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.

No one reads the first post of a poll anyways, but here we go anyways

There is an interesting discussion going on in a thread right now talking about how people view what 40k should be.

So how about you?
Do you prefer that 40k puts you on a track that has the battle played out and decided by dice? Do you want the game to regularly foil your carefully laid out plans and go in a completely different direction? Do you enjoy luck being a big factor in what is happening?

Or do you prefer that you are in charge of what is happening in the game, being able to interact with and react to things happening on the table?

And yes, there is no "other" option, you need to decide for one or the other, either you want to be in charge, your don't.

 Jidmah wrote:

Do you prefer that 40k puts you on a track that has the battle played out and decided by dice? Do you want the game to regularly foil your carefully laid out plans and go in a completely different direction? Do you enjoy luck being a big factor in what is happening?

I'd vote for this. I don't want 40k to be a game about players' skills, in fact I can't stand those who keep track of their W-L-D record or want to prove something at the tables. To me it's basically just an excuse for adults to play with (expensive) toys .

The current version of 40k is very close to the kind of game I want it to be.

A good game. It doesn't really matter to me how the game plays out as long as I have fun and the game is engaging.

A good, fast-paced, fun game that makes me go "Damn, this was smart!", "A neat move!", "Wow, I would never think of that solution!" "How you managed to pull that off was real genius!" "Now I know exactly what I should have done and in what order" "This decision could have been better by doing XXX" "Next time I will plan this more carefully" and so on all the time.

All this with awesome background and cool models.

 Jidmah wrote:

Do you prefer that 40k puts you on a track that has the battle played out and decided by dice? Do you want the game to regularly foil your carefully laid out plans and go in a completely different direction? Do you enjoy luck being a big factor in what is happening?

Or do you prefer that you are in charge of what is happening in the game, being able to interact with and react to things happening on the table?

But... what do these two question blocks have to do with the two options in the poll?

You seem to be making a distinction and then not telling anyone what it is.

A fun "beer and pretzels" type of game with simple rules at first glance for beginners but there is actually quite a bit of depth to the rules for strategic opportunities the more you become familiar with the rules. Plus some random elements to add spice to the game, yet not overpower the core rules.

Blood Bowl is probably my favorite GW game and that is an example of the type of rules I prefer: simple, easy-to-learn rules for beginners, yet advanced players with experience should always have a better chance at winning due to the strategic depth of the game that is not obvious at first to beginners.

The new version of 40k Apocalypse is probably the closest to my ideal. Simplified datasheets with excellent use of basic Universal Special Rules (ex. "Deep Strike" means the same thing for all units that have that keyword), an orders system with alternating detachment activations so that one player is not waiting too long for the other player (the timing/ordering of activations can actually impact the game quite a bit), end-of-round damage calculations so both sides get to fight and use all of their models for at least one turn, reduced lethality compared to modern 9th 40k, and a card system that introduces some random/surprise elements to spice the game up.

I'm not gonna vote in your poll because I disagree with your definitions of the two terms.

But from my own understanding I lean more simulationist for wargames. I prefer it if stuff works how I expect it should and I prefer for the mechanics to try to simulate what would happen. I find this leads to more satisfying play and better stories.

I like games where the rules are done in a way that reward the player for using clever, real life like tactics, without forcing it into it in a way most historical and simulation games do.

Thats very difficult, making "game rules" that are done to reward actual tactical , real life like gameplay. But are the best games because someone that knows gak about the game can jump into, apply the knowledge about strategy they have, and have a fun game.

Examples are Warhammer Fantasy. Warhammer Fantasy was an horrible simulation game that tried to force you to use "real life" tactics by comvulated rules that removed player agency (Like the whole combat phase) but it all came down to using 5 man undead wolf units to diverge your opponent 20 man chaos warrior block and charge it into the flank.

