Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So what do you plan on playing the most Open, Narrative or Matched play in 8th?

{You can choose more than one}

And why would be nice, but...

I chose Matched play.

Open is too simple (take a blob of blah!)

I don't often find other people for narrative campaigns, though may have a couple of games against an ultramarines dude I know (as I think the first campaign of 8th will feature those two).

Generally will be having matched play. I like deciding what options my squad has etc.

Lol how can we decide if we don't know the rules and limitations for them ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In 7th I prefer unbound with casual fluffy players over bound with crazy free formation bonuses and horrible lists that look nothing like an army.. But meh we haven't seen 8th

 oldzoggy wrote:
Lol how can we decide if we don't know the rules and limitations for them ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In 7th I prefer unbound with casual fluffy players over bound with crazy free formation bonuses and horrible lists that look nothing like an army.. But meh we haven't seen 8th

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/

doesn't add much to what we already knew.
We don't know if open play is just, grab your models and have fun no need to calculate points ( bad ) or a re-branded version of unbound (ok-ish) and we don't have any idea how restrictive and balanced matched play really is.

I'm a narrative player. Narrative all the way from Terra to the Eye of Terror

For example there is currently no way to play a corrupted forest army in AoS in matched play, because you can't mix Nurgle / beastmen with Sylvaneth. Something that would be perfectly possible with 7th style rules. This makes matched play too restrictive for me. However this doesn't make me want to play an AoS style open play game with no points. I generally dislike narrative playstyle games since it isn't play 100% fluffy as much as it is play with this list of units vs that list of units, removing most of the fun for me out of the game.

I'm guessing matched play will be my thing.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I'm guessing matched play` will be my thing.

My guess is that nearly all of us only play matched play if the rules are something like this.

Open: No points AoS style
Matched play: More restrictive Battle forged
Narrative: Reenactment of battles with fixed units on both sides.

Open and narrative are just no viable option for casual a pick up game even if matched play is too restrictive for your taste. But who knows they could just make narrative or open play really interesting somehow.

As I have a bunch of friends who are new.. I can see a fair bunch of narrative being played.. until they are set up fully

Are you sure ? For all current GW narrative missions I know of require quite a large collection of models ( as in I can hardly play any of them with my huge collection of models )

 oldzoggy wrote:
Are you sure ? For all current GW narrative missions I know of require quite a large collection of models ( as in I can hardly play any of them with my huge collection of models )

The description they had for 'Narrative paly' was that you have unit costs but not wargear

So you can build an army close to each other, it isn't built on story missions

I am curious about narrative play; is it set scenarios where you must have exactly those units or are you free to select something based on a very limited pool of choices? Are the points set for this consistent across narratives (essentially making it another version of Matched Play) or are each point value calculated on a per-narrative basis? How would we go about making our own narrative campaigns if the points are not consistent across narrative scenarios (i.e: what makes it different than Open Play)?

I think Matched Play will be the most popular, but Narrative definitely has my interest.

GodDamUser wrote:


The description they had for 'Narrative paly' was that you have unit costs but not wargear

So you can build an army close to each other, it isn't built on story missions

Am I missing some info ?

This is what is on the community site

Narrative play is just what it sounds like – fighting battles based on stories from the far future, whether from campaign books, Black Library novels or legends of your own creation. Perhaps they even form part of an ongoing campaign, or are set in the notorious war zones of the 41st Millennium, such as Armageddon, Cadia, Fenris, Baal… the list goes on. Playing games that tell part of a larger story is what narrative play is all about.

Suggestions for missions that can form the basis of open or narrative play games (including the return of the classic Warhammer 40,000 battle “Meatgrinder”), as well as suggestions on historical and campaign games are all available in the new edition

Thanks to some awesome friends I've learned to enjoy narrative play, but my heart will always be in matched, my best vs their best, may the best man win.

Matched.

I might touch Narrative if it has really good campaign rules.

I can't think of a reason I'd go anywhere near Open.

Mostly matched as a lot of our club games are turn up with stuff and fight and we want to have a reasonable expectation of a "fair game" rather than the crap that was 7th.

Narrative should be interesting but we do those when one of us has time (less and less likely) to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mostly matched as a lot of our club games are turn up with stuff and fight and we want to have a reasonable expectation of a "fair game" rather than the crap that was 7th.

Narrative should be interesting but we do those when one of us has time (less and less likely) to do.

Ok now that a few have posted what they are doing/thinking I will post my.

I am all for the open as much of the small group we play is. I know open is not for everyone, but for us we think it will work.

When I play my Space Wolves I have a Core that I always take.
>2 Special Characters, one is normally a Rune Priest
>2 or 4 Grey Hunter Pack
>2 Blood Claws Pack
>1 Long Fang Pack
>Enough Wolf Guard to give each Pack one.
>2 Lone Wolves
>3 Land Speeders

My group know this and over the years have built a similar Core. So now we can just pull out our Core and if I am in the mood toss in a Dread or Leman Russ and not have to worry if the points are going to be over or two less.

We are also what a call a Dr. Pepper and Chips kind of group (Not big on beer and pretzels)

Narrative Play seems like my kind of thing. I am more interested in seeing how Open Play works, and I could possibly be more inclined to play it over Match Play.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Narrative Play seems like my kind of thing. I am more interested in seeing how Open Play works, and I could possibly be more inclined to play it over Match Play.

