me play with the miniatures I want to use. The models I find appropriate for my story. Stop telling me "you can't do that" because of ... what? ... A few hundred tournament players who want to turn 40K into Warmachine?, yet can't be fethed to actually play Warmachine when they want to play Warmachine?

Why can't you do those things? Because they're against the rules?
So... Ignore those restrictions and do it anyway? It's a narrative game. I don't understand what you're actually objecting to - can you clarify?

rigeld2 wrote:

Why can't you do those things? Because they're against the rules?
So... Ignore those restrictions and do it anyway? It's a narrative game. I don't understand what you're actually objecting to - can you clarify?

He's objecting to having to change the rules to play the game, in the same way that Warhammer 40,000 competition players lament having to change the rules to play the game.

EDIT: To rephrase:

Why can't you play competitively? Because the game isn't balanced?
So... ignore the unbalanced units and do it anyway? It's a competitive game. I don't understand what you're actually objecting to - can you clarify?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like you're missing my point. Some people don't care about running the very few competitive options that are available. Some people (myself) would rather run stuff that's fun to use.

This means that I'm like a kid in a candy store with Warhammer 40,000. There's tens of thousands of options (probably), and I get to pick the ones I like best for a truly unique army and hobby experience.

Oh I understand, I just disagree

Here's the thing - you talk about folks only using the top options, as being distinct from other stuff that's 'fun'. Why must there be different levels. Why can't they be one and the same? Why are they mutually exclusive?

40k has lots of options, but with a lot of them you simply suffer. Unless you build in house rules, arbitrary social pressure as to what's 'ok', and the rely on strict self policing and enforcement. Why can't I just roll up, and play a game? You feel like a kid in a candy store with all the options in 40k and fair deuce, if it's what you enjoy, go fir it. Me? I feel simple frustration as so much of what I'd like yo do simply isnt practical. I simply dislike all the terms ad conditions that are associated with both the game and some members of the community when it cones to putting my stuff on the board (stuff, as opposed to 'casual' stuff or 'competitive' stuff, and yet know it'll still be good) and having a go
.

rigeld2 wrote:

Why can't you do those things? Because they're against the rules?
So... Ignore those restrictions and do it anyway? It's a narrative game. I don't understand what you're actually objecting to - can you clarify?

Why can't you add your own restrictions to make it tournament-viable? I don't understand what people are actually objecting to either.

As said before, both type of games can exist.

1) "Competitive games" that make their rules more restrictive (putting the onus on the narrative people to house-rule).
2) "Narrative games" that make their rules more freeform (putting the onus on the competitive people to house-rule).

Both are viable. 40K, trying primarily to sell more to the narrative side of things probably falls (increasingly) to the former.

The things I object to are (a) the assumption that a single game could be both 1) and 2) at the same time and that (b) Warhammer 40K is objectively worse because it goes for 2) over 1), while other games (e.g. Warmachine) go for 1) over 2). It's not. It's simply setting different priorities.