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.

Makumba wrote:

Ok , but how do you do it . no one is going to allow rules that make his army worse , just like the group won't allow special rules that make one or two factions better.. You could of course play normal missions , but what is the difference between playing those and normal games.
Considering our list for tournaments and non tournament games are the same , I would say every game is a tournament prep game. Few people buy more models then they need for a legal 1500army.

You talk about it. You approach it as a co-operative. I'm sure there are more than a few things you and a small group can agree on. Especially when you and a group are in the same place, with a similar mind set and all wanting change.

It's not about making things better or worse, merely different. And you'd be surprised what'll happen. Plays with a bit of give and take as well. Come up with cool ideas that you as a group can bring to life. And with the assumption of not bring unreasonable, or bringing silly stuff to the table. Try once-offs (people will be cooler with the idea of re spawning tyranid grunts, for an example, for a special 'hold the line against overwhelming numbers' kind of mission, but not in every game! that has far more traction than giving all marines s10 ap1 large blast template weapons and ten wounds each because you think they're cool. ) but then again, I'm looking at the situation in the line of ignoring points and foc altogether.

Check other games too. See how they approach certain situations mechanically. See if you can copy/paste bits over.

Whilst valid, Not everything has to be a tourney prep game. That's a bit of a myopic view.

edit - what Deadnight said.

However, it does sound like your specific group is not the type for collaboratively coming up with alterations to the rules. If you are all tournament prep, all the time, that's fine. But that doesn't mean every group is. My comment wasn't to you specifically, it just seems odd that the idea has fallen by the wayside in recent years.

Games of 40k really come to life when you abandon the math of the game, and go for fluff.

As a tournament game, I mean Chess is better. Halo is better. MtG is better.

I think GW charges exhorbitant prices for their product, but alot of there campaign books are really friggin cool. Damnos is my favorite, Necrons vs. Ultramarines.

Loads of people moan about having to roll off on a D6 in the event of a rules dispute. Shoddy games design, not thoroughly play tested and such. X-wing is a far superior rule set!

Last night I was sorting all my X-wing stuff for my games day tomorrow, and on page 13 of the X-wing rule book it says... have a roll-off in the event of a rules dispute. Three attack dice vs three defence dice.

If a small, tight system like X-wing can’t cater for every single outcome, 40k has no chance!

Anyways, just thought I’d get that out there.

 monders wrote:
Loads of people moan about having to roll off on a D6 in the event of a rules dispute. Shoddy games design, not thoroughly play tested and such. X-wing is a far superior rule set!

Last night I was sorting all my X-wing stuff for my games day tomorrow, and on page 13 of the X-wing rule book it says... have a roll-off in the event of a rules dispute. Three attack dice vs three defence dice.

If a small, tight system like X-wing can’t cater for every single outcome, 40k has no chance!

Anyways, just thought I’d get that out there.

Why?

How often do those '4+ it' situations arise in x-wing or other games such as warmachine? I've never seen them. Especially when conpared to gw games. With 40k, they treat '4+ it' as a crutch for the fact they're uninterested in producing a polished, proper and finished set of rules. Which is not a good situation.

Deadnight wrote:

Why?

How often do those '4+ it' situations arise in x-wing or other games such as warmachine? I've never seen them. Especially when conpared to gw games. With 40k, they treat '4+ it' as a crutch for the fact they're uninterested in producing a polished, proper and finished set of rules. Which is not a good situation.

Why? In the interest of fairness.

I’ve had one ‘roll off’ since coming back to the hobby three or four years ago, and that was basically down to me and the other lad being relative WHFB noobs and not understanding the charge rule.

A quick email to some gaming pals also shows that this is a rare occurrence. This isn’t proper data, of course, and can be dismissed accordingly.

I’ve not had much exposure to 6th Ed 40k, so admittedly my experiences of roll offs are limited but the games I have played were smooth and fun, despite my sh*tty rolls!

I can’t comment on WM, as I have never played it.

I remember one from Second Ed, where my mate was convinced I’d fired my Eldar Dreadnought Plasma Canon on ‘full’ (miss a shooting phase before shooting again), but I swore I hadn’t, and could shoot this turn. We rolled off, he won, and said something like “Cheaters never prosper”. I was nearly in tears!