MESBG in the other hand has a streamlined ruleset that can nearly be applied to all kind of backgrounds, even modern or scifi, and it would work nearly just as good, where using real life tactics is expected, and flanking or charging a formation from the rear comes naturally without +1 to wound from the back , closed units or flanks. And it has a ton of player agency, from heroes to monsters, even in combat, where basic warriors can make special moves with their weapons and theres a full heroe minigame of spending might agaisnt another rival hero in combat to buff rolls or use special moves.

I'm all for game.

When I want reality, I just live my life.

I could never understand why my cousins thought playing with toy cars was fun. If I wanted to play with cars, I'd ask to ride along any time someone was going out, or I'd sit in my dad's car and pretend I was driving.

Who needs toys to represent things that exist? Who needs a war simulator when the reserves are always looking for people and shooting ranges exist?

Obviously there's some hyperbole going on here... It isn't as black and white as I'm making it for the purpose of illustrating the point.

But generally I'm looking for fun and escapism when I play games, and that's what I was always looking for when I played with toys too.

 Jidmah wrote:
No one reads the first post of a poll anyways, but here we go anyways

There is an interesting discussion going on in a thread right now talking about how people view what 40k should be.

So how about you?
Do you prefer that 40k puts you on a track that has the battle played out and decided by dice? Do you want the game to regularly foil your carefully laid out plans and go in a completely different direction? Do you enjoy luck being a big factor in what is happening?

Or do you prefer that you are in charge of what is happening in the game, being able to interact with and react to things happening on the table?

And yes, there is no "other" option, you need to decide for one or the other, either you want to be in charge, your don't.

I am not sure how the game options is suppose to be achived, when the rules set to play is writen by another person. The whole idea of w40k, is that fun or not fun, you play the game the way GW wants the game to be played.

I also don't understand the luck question. w40k is a game where most things are decided with dice rolls, meaning luck is always involved for luck to not be involved dice rolling would have to be removed. I mean the game , for good armies at least, is all about playing soliter with minimal interaction or possible reaction from the opponent, and the rolls being so optimised that it is practically impossible to fail them. So I guess I would say simulation, but only because I can imagine how to make a game function without dice rollings or rule sets.

I'd like 40k to be a tight, well-balanced ruleset with plenty of customization allowed in your forces, with minimal to no special characters that can't just be made from generic options.

I acknowledge the first bit (tight, well-balanced ruleset) is bordering on impossible, but I'd at least like to have loads of customization.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No one reads the first post of a poll anyways, but here we go anyways

There is an interesting discussion going on in a thread right now talking about how people view what 40k should be.

So how about you?
Do you prefer that 40k puts you on a track that has the battle played out and decided by dice? Do you want the game to regularly foil your carefully laid out plans and go in a completely different direction? Do you enjoy luck being a big factor in what is happening?

Or do you prefer that you are in charge of what is happening in the game, being able to interact with and react to things happening on the table?

And yes, there is no "other" option, you need to decide for one or the other, either you want to be in charge, your don't.

I am not sure how the game options is suppose to be achived, when the rules set to play is writen by another person. The whole idea of w40k, is that fun or not fun, you play the game the way GW wants the game to be played.

I also don't understand the luck question. w40k is a game where most things are decided with dice rolls, meaning luck is always involved for luck to not be involved dice rolling would have to be removed. I mean the game , for good armies at least, is all about playing soliter with minimal interaction or possible reaction from the opponent, and the rolls being so optimised that it is practically impossible to fail them. So I guess I would say simulation, but only because I can imagine how to make a game function without dice rollings or rule sets.

As an example:
You want to shoot at an enemy unit. It is behind another enemy unit that you do not want to shoot at.
For the simulation option: You roll dice to see whether the unit you're asking to shoot listens to you. If the dice roll fails, they shoot at the closer unit, because either they didn't get "your" order (as a simulation game, you represent the commander rather than an omniscient god-like player) or because they were too scared of the closer unit, or whatever. Then you roll to see how well your unit shoots at that unit, and they roll dice to see how well their armor works.
In the Game option: You say "My unit is going to shoot that unit", and you roll dice to see how well your unit shoots that unit, and they roll dice to see how well their armor works.

