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.

Palindrome wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:
If you want to "forge a narrative", you're better off with a tabletop RPG.

You mean like Rogue Trader?

Yes, like the thing this game stopped being more than twenty years ago.

English Assassin wrote:

wowsmash wrote:I like the randomness of 2d6 for charge. Kinda balances out the fact that you can pre-measure now. I like to use my imagination, when rolls go wrong or really well. To tell a story while the game is playing out, with my opponent if he/she like that to or to myself if not. If everything is pre-determined then the the game is all about calculations and it's boring.

Like all those fixed weapon ranges, eh? In any case, I'd rather have a 'boring' set charge range than endure the endless tedium brought on by pre-measuring.

Like the non-random hit , wound and saves eh?

I keep seeing those who dislike the random charge range querying whether those who like it would want random this or random that. Do those who like things fixed charge distance want to get rid of hit rolls and wound rolls and saves and just have a fixed kill rate (so 10 marines always inflict 5 wounds and marines always ignore 2 out of 3 wounds, no rolls necessary). There are plenty of games with non (or very little) randomness in them, would 40k be better with like that?

I suspect that the majority want some degree of randomness in 40k, but that it is subjective as to when it crosses the line. It may be because it involves just 1 dice like running (lack of some bell curve), or because it is something you would do constantly do (e.g. if we had random moving). Some may dislike the idea that anything beyond killing the other guy is random.

puree wrote:

English Assassin wrote:

wowsmash wrote:I like the randomness of 2d6 for charge. Kinda balances out the fact that you can pre-measure now. I like to use my imagination, when rolls go wrong or really well. To tell a story while the game is playing out, with my opponent if he/she like that to or to myself if not. If everything is pre-determined then the the game is all about calculations and it's boring.

Like all those fixed weapon ranges, eh? In any case, I'd rather have a 'boring' set charge range than endure the endless tedium brought on by pre-measuring.

Like the non-random hit , wound and saves eh?

I keep seeing those who dislike the random charge range querying whether those who like it would want random this or random that. Do those who like things fixed charge distance want to get rid of hit rolls and wound rolls and saves and just have a fixed kill rate (so 10 marines always inflict 5 wounds and marines always ignore 2 out of 3 wounds, no rolls necessary). There are plenty of games with non (or very little) randomness in them, would 40k be better with like that?

It would be fair to point out that, firstly, of 40k players' litany persistent grumbles over the lifespan of 5th edition, I don't ever recall hearing anybody observe that charging was too predictable. Secondly, the use of dice to decide - within given boundaries - the effectiveness of attacks is a commonplace of tabletop wargames; I can't however think of even one other mainstream wargame which randomises movement.

puree wrote:I suspect that the majority want some degree of randomness in 40k, but that it is subjective as to when it crosses the line. It may be because it involves just 1 dice like running (lack of some bell curve), or because it is something you would do constantly do (e.g. if we had random moving). Some may dislike the idea that anything beyond killing the other guy is random.

This is precisely my issue with the mechanic of a random charge; it's a single roll of 2D6 which can't be predicted, whereas rolling, say, 20D6 requiring a 3+ to hit it's laughably easy to compute the odds, and one can feel relatively sure that the result will is unlikely to deviate far from the average.

As I have observed elsewhere, the increased probability of failed charges produces another unbalancing knock-on effect; Space Marines and other durable troops won't necessarily suffer much from the consequences of spending a turn stationary at point-blank range, whilst squishy assault troops like those allotted to Dark Eldar will be crucified by even mediocre firepower, and yet no points costs have been adjusted to reflect this.

Anyway, I realise that we're stuck with random charges, so let's get back to taking out as much of the rest of the random crap 6th edition has introduced as possible in the (probably vain) hope of arriving at something vaguely resembling a balanced game worth playing in tournaments...

English Assassin wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:
If you want to "forge a narrative", you're better off with a tabletop RPG.

You mean like Rogue Trader?

Yes, like the thing this game stopped being more than twenty years ago.

Did it? The rules and scope have changed but 40K is still designed as narrative driven game.

Palindrome wrote:

English Assassin wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:
If you want to "forge a narrative", you're better off with a tabletop RPG.

You mean like Rogue Trader?

Yes, like the thing this game stopped being more than twenty years ago.

Did it? The rules and scope have changed but 40K is still designed as narrative driven game.

On what do you base that assertion? The introductions to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th edition rulebooks make no mention whatsoever of narrative, but dwell for some time on tactics and generalship (and also painting, which is neither here nor there). Rogue Trader indeed began as a weird mish-mash of RPG and wargame, and the system still retains a few vestiges of those origins, but by about 1991 (Battle Manual-era) 40k had decisively evolved into a wargame proper, with a tournament format, fixed points costs, no random tables, no expectation of a GM, etc.

Palindrome wrote:

English Assassin wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:
If you want to "forge a narrative", you're better off with a tabletop RPG.

You mean like Rogue Trader?

Yes, like the thing this game stopped being more than twenty years ago.

Did it? The rules and scope have changed but 40K is still designed as narrative driven game.

I started playing in third. The game has never been about narrative to me, it's always been about playing a game. The forced introduction of "narrative" at the expense of a well functioning or even remotely balanced game in sixth has driven me from 40k entirely.

ShumaGorath wrote: The forced introduction of "narrative" at the expense of a well functioning or even remotely balanced game in sixth has driven me from 40k entirely.

It will be driving me from playing any tournaments, that's for sure.