Sorry, I’ve gone off track a bit there...

You may have regular instances of having to 4+ it, and that could just be down to bad luck. My point was they happen in other systems, even ones as simple as X-wing. Which so far I think is a top top system.

 -Loki- wrote:
edit - what Deadnight said.

However, it does sound like your specific group is not the type for collaboratively coming up with alterations to the rules. If you are all tournament prep, all the time, that's fine. But that doesn't mean every group is. My comment wasn't to you specifically, it just seems odd that the idea has fallen by the wayside in recent years.

I probably wrote it the wrong way . We just don't have the type of list that wouldn't work in a tournament . The armies cost too much for someone to buy one that doesn't work . That doesn't automaticly mean everyone plays in every tournament in Poland.

Games of 40k really come to life when you abandon the math of the game, and go for fluff.

My expiriance is that people that tried to play the game that way ,stoped playing after losing over and over again and feeling bad about how much money they spend on stuff.

You talk about it. You approach it as a co-operative. I'm sure there are more than a few things you and a small group can agree on. Especially when you and a group are in the same place, with a similar mind set and all wanting change.

Ok , but it will work like this . I come in and for example say. I want to use my medusa , which GW removed from the AM codex . Everyone who doesn't play AM or plays AM , but doesn't have a medusa will say no . Because me not using a medusa makes their chance to win bigger. The only time they would say yes , if it made my list worse and didn't create precedence . They aren't going to let me use breaching drills ,just that someone can claim that this makes FW legal , so now they take 9 counts as saber weapon platforms. But I will try it this week .

I have no idea how people could ignore points and FoC, theone with bigger collection would always win .

Check other games too. See how they approach certain situations mechanically. See if you can copy/paste bits over.

Warmachine and WFB is played the same way here. Infinity guys say that their aren't , but their play group is realy closed ,It is impossible to play against them , if you already don't know people playing infinity and after the 5 model intro game , it turns in to the normal 300pts my tournament list can beat your tournament list.

 monders wrote:
Loads of people moan about having to roll off on a D6 in the event of a rules dispute. Shoddy games design, not thoroughly play tested and such. X-wing is a far superior rule set!

Last night I was sorting all my X-wing stuff for my games day tomorrow, and on page 13 of the X-wing rule book it says... have a roll-off in the event of a rules dispute. Three attack dice vs three defence dice.

If a small, tight system like X-wing can’t cater for every single outcome, 40k has no chance!

Anyways, just thought I’d get that out there.

I think you've made a faulty assumption there. Even Warmachine has a roll-off rule for disputes as well. Of course, it's basically there as a suggestion so people don't look up rules in the middle of a game, rather than being a way to solve rules issues on a regular basis. There's a big difference between using something as a temporary fix until you look up the answer, and dicing off because there is no answer.


That said, every system, however tight, will have some errors, ambiguities or contradictions - there's just no way around it, rule writers are only human. How many errors there are, and how those errors are responded to, however, makes a huge difference in a players experience in this regard. For Warmachine, the fact that you can always get official rulings by the Infernals on the PP forums means that no issue should be in dispute for long, and prevents long running rules or hyper-pedantic rules arguments. If GW restarted it's FAQ program, and expanded it to fill in so many of the rules black holes that exist (looking at the YMDC section is full of threads where the answer is completely down to personal interpretation), it would go a long way to making people feel better about the state of the rules, and do far more good than an extra dozen editors and rules gurus on the front end.

Im glad to see something like this.
I've felt for a long time like this forum was all hate

Makumba wrote:

I probably wrote it the wrong way . We just don't have the type of list that wouldn't work in a tournament . The armies cost too much for someone to buy one that doesn't work . That doesn't automaticly mean everyone plays in every tournament in Poland.

And again, seeing things *only* from the perspective of playing tournaments is whats limiting you. Why do “tournaments” define what is good, or not?defining an armies worth, judged solely by tournaments, only limits your options, especially with a game like 40k that isn't designed for tournaments.

Makumba wrote:


My expiriance is that people that tried to play the game that way ,stoped playing after losing over and over again and feeling bad about how much money they spend on stuff.