One is all about your decisions (Game) and one is filtering your decisions through the rules of the games to see if your decisions stick (simulation)

Both.

I like the game to have a dollop of randomness. It keeps things interesting. One fun thing about wargames is dealing with what happens when the luck does not break your way.

But it shouldn’t be all consuming. If things get too random, then why bother making decisions? Excessive randomness takes the agency away from the players and puts everything on the dice. But with too little, you end up with formulaic set pieces, where the results are pre-ordained.

From a personal POV, I try to minimize randomness. Way back in WHFB, I played Undead. The whole psychology thing? That was for other people to deal with. My troops never panicked, never ran in fear. They stood and died where I ordered them. Sure, there were trade offs, but I was willing to make them.

Similarly, back in 40k I chose Ultras early on. Other armies might have a 1-in-6 chance of charging the enemy, or stubbornly refusing to move, or being forced to charge. But the Ultras followed orders. Sure, we didn’t get blood-soaked blenders, or special snowflake rules. But we followed the codex and won the battle.

As for game/simulation, again, there is a balance. If you do things that would work on a “real” battlefield, they should work on the table. But there needs to be abstractions, or the game will be bogged down in details.

Rihgu wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No one reads the first post of a poll anyways, but here we go anyways

There is an interesting discussion going on in a thread right now talking about how people view what 40k should be.

So how about you?
Do you prefer that 40k puts you on a track that has the battle played out and decided by dice? Do you want the game to regularly foil your carefully laid out plans and go in a completely different direction? Do you enjoy luck being a big factor in what is happening?

Or do you prefer that you are in charge of what is happening in the game, being able to interact with and react to things happening on the table?

And yes, there is no "other" option, you need to decide for one or the other, either you want to be in charge, your don't.

I am not sure how the game options is suppose to be achived, when the rules set to play is writen by another person. The whole idea of w40k, is that fun or not fun, you play the game the way GW wants the game to be played.

I also don't understand the luck question. w40k is a game where most things are decided with dice rolls, meaning luck is always involved for luck to not be involved dice rolling would have to be removed. I mean the game , for good armies at least, is all about playing soliter with minimal interaction or possible reaction from the opponent, and the rolls being so optimised that it is practically impossible to fail them. So I guess I would say simulation, but only because I can imagine how to make a game function without dice rollings or rule sets.

As an example:
You want to shoot at an enemy unit. It is behind another enemy unit that you do not want to shoot at.
For the simulation option: You roll dice to see whether the unit you're asking to shoot listens to you. If the dice roll fails, they shoot at the closer unit, because either they didn't get "your" order (as a simulation game, you represent the commander rather than an omniscient god-like player) or because they were too scared of the closer unit, or whatever. Then you roll to see how well your unit shoots at that unit, and they roll dice to see how well their armor works.
In the Game option: You say "My unit is going to shoot that unit", and you roll dice to see how well your unit shoots that unit, and they roll dice to see how well their armor works.

One is all about your decisions (Game) and one is filtering your decisions through the rules of the games to see if your decisions stick (simulation)

There are issues with that, though.

Let's say I have a Devastator squad with Heavy Bolters. Perfect for killing Nobs. And guess what? There's a squad of 10 Nobs 12" from my Devastator squad! And a singular Grot 9" away, in between Devastators and the Nobs. Why would they EVER shoot the Grot? It might be closer, but it's one weedy little Grot-they might not even see it, or if they do, they know it's no threat, whereas those Nobs are a BIG threat.

Edit: I guess to clear up my point, even with rules that are supposed to be simulationist, you can get situations where it makes no sense. So you might as well let the player have control-it might make for stuff that (if the battlefield was real) seems wonky, but a player can choose to avoid that if they're playing for the narrative, or choose to do the tactically optimal thing if they're more interested in the game side.

