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.

This isn't exactly a solid point, it's just some thoughts I've had bouncing around in my head for the past few days and I'm curious what everyone else has to say.


When playing a new video game, or a sequel that introduces a lot of new elements, one of the most important things that the game can do is teach players how they're supposed to play the game. I'm not talking about mechanics, exactly, but more the kind of thought process that you're supposed to use - Priming players to get ready for puzzles, or to be prepared for lots of cover-based shooting, or whether an aggressive approach will be awarded over a cautious, safe one.
If done well, though, this tutorial should be invisible: Dark Souls doesn't TELL players that the world is harsh and unforgiving, and that they'll need to be cautious and ready to back out of an area if it's too dangerous, they leave a graveyard full of regenerating skeletons that'll kick your butt if you try to go down there and rush through them.

When a game is done well, you learn what you're supposed to do and how you're supposed to do it without ever thinking about it. Early levels prime players with simple challenges that are set up to make sure they know the mechanics of the game first, but also understand the type of logic that'll be used. (Smaller examples include the way that Portal immediately forces players to look at themselves through a portal when they walk through it, then makes players backtrack through a portal a couple levels in to ensure that players know that portals are two-way.)


To bring up an example of this done poorly, Dark Souls 2 has a lot more battles against groups than Dark Souls 1, where you're expected to forgo a target lock and fight the enemies in a looser, more open way, but the game never explains this, and after playing the first game, most players won't ever consider that the game is supposed to be done that way unless they're just outright told about it.


Which brings me to a question: How is Warhammer 40k 'Supposed' to be played?
I mean, yes, there are 'Three ways to play,' and you can do whatever you want, but that's not really my point. There are clearly certain things that Games Workshop has in mind when they think about the way that players should be experiencing Warhammer. This isn't just 'How competitive should the game be,' either, it applies to such mechanics as:
"How much terrain should we be using?"
"What kind of army comp is encouraged?"
"Should players focus on the mission, or on killing their opponent?"


Obviously, some of this is going to change based off player preference, but at the same time, GW balanced the game with certain setups in mind and others... Not so much. You CAN play it however you want, but if you're doing a 'Throw whatever at the wall and see what sticks' unbound Narrative game with no detachment restrictions where both players bring null deployment, you're clearly not going with what Games Workshop 'Wanted' players to do.

I personally can't really guess what Games Workshop 'intended'. I can guess, but those guesses only go so far. Which brings me to what I feel like has thus far been a huge wasted opportunity on GW's part: The Fate of Konor.


Games Workshop has a great thing here: A series of missions which a huge chunk of the playerbase is going to be playing, coming out right at the start of an edition, which they can use to teach players what they're supposed to do. This is, theoretically, a golden opportunity to implant some behaviors in their player base, to get people thinking about what GW wants them to think about. They have six missions, with which they could teach players basics, then get into advanced ideas about what they were going for. However, it really seems like they haven't been doing this, or if they have, they've just been doing it... Poorly.


Let's take a look at the first few missions and see if I can get my point across this way:
Mission 1, it was a half killpoints/half linebreaker based mission. The unique stategems weren't particularly unique, with the most notable one being a power that increases the radius of 'Aura' effects by 3". This could theoretically be a good way to get players using Aura buffs more, by making them overpowered for one mission so that players get a sense of how useful they can be, but it cost 2 Command Points and only lasted for one turn, making it really inefficient and not really worth it for most players and circumstances.
So what does the mission teach players? That it's... Important to be able to kill enemy units? That mobility and durability are both needed to get into your opponents deployment zone and stay there? One of these lessons seems kind of obvious, and the other seems unhelpful for most games.


Mission 2 was... The exact same mission, actually. They slightly changed the win conditions so that both players can get Killpoints and made movement less important, but it's still pretty danged similar. Modified killpoints. The strategems were again either minor or too expensive - One option being 5+ FNP for one squad for one turn, that cost a whopping two Command Points. It's again just way too expensive, for a relatively little buff. Giving a bonus to heavily armored units is neat in theory, but in practice just means that Space Marines and other Power Armor armies have a flat advantage while Orks and other light armies get left in the dust.


Then we come to this weeks, which I haven't gotten a chance to play in-store yet, but looks just about the same as before. There's some more novelty to it, sure: Having the attacking player kill his own units (Er... Walk them off the board,) in order to get Victory Points is novel, but not something that's a learning experience. They actually seem to be incentivizing certain kinds of play properly (for once,) by giving Vehicles the potential for a huge boost in damage, but that's about the extent of incentivization, and it is so detached from normal play that I can't see it being a learning experience for most players.




There are three missions to go, but so far it's not looking great. There's been nothing with objectives so far, nothing that lets players get to grips with some of the new changes to mechanics, just constant, unceasing variety on Killpoints with minor bonuses for common unit types. It just seems like a massive waste of what could be really, really cool if they put more effort into making this a learning experience instead of just being a slightly novel campaign with some balance issues. It gives me the impression that either Games Workshop doesn't have an intended style of play that they want to encourage, or that they just have no idea how to teach their game to people.


Thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Think I'm full of it?

Great post. Thoughtful. I haven't played this campaign but from past experience seems that GW is lacking in brain bugs. Sad. You may be right in that they have fumbled. I am looking toward to what others have to report.