Or they find like-minded individuals, instead of power gamers, and tweak the game to suit their needs. Your situation, whilst regrettable, only holds true when two people who want different things out of the game end up clashing. If people who play for fluff and ignore powerbuilds, and play against others who play for fluff, and ignore powerbuilds, then where is the problem? 40k is what you make of it. getting stuck into a “only take the best stuff” mentality is as draining as anything else.

Makumba wrote:

Ok , but it will work like this . I come in and for example say. I want to use my medusa , which GW removed from the AM codex . Everyone who doesn't play AM or plays AM , but doesn't have a medusa will say no . Because me not using a medusa makes their chance to win bigger. The only time they would say yes , if it made my list worse and didn't create precedence . They aren't going to let me use breaching drills ,just that someone can claim that this makes FW legal , so now they take 9 counts as saber weapon platforms. But I will try it this week .

Pffft. Why will it “work like this”? have you ever tried “playing this game another way”? Just because you have a ball doesn’t mean you must play soccer. Right here is the problem – even now, you’re treating the game as a “versus” mode – as a winner/loser proposition, and one where “you must play against your opponent”, with the “win” as the defining aim of the game. Thinking like this, you’ll never see beyond a very narrow vision of what wargaming can be. And to be fair, its fine to play competitively- I do. But its not the only way, or the “right” way.

Using things that are not in codices could be grey. But fair enough. You want to use a medusa? Ok, fine. It’s a siege breaker, right? So it would make sense using it in a siege breaking scenario. Im sure I could come up with a scenario in which you get you use your piece, in a thematic, and enjoyable way. Now a company of ultramarines wandering through the wilderness and they happen to encounter a “wild medusa” that is part of a “wild” imperial guard power build? Yeah, that’s silly. But as part of a themed scenario? Completely different proposition.

Why would people say no? If it’s a siege breaking scenario, then it makes sense to give the attacker some big guns, whilst the defenders hunker down. Think about it. how much fun could that game be? Have you medusas pounding away at the defenders base, whilst you send wave after wave of respawning infantry into the breach. have the defenders fight from a prepared position, so better cover, more heavy weapons etc and have some special rules – defenders have to survive 3 waves of infantry assault before the cavalry arrives. How about expanding it a bit more. Talk to the Umpire – would it make sense for the defender to have snuck out some saboteurs (say d3 teams?) to try and have a go and wrecking the big guns? Let the attacker know there “may” be some infiltrators out there that will wreck his guns. Make him second guess himself. Give him problems. Make his decision part of an evolving story, rather than “1500pts of guard”.

Same with breaching drills. Again, if it suits the scenario, then why not?

Next week, try something completely different. Give each person a chance to be an umpire, and run a game in which other people play. Let everyone come up with a cool scenario that they can present to the group.

Makumba wrote:

I have no idea how people could ignore points and FoC, theone with bigger collection would always win .

Heh, you'd be surprised. Last year, I met two guys through wargaming at a local club, their first time there and I was demoing infinity. Both were hooked and got into infinity in a big way after. So they asked me how armies were built and I said it was a typical points based system. They were surprised, their experience of wargames was previously through historicals, and points based systems were something they really had no experience with. So yeah, it's easy to ignore points.

Use your head, mate. You read me wrong. You’re assuming I mean “chuck everything you own on the table”. Eh, no. Use some common sense. If we know the points system GW uses is bad in a lot of places (how many things are hopelessly under, or over costed? 1500pts of taudar is not the same as 1500pts of tyranid) then whats the point in using it in the first place? If it is essentially 'wrong', why should you use it as a measure to define the game? If his tanks are OP and they cost the same as your infantry, take more infantry. In a hold the line against overwhelming odds type scenario, surely it makes sense to have respawning waves of bad guys? Points be damned! Bring the world to life in other ways.

Makumba wrote:


Warmachine and WFB is played the same way here. Infinity guys say that their aren't , but their play group is realy closed ,It is impossible to play against them , if you already don't know people playing infinity and after the 5 model intro game , it turns in to the normal 300pts my tournament list can beat your tournament list.