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm all for game.

When I want reality, I just live my life.

I could never understand why my cousins thought playing with toy cars was fun. If I wanted to play with cars, I'd ask to ride along any time someone was going out, or I'd sit in my dad's car and pretend I was driving.

Who needs toys to represent things that exist? Who needs a war simulator when the reserves are always looking for people and shooting ranges exist?

Obviously there's some hyperbole going on here... It isn't as black and white as I'm making it for the purpose of illustrating the point.

But generally I'm looking for fun and escapism when I play games, and that's what I was always looking for when I played with toys too.

Of course there's some hyperbole on what you said but some comparisons aren't fair. I mean who needs a war simulator when mass shooting exist? Especially in those countries where weapons are sold like candies? That's the real comparison. People enjoy a narrative that involves shooting at "creatures", not paper targets. That's why wargames or 1st/3rd person shooters are not an alternative to the range, they're completely different things. I like war stuff for example, like 40k, but I would hate to actually fire with a real weapon. Reserves may be looking for people, but actual soldiers can easily get injuried, even during training. And let's not even discuss the chance of getting real action, if there's an emergency. That's definitely not gonna happen if you "just" play with a simulator.

Take the toy car example, some people may like races with vehicles, not just driving or sitting in one. That's why playing with toys in a way that represents a race may be more satisfying that pretenting to drive dad's car in the while it's parked in the garage. And speeding with real vehicles is illegal and dangerous.

"Toys" to represent things that exist have a strong purpose, as they don't come with all problems that those things that already exist carry with them.

I want the game to be FUN without absurd abstractions*.

*Such as being able to shoot you with my antena, shooting left side mounted sponson weapons through the right side of the tank, firing a vindicators front-facing hull mounted gun out it's ass, table sizes tied to pts lvs, etc

I think there's a huge chunk of design space between "too deterministic" and "too random". To me current 40k has moved far to the deterministic end; it's so easy to make everything operate at full efficiency every turn I feel like I could write out the game tree and do all the math required to see who will win on one sheet of paper. We're rolling so many dice with so many re-rolls that the averages come strongly to the fore, the table's so short compared to movement ranges and weapon ranges that it's trivial to get a shot on what you want when you want it most of the time, everything lands where you put it, all abilities go off automatically. (This is hyperbole, yes, but not by much.) I don't want who wins the game to become random or the game to have no player agency, but I want to be surprised now and again.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm not gonna vote in your poll because I disagree with your definitions of the two terms.

But from my own understanding I lean more simulationist for wargames. I prefer it if stuff works how I expect it should and I prefer for the mechanics to try to simulate what would happen. I find this leads to more satisfying play and better stories.

Exalted. Saved me typing the same thing again.

I think the definition crosses a lot of territory - but by and large I want a game where you can look at the decisions you made and think "I won/lost it here - or at least "I played well/made mistakes" rather than "we rolled some dice and I came off better/worse".

But equally I want rules to be vaguely stimulatory of how I see the fluff. In my view if a Bloodthirster charges say a Rhino, then 9 times in 10, more maybe, that Rhino should be very dead. (And tbf, it probably is - but equally this is very inefficient.)

The problems I think is when say a Carnifex runs into a Rhino. I think the Rhino should probably be toast - and it isn't really (unless the Tyrranid player gets very lucky). Instead the Rhino maybe takes some wounds and then is free to back up going "that's a thing that happened".

But these are potentially the road to bloat. For instance I think there should be some sort of "duel" mechanic between characters - to get around the fact you have X charges Y, X insta-kills Y the end - but equally if Y charges X, Y insta-kills X the end. It sort of works in game, but it doesn't feel very epic to have these supposedly legendary warriors chop each other to death without any capacity to respond. But stacking saves so the result is "moar random" doesn't feel fun or interesting.