Open works with BattleTech real well and I have been playing it from the start. As long as both sides are willing to just have a good time and winning is not everything it can be a blast.
For the Narrative game we once played sort of an Open game more than once that was a blast.
You started a game with 1 HQ and 2 Troops. When one unit was lost, just bring in another unit on your next turn. The game played quick and we got to bring in a lot of stuff we had not played in a long time. The objective was to get a Relic off the table top...I think. After 6 hours we stopped caring about the objective.

Matched, but I can see plenty of use for Narative as well.

Matched hands down. Narrative is to open for people wanting to be marry sues for their army, I'm not down for getting beat up on by some super awesome custom chapter to give some kid his jollies. Open play is also crap because it's a pay to win, show up with the most toys.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Matched hands down. Narrative is to open for people wanting to be marry sues for their army, I'm not down for getting beat up on by some super awesome custom chapter to give some kid his jollies. Open play is also crap because it's a pay to win, show up with the most toys.

True in a lot of Cases, but if you have the right group of players there is not much of a problem. As for myself, I would never pop down 100 Thunderwolf Cavalry with Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields, unless the other guy was ok with it. I would also expect him to drop down 50+ Tervagaunts as a counter if he wanted to take on that Army.

We are also a close nit group and know what most other players have. If we had a new player who only had what was out of the starter we would just tone down what we are bringing and we have all done that. We also tend to play what we think is cool not the best. I have no problem bringing my Guard list with Rough Riders and bloated command squads vs a dozen Venerable Dreadnoughts just for s and giggles.

If happen to play in a competitive area or one that is always in 'Tournament Mode' I would not expect to see much Open play.

As is was said about AoS, if you don't want to TFG and your opponent does not want to be TFG, there is usually not many problems.

As for Pay to win, been playing Space Wolves since 89, the only stuff I don't have in buckets is the new stuff.

narrative, then matched then open if my understanding is correct.

if somehow open play is balanced sure but not bring the most models to win. I like narrative campaigns where units have names and so do characters within the units. you make an objective that makes sense and go for it. like the orks vs blood angels. blood angels are collecting servo skulls, orks are trying to loot the space marine wrecks, make fair scenario and duke it out with equal points. campaigns are fun too like a strange transmission unrecognized coming from a planet and every faction is interested. fights ensue to take the possible tech troves found there.

matched for tournaments and tournament prep

Narrative all the way, especially now that generalized "power level" point costs allow some measure of balance without accounting for every last meltabomb.

Voted for Match b/c it'll probably be the most accessible in my area and I like the dynamic of a standard match and what it brings (tactics, variable terrain, list-building if balanced, etc).

I also voted for Narrative, b/c I'd LIKE to play Narrative, but I'm not sure if I'll actually get it in consistently, or at all.

I'm sure I will play Matched play. Most of my games are casual pick-up games at the local game store. Matched play is best for that.

I have the most fun when doing narrative gaming, but I suspicious that matched play army comp will be best suited for that as well. I'm hoping I'm wrong. I'll definitely give it a shot.

I'm pretty certain I won't be playing Open play. It's got no reason to exist. Everyone who should be using it will just ignore the rules for army comp instead of playing by the "Open play" rules.

I will play 40K the same way as I do in Age of Sigmar, as is the same way that I play all my wargames now: FOR FUN.

I love the modularity that Age of Sigmar provides by having the three versions of play styles. In my local group for Age of Sigmar, we pretty much use Matched Play points as a guideline for army size, and just play from there, sticking to within on of the Grand Alliances. And it works!

I cannot stand to play in tournaments in 40K as is. Even when our FLGS tries to host a "friendly, casual" tournament, the local WAAC players came in and stomped us casuals hard. That was the final straw for me. Even with restrictions on forcing players to use the CAD and no Allies, the same few players won the whole day, and made it miserable for the rest of us; to the point that one of the Narrative players was even on the verge of tears, as it was his first tournament since 4th edition. If it wasn't for the fact that I bought him dinner and made friends with him, he probably would have quit the game altogether.

Funny enough, the WAAC players weren't too excited about the day either. The prizes weren't store credit llike normal, but some old 40K models that the organizer had in his collection that we wanted to give away. These were like old plastic Space Marines, some pewter Chaos models, and a couple bits bags (all out of print, too!). The WAAC players ended up giving the rest of us their prizes, and seemed disillusioned that those prizes were all they were getting. They weren't happy either!

So to me, any way that we can prevent such awful experiences in 40K is a good thing. By having events that have the keywords on their description for "Narrative" or "Open" or "Matched" will quickly determine what kind of experience you will get in each event. To me, that modularity is Age of Sigmar's greatest strength, and I expect it to be my favorite part of 8th edition 40K.

Open or narrative,
matched play sounds serious business !

I have a question then:
If you or/and your friends wanted to just try something out (New Model/Unit ect.). What option would you use in a non competitive involvement.

Yes I may be pushing the Open Game Addenda, but I think it is viable if everyone is open to it (And into being a WAAC).

Personally from what I have seen there is not Difference to Open and Apoc.