Le sigh. Someone doesn’t get me. What I mean to say is “look at the mechanics” and pilfer what it interesting. We took the random activation mechanic used in Bolt Action, and added it to our games of flames of war. And it was an absolute blast. Starship troopers had a “each squad gets two actions per turn” system, with actions being moves, shoots, assaults, or special abilities. As opposed to move/shoot/assault. Infinity has a fantastic resolution mechanic – roll your saves against the power of what hit you, rather than roll to hit/wound/armour save.

If you like a game mechanic or a feature from another game, use it as part of yours.

Make the game you play better by taking control of it. If you play 40k as is, and choose to continue with it, you have to accept it is a flawed game, with many glaring faults. These will impact you, in a big way. But playing this way, 'right out of the book' isn't the be all and end all. The game is only what you make of it. I'm genuinely glad I met those to guys I mentioned earlier - I game every Friday night with them, and they've shown me a completely different way of gaming than what I was used to. You don't have to play a game 'as given'. Open up the book. Use your imagination and intelligence. Be creative. Be gamers. Not just 40k players.

40k and GW specifically is like an abuser in a relationship... Ike (GW/40K) is going to beat on you, pretty much everyday of your life and we being Tina; were always going to come back for more.

 Zarynterk wrote:
40k and GW specifically is like an abuser in a relationship... Ike (GW/40K) is going to beat on you, pretty much everyday of your life and we being Tina; were always going to come back for more.

That's unfairly attributing maliciousness to them. GW is much more like Mr. Magoo.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zarynterk wrote:
40k and GW specifically is like an abuser in a relationship... Ike (GW/40K) is going to beat on you, pretty much everyday of your life and we being Tina; were always going to come back for more.

That's unfairly attributing maliciousness to them. GW is much more like Mr. Magoo.

True that!

Do not hastily attribute to maliciousness that which can be ascribed to stupidity and sloth.

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zarynterk wrote:
40k and GW specifically is like an abuser in a relationship... Ike (GW/40K) is going to beat on you, pretty much everyday of your life and we being Tina; were always going to come back for more.

That's unfairly attributing maliciousness to them. GW is much more like Mr. Magoo.

True that!

Do not hastily attribute to maliciousness that which can be ascribed to stupidity and sloth.

And incredible shortsightedness.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I have seen "crush the newbie" and I've seen people carefully teaching the newbie. Crushing the newbie seldom encourages them to rush into the game.

You always went easy on me with our games.

 poppa G wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I have seen "crush the newbie" and I've seen people carefully teaching the newbie. Crushing the newbie seldom encourages them to rush into the game.

You always went easy on me with our games.

Not nearly as easy as you seem to think.

Makumba wrote:
Ok , but it will work like this . I come in and for example say. I want to use my medusa , which GW removed from the AM codex . Everyone who doesn't play AM or plays AM , but doesn't have a medusa will say no . Because me not using a medusa makes their chance to win bigger. The only time they would say yes , if it made my list worse and didn't create precedence .

Two things.

1. They sound like people I never want to play against. If your only opponents have that sort of attitude to a GAME, I feel bad for you.

2. You are approaching it entirely wrong. A campaign isn't 'all games played from now on'. It's a series of linked games that are not your normal games. An example of taking the Medusa would be a mission with the story of the Guard high command giving you access to it because it knows what you'll be facing. 1 game.

Another example could be in mission 7 of a 10 mission campaign, a Chaos player needs to defend a Chaos temple. Success grants his warlord access to a bit of war gear your group has designed together. Nothing huge - maybe a power axe without the Unweildy rule. Failure means he becomes cursed by the gods and suffers -1 WS and -1 BS. Both of these only last for the next 3 games specifically played in the campaign.

It's not about looking at it selfishly to bring things you want. It's about collaboratively telling a story you want to play out together.

 -Loki- wrote:


It's not about looking at it selfishly to bring things you want. It's about collaboratively telling a story you want to play out together.

Pretty much this.

As an aside, in real life, of the sports I enjoy and participate in, one that I truly love is boxing. Through the missus, I've come to know some if the guys in her rugby club that box every Wednesday and I joined up. And it involves sparring. Which I genuinely love doing - nothing beats brawling it out with a friend.

Here's the thing - you spar with someone, not against them. And wargames are the same. Just because you're on the opposite side of the table in a wargame doesn't mean you can't create a narrative, and have a great game with someone, as opposed to playing against them. One lets you build something collaboratively into more than 'just a game', the other will never amount to anything beyond 'a game', because as sad as it sounds, people working together go further than when they constantly fighting each other..

 jasper76 wrote:
Games of 40k really come to life when you abandon the math of the game, and go for fluff..