 Blackie wrote:


Of course there's some hyperbole on what you said but some comparisons aren't fair. I mean who needs a war simulator when mass shooting exist? Especially in those countries where weapons are sold like candies? That's the real comparison. People enjoy a narrative that involves shooting at "creatures", not paper targets. That's why wargames or 1st/3rd person shooters are not an alternative to the range, they're completely different things. I like war stuff for example, like 40k, but I would hate to actually fire with a real weapon. Reserves may be looking for people, but actual soldiers can easily get injuried, even during training. And let's not even discuss the chance of getting real action, if there's an emergency. That's definitely not gonna happen if you "just" play with a simulator.

Yeah, I realized just as I hit the post button that paintball or laser tag would have been better examples, but I had other stuff to do, so I didn't immediately hit the edit button and revise. Even with paintball and laser tag though, your point does still hold- especially for folks with compromised mobility, etc.

 Blackie wrote:

Take the toy car example, some people may like races with vehicles, not just driving or sitting in one. That's why playing with toys in a way that represents a race may be more satisfying that pretenting to drive dad's car in the while it's parked in the garage. And speeding with real vehicles is illegal and dangerous.

Also a good point, and funny enough, one of the cousins did grow up to be a drag racer.

That's why I said up front that I was using hyperbole; perhaps a better way of stating my point would be to simply say that I personally prefer games to simulations, because I personally choose to engage action which can be simulated directly- I guess it's more about my personality than a generalization. There was a great Xbox game once upon a time (I think it might have been called Kengo) that simulated Katana/ Daisho fighting better than any other video game I've ever played, but actually doing Kendo was way cooler, especially after the Niten-Ryu style started to make in roads into South Western Ontario where I live.

 Blackie wrote:


"Toys" to represent things that exist have a strong purpose, as they don't come with all problems that those things that already exist carry with them.

Also true- I loved staging sword fights with Star Wars toys, which probably planted the seed that grew into Kendo, just like Hot Wheels were probably the seed that made Tim a racer. Both of us started playing with toys before we were old enough to pursue weapon based martial arts or ride go-karts in real life.

I do, however, still prefer games to simulations though, because as an adult, anything I care about enough to simulate is either more fun in real life or has other ways of simulating it that aren't games.

Fun

Neither. Both options seem off, and leave out the opponent entirely as well

 solkan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Do you prefer that 40k puts you on a track that has the battle played out and decided by dice? Do you want the game to regularly foil your carefully laid out plans and go in a completely different direction? Do you enjoy luck being a big factor in what is happening?

Or do you prefer that you are in charge of what is happening in the game, being able to interact with and react to things happening on the table?

But... what do these two question blocks have to do with the two options in the poll?

You seem to be making a distinction and then not telling anyone what it is.

The first one is referring to the simulation where you, the player, don't actually have the power to decide what will be happening.

The second one is the the game where you control everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
Both.

I like the game to have a dollop of randomness. It keeps things interesting. One fun thing about wargames is dealing with what happens when the luck does not break your way.

But it shouldn’t be all consuming. If things get too random, then why bother making decisions? Excessive randomness takes the agency away from the players and puts everything on the dice. But with too little, you end up with formulaic set pieces, where the results are pre-ordained.

From a personal POV, I try to minimize randomness. Way back in WHFB, I played Undead. The whole psychology thing? That was for other people to deal with. My troops never panicked, never ran in fear. They stood and died where I ordered them. Sure, there were trade offs, but I was willing to make them.

Similarly, back in 40k I chose Ultras early on. Other armies might have a 1-in-6 chance of charging the enemy, or stubbornly refusing to move, or being forced to charge. But the Ultras followed orders. Sure, we didn’t get blood-soaked blenders, or special snowflake rules. But we followed the codex and won the battle.

As for game/simulation, again, there is a balance. If you do things that would work on a “real” battlefield, they should work on the table. But there needs to be abstractions, or the game will be bogged down in details.