So if someone writes a piece of fanfiction that tells of a remnant of a Tau expeditionary force that was beaten up by Chaos raiders being duped by a passing Eldar Farseer into helping the Eldar to destroy a powerful Chaos artifact... that's somehow less unbalanced that someone who takes a Tau/Eldar list because he wants a powerful build?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
Here's the thing - you spar with someone, not against them.

Semantics. And will vary depending on who you ask. I've always said 'sparring against...'

And wargames are the same. Just because you're on the opposite side of the table in a wargame doesn't mean you can't create a narrative, and have a great game with someone, as opposed to playing against them. One lets you build something collaboratively into more than 'just a game', the other will never amount to anything beyond 'a game', because as sad as it sounds, people working together go further than when they constantly fighting each other..

The thing is, if you're doing the former, why even bother with the rules at all? You can just sit down together and come up with an awesome battle narrative, and not have to worry at all about the limitations of a system that abstracts an awful lot of stuff for the sake of easy gameplay.

A game doesn't need to be anything 'more' than a game.

 insaniak wrote:

So if someone writes a piece of fanfiction that tells of a remnant of a Tau expeditionary force that was beaten up by Chaos raiders being duped by a passing Eldar Farseer into helping the Eldar to destroy a powerful Chaos artifact... that's somehow less unbalanced that someone who takes a Tau/Eldar list because he wants a powerful build?
.

I think what jasper is getting at is that's a cool bit of fluff, but it gets lessened by it being a taudar power build. Fluff, not math.Thing is, your fluff (which could be quite a good hook) doesn't have to be a power build. I mean, not every tau force is marching around with three riptides and a dozen wave serpents, or whatever power list them kids are playing these days. To be fair, it's a grey area. Something can be perfectly fluffy, and obscenely powerful too...

 insaniak wrote:

The thing is, if you're doing the former, why even bother with the rules at all? You can just sit down together and come up with an awesome battle narrative, and not have to worry at all about the limitations of a system that abstracts an awful lot of stuff for the sake of easy gameplay.

A game doesn't need to be anything 'more' than a game.

You need some kind of rules to define structure, and resolution mechanics, obviously. Beyond that, it's up to you. If it fits, work it in. If it doesn't, ignore it. It's what we tend to do with flames of war. Ours is rather 'loose' when it comes to strictly following the rule book.

Obviously, this only works for a small group, but IM an adherent of the belief that if a system isn't working for you, either suck it up, take a break, and walk away, or bend it to suit your needs. With 40k, I walked, personally. With flames of war, or rather the group I play flames with, I'm happy to tweak.

If you just want a game - then go for it. I'm as happy to 'just' play a game as the next guy. Most of my warmachine games are either tourney prep, or tournaments. And if you check my posts you'll see I'm a huge fan of pp's offerings.

But when a 'game' falls short of what you want from it, well, in my mind, it's an opportunity to do something about it. I guess I'm lucky I've got friends who feel the same.

Deadnight wrote:
I think what jasper is getting at is that's a cool bit of fluff, but it gets lessened by it being a taudar power build. Fluff, not math.Thing is, your fluff (which could be quite a good hook) doesn't have to be a power build. I mean, not every tau force is marching around with three riptides and a dozen wave serpents, or whatever power list them kids are playing these days. To be fair, it's a grey area. Something can be perfectly fluffy, and obscenely powerful too...

But that's exactly the point. People have this crazy idea that we should just be designing our lists based on fluff... but it's perfectly possible to create a fluffy list that is broken as all gak. And it's no less broken just because you created it based on which units you like the look of rather than which units are statistically better.

This idea that the game is better if you just play for fluff is misguided at best. Because if you play that way and completely ignore the actual effectiveness of the units you are choosing, you wind up being completely blindsided when you wind up with an army that is completely useless on the table... or when you get branded as 'that guy' for showing up to a 'friendly' game with a power list.


Playing for fluff doesn't fix the game. It just hides the problems until you stumble across them by accident.

You need some kind of rules to define structure, and resolution mechanics, obviously.

Do you? Isn't that just going to get in the way of your cool story?

A lot of people who spout the 'forge a narrative' stuff seem to have this idea that you're not playing against your opponent and that you really should be treating it more like a roleplaying game where you completely disregard the idea of a 'winner' and a 'looser' and just make a story together.

There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with telling people that's how the game is supposed to be played.

First and foremost it is a game with two opposing players and a win condition that they have to compete for. At it's very basics it pits two players against each other, that's simply the nature of games in general.
You can't fault people for wanting to play that way, just like we can't fault you for wanting to play your way. We can, however, fault GW for making a game that for five editions worked that way then all of a sudden starts telling us to 'forge a narrative'.

 jonolikespie wrote:
A lot of people who spout the 'forge a narrative' stuff seem to have this idea that you're not playing against your opponent and that you really should be treating it more like a roleplaying game where you completely disregard the idea of a 'winner' and a 'looser' and just make a story together.

There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with telling people that's how the game is supposed to be played.

First and foremost it is a game with two opposing players and a win condition that they have to compete for. At it's very basics it pits two players against each other, that's simply the nature of games in general.
You can't fault people for wanting to play that way, just like we can't fault you for wanting to play your way. We can, however, fault GW for making a game that for five editions worked that way then all of a sudden starts telling us to 'forge a narrative'.

This. The game is literally BASED on wargaming (and WHFB even more so as it gestated directly from historical wargaming), where by definition you are having a game where one person wins, and one person loses. Even Rogue Trader, which was closer to a roleplaying game (even required a GM) was still a friendly competition between two people. I don't know of anybody who sits down to play 40k and thinks "Man, we really forged a great narrative" after the game, because the game is and always has been about trying to win (not necessarily WAAC type of stuff, but very few people play a game and intend to lose).

That's the very definition of a two player game.

insaniak wrote:
But that's exactly the point. People have this crazy idea that we should just be designing our lists based on fluff... but it's perfectly possible to create a fluffy list that is broken as all gak. And it's no less broken just because you created it based on which units you like the look of rather than which units are statistically better.

This idea that the game is better if you just play for fluff is misguided at best. Because if you play that way and completely ignore the actual effectiveness of the units you are choosing, you wind up being completely blindsided when you wind up with an army that is completely useless on the table... or when you get branded as 'that guy' for showing up to a 'friendly' game with a power list.


Playing for fluff doesn't fix the game. It just hides the problems until you stumble across them by accident.

Agreed 100%.

insaniak wrote:

You need some kind of rules to define structure, and resolution mechanics, obviously.

Do you? Isn't that just going to get in the way of your cool story?

Yes, you do. Like I said, you need some form of resolution mechanic, and ways to interact with the game, otherwise I might as well just write a book.

jonolikespie wrote:A lot of people who spout the 'forge a narrative' stuff seem to have this idea that you're not playing against your opponent and that you really should be treating it more like a roleplaying game where you completely disregard the idea of a 'winner' and a 'looser' and just make a story together.

There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with telling people that's how the game is supposed to be played.

First and foremost it is a game with two opposing players and a win condition that they have to compete for. At it's very basics it pits two players against each other, that's simply the nature of games in general.
You can't fault people for wanting to play that way, just like we can't fault you for wanting to play your way. We can, however, fault GW for making a game that for five editions worked that way then all of a sudden starts telling us to 'forge a narrative'.

To an extent, I will agree. However, whilst I agree it's wrong to say 'this is how it should be played', I would argue strongly that 'this is a way it can be played'.

Saying it's two opposing players and a single win condition is also true only some of the time. Some of my fondest memories of gw games were the ones at the start of fourth Using a random mission generator. each player rolled for deployment type and mission objective. It was quite fun, in that both players could gave completely different objectives. But I digress...