Essentially, you are saying you prefer option 2 by a far margin. The "simulation" part might be badly named, but that's what the people favoring that playstyle called it in the other thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Neither. Both options seem off, and leave out the opponent entirely as well

Come on, this isn't that hard. Do you prefer having control over where your army moves, what to shoot, who to charge, or do you want the game to take over parts of that and tell you how/where to move, what to shoot and who to charge, what abilities to use?

It would be symmetrical for you and your opponent either way.

 Jidmah wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Neither. Both options seem off, and leave out the opponent entirely as well

Come on, this isn't that hard. Do you prefer having control over where your army moves, what to shoot, who to charge, or do you want the game to take over parts of that and tell you how/where to move, what to shoot and who to charge, what abilities to use?

It would be symmetrical for you and your opponent either way.

You mean you find it totally incomprehensible that someone might think more control is sometimes better and sometimes worse?

100% Simulationist. I want to make choices with fuzzy knowledge of the enemy's exact position and use rules and unit abilities to (partially) clear the fog of war. I want my units to have actions that they'll do when out of command that I can alter slightly by picking different division commanders and different levels of unit quality.

Different factions should enjoy getting to 'break' different rules. Like one faction might be able to call in air support a turn earlier and spend less command to do so while another might be able to spawn in infantry units from buildings rather than board edges.

 Jidmah wrote:

Voss wrote:
Neither. Both options seem off, and leave out the opponent entirely as well

Come on, this isn't that hard. Do you prefer having control over where your army moves, what to shoot, who to charge, or do you want the game to take over parts of that and tell you how/where to move, what to shoot and who to charge, what abilities to use?

It would be symmetrical for you and your opponent either way.

Ha.. oh, you're serious? That's the kind of loaded question you meant?

That's... not what 'simulation' and 'game' mean in any way at all. And yes, there is a lot of wasted ink and theory on this kind of subject matter.

The first one is referring to the simulation where you, the player, don't actually have the power to decide what will be happening.

The second one is the the game where you control everything.

Both of those are 100% unappealing at all times. Neither is, in any real sense, a game.

I loved the change from simulation of the 7th edition charge, fight and morale phase to the game of 8th edition charge, fight and morale phase. I love Stratagems and secondary objectives in theory, giving me additional choices to manipulate the mission or my unit's abilities as I see fit.

Why are you guys being so hostile about this? I am merely asking for your preferences.

It's really baffling how many people are getting toxic about a simple question. And for sure it takes quite a bit of paranoia to assume anything but curiosity behind this - maybe you should take a break from these forums if a simple "what kind of game do you like?" makes you fling insults and suspicions around.

"THatS noT WHat ThOSe TErmS MEan!!!!111" - who cares! I clearly defined two opposing ways to approach the game and it doesn't matter one bit which lable was attached to them.

My drive was merely to understand some people better when they write stuff. But I guess that's what you get for posting on dakka.

 Jidmah wrote:
Why are you guys being so hostile about this? I am merely asking for your preferences.

And then you directly told us that you don't want some of our answers.

So screw your poll.

 Jidmah wrote:
Why are you guys being so hostile about this? I am merely asking for your preferences.

It's really baffling how many people are getting toxic about a simple question. And for sure it takes quite a bit of paranoia to assume anything but curiosity behind this - maybe you should take a break from these forums if a simple "what kind of game do you like?" makes you fling insults and suspicions around.

"THatS noT WHat ThOSe TErmS MEan!!!!111" - who cares! I clearly defined two opposing ways to approach the game and it doesn't matter one bit which lable was attached to them.

My drive was merely to understand some people better when they write stuff. But I guess that's what you get for posting on dakka.

Because simulation =/= deterministic, nor does game mean non deterministic. You show a fundamental lack of understanding and are making conflated and loaded statements in order to get the results you are looking for.

If you want an equivalent of simulation vs game, look at alpha strike vs total warfare in battletech.....

This discussion has been meaningless because you intentionally undermined it.