I can't fault people for wanting to play a pick up and play game. However. I think there is a strong argument that gw games aren't very well suited for that type of game mode. All the bickering in these forums us just one example-40k has no direction.. Saying it worked for five editions is also untrue. Rt was a step shy of bring an rpg, and even had a gm. The editions from second to fifth could be played in a pick up and play manner, but I'd argue the rampant imbalances inherent in the game through all that time really meant that, just as now, it wasn't the best way of playing the game. Now in sixth, it's less of a case of a new direction, and more of gw dragging the game, kicking and screaming, over all the protestations of its player base to a place where they want it to be, rather than where the player base wants it. I almost feel gw wants to push the game, and unbalance the game to such an extent that you have to sit down with your buddies and discuss what you want out of it, rightly or (presumably) wrongly...

jonolikespie, please don't get me wrong. Generally, I agree with what you have to say. I'm one of those that pushes for balanced, tight rules as the way forward. ideally, we should be able to turn up and just play, if that's what you want. The games we play should be balanced, should support a wide variety of play styles and should cater to all types of players. However, sadly, we don't live in an ideal situation. And rather than bicker for years on the internet over an idealised vision of 'what should be', that will never come to pass (gw don't listen, they'll continue to make the game they want to make, not west we want to make), I'd rather just be practical, and deal with the reality as it exists on the ground.

As I see it, if I'm in a situation where the games I play don't give me what I'm looking for, I have three real options.

Suck it up and continue as is, despite the mounting frustration.
Take a break and walk away, maybe play something else for a while.
Tweak what you play to suit your needs.

Deadnight wrote:
Now in sixth, it's less of a case of a new direction, and more of gw dragging the game, kicking and screaming, over all the protestations of its player base to a place where they want it to be, rather than where the player base wants it. I almost feel gw wants to push the game, and unbalance the game to such an extent that you have to sit down with your buddies and discuss what you want out of it, rightly or (presumably) wrongly...

I wouldn't be surprised if GW did this deliberately to snub their noses at the people who want a competitive gaming scene, since their mind the "right" way to play is to discuss a lot of things beforehand with your opponent over the type of game you want and everything.

WayneTheGame wrote:


I wouldn't be surprised if GW did this deliberately to snub their noses at the people who want a competitive gaming scene, since their mind the "right" way to play is to discuss a lot of things beforehand with your opponent over the type of game you want and everything.

To be fair, it wouldn't surprise me if they're happy to snub their noses at the casual 'pick up and play' players as well. Remember, gw's 'ideal', judging by how their 'big Names'' play, and talk about gaming, is as part of a group of friends meeting at each other's houses at the weekend or evening, rolling some dice and playing co-operative. Everything else, I think they feel is window dressing.

@WayneTheGame.
Yes GW plc put PV and F.O.C. in the rules to make people think they are suitable for pick up game and tournament play.
And then tell them , oh no we just guess at those, as they are not as important as the 'cinematic narrative.'

And then wonder why lots of players say 40k has awful balance.

IF GW plc actually had enough conviction and commitment to cinematic - narrative game play.To remove P.V and F.O.C from their rules.
And just tell the players to make up cool rules and scenarios/campaigns like the game devs do...

I would have a bit more respect for them as a company.

Just using the term 'narrative' and 'cinematic' to replace 'apathy' and 'greed' wins them no favors.

See, I think that if a game should be balances, should be able to pick up and play, ect, but can't then it's not suddenly a matter of playing it a different way, it's just a serious problem with the game.

 jonolikespie wrote:
See, I think that if a game should be balances, should be able to pick up and play, ect, but can't then it's not suddenly a matter of playing it a different way, it's just a serious problem with the game.

What's always gotten me is that they could have both, they *choose* not to. It's certainly possible to have a well-written and balanced set of core rules and then toss things like buying terrain, fortifications, flyers, LoWs, random charts and the like in a supplement that's meant to add a more cinematic/narrative flavor to your games. The people who want it can use it, and those who don't (e.g. tournaments, stores for pick-up games) don't have to bog the game down with it.

That would have been the intelligent thing to do, as it appeases everybody instead of giving the finger to a portion of your playerbase because they're "doing it wrong".

Points values and the FOC are a copy of the way that WRG Ancients rules work, that were specifically written for competitive wargames.

There are other historical games that use completely different and "fluffy, narrative" ways of generating your army.

In Fire & Fury, you pick a historical battle and divide the number of troops by a factor to get the number of models to represent it on the table.

In Polemos "Marechal de l'Empire", you roll on structured force composition tables to see what your army will consist of, semi-randomly.

GW ran and sponsored competitions in 40K for years.