English Assassin wrote:On what do you base that assertion?.

Apart from anything else the 6th ed rulebook, it was also a common theme in white dwarf, admittedly that was a good few years ago. 40k always was, and remains, a poor tournament game; it simply isn't designed that way (or it was designed extremely badly). If it isn't a competative game then what is it?

Palindrome wrote:

English Assassin wrote:On what do you base that assertion?.

Apart from anything else the 6th ed rulebook, it was also a common theme in white dwarf, admittedly that was a good few years ago. 40k always was, and remains, a poor tournament game; it simply isn't designed that way (or it was designed extremely badly). If it isn't a competative game then what is it?

A badly designed one full of loopholes that is losing about 10% of it's sales volume year over year and has been for almost a decade while it's once dominant marketshare has eroded substantially. Right now 40k is a "narrative game" because it's designer have directly said that was their new intention. Previous to this it was a "competitive game" because that was the designers stated intention before. Soon it will be "intellectual property rights for sale" because it's holding company is making repetitious and horrible business decisions and is demolishing it's own brand.

ShumaGorath wrote:
A badly designed one full of loopholes that is losing about 10% of it's sales volume year over year and has been for almost a decade while it's once dominant marketshare has eroded substantially.

There are many reasons for that. Poor rules are a factor, but necessarily how you describe. If 40k was ever officially described as a competative game then I don't see how anyone could have actually believed that.

Palindrome wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
A badly designed one full of loopholes that is losing about 10% of it's sales volume year over year and has been for almost a decade while it's once dominant marketshare has eroded substantially.

There are many reasons for that. Poor rules are a factor, but necessarily how you describe. If 40k was ever officially described as a competative game then I don't see how anyone could have actually believed that.

It functioned as one reasonably well. Sure, there were holes and a lot of imbalance but that's true of almost all forms of competition. With patching it was made to work. No amount of patching can fix the fundamental imbalances in sixth. Alternatively in third fourth and fifth it wasn't a particularly good narrative game either. Too much of the game doesn't make sense for a strong narrative to be pulled from it. That's still somewhat the case.

English Assassin wrote: I can't however think of even one other mainstream wargame which randomises movement.

DBA is a pretty mainstream ancients wargame which has a huge random factor in movement. The move rates for units themselves are set, but the number of units you can move is a D6 roll. You can often win or lose a game based on that roll.

This is precisely my issue with the mechanic of a random charge; it's a single roll of 2D6 which can't be predicted, whereas rolling, say, 20D6 requiring a 3+ to hit it's laughably easy to compute the odds, and one can feel relatively sure that the result will is unlikely to deviate far from the average.

Compute the odds of what?

It is even more laughably easy to compute the odds of rolling 2D6 and getting any given result, far easier than the odds of 20D6 needing 3+ and scoring 14+ hits (for example).

What do you really mean by unlikley to deviate from the mean? 3 standard deviations of the 20D6 roll is 7-18, that is 12 numbers, a wider range than you can even roll on 2D6.

You can precisely predict the range of likely numbers on either one roll of 2D6 or 20D6 needing 3+. The 2D6 just happens to be easier to compute midgame, whilst people delude them selves into thinking that the rolls to hit/wound/save are somehow more certain, when for the most part we are throwing sufficiently few dice that they are far from it.

Palindrome wrote:

English Assassin wrote:On what do you base that assertion?.

Apart from anything else the 6th ed rulebook...

So you're arguing that 40k has always been primarily a narrative game... because it now proclaims itself to be one? As I said, for the previous four editions (representing nineteen years of twenty-five), the rulebooks' introductions have emphasised tactical competition (and in the last two cases, tournaments), not narrative.

puree wrote:

English Assassin wrote: I can't however think of even one other mainstream wargame which randomises movement.

DBA is a pretty mainstream ancients wargame which has a huge random factor in movement. The move rates for units themselves are set, but the number of units you can move is a D6 roll. You can often win or lose a game based on that roll.

Random activation systems are a wholly different kettle of fish - I don't particularly like DBM's either, but it's a core mechanic of that game.

puree wrote:

English Assassin wrote:This is precisely my issue with the mechanic of a random charge; it's a single roll of 2D6 which can't be predicted, whereas rolling, say, 20D6 requiring a 3+ to hit it's laughably easy to compute the odds, and one can feel relatively sure that the result will is unlikely to deviate far from the average.

Compute the odds of what?

It is even more laughably easy to compute the odds of rolling 2D6 and getting any given result, far easier than the odds of 20D6 needing 3+ and scoring 14+ hits (for example).

What do you really mean by unlikley to deviate from the mean? 3 standard deviations of the 20D6 roll is 7-18, that is 12 numbers, a wider range than you can even roll on 2D6.

You can precisely predict the range of likely numbers on either one roll of 2D6 or 20D6 needing 3+. The 2D6 just happens to be easier to compute midgame, whilst people delude them selves into thinking that the rolls to hit/wound/save are somehow more certain, when for the most part we are throwing sufficiently few dice that they are far from it.

Since you're not adding those 20D6 together but trying to hit a given threshold, that's irrelevant. That the more dice you roll, the closer their distribution is likely to be towards the average is a basic law of probability; the Law of Large Numbers. Obviously the odds of a given result on 2D6 are easily worked out, the problem lies in the fact that the consequences of that 2D6 roll are all-or-nothing; rolling snake eyes when you're 3 inches from your target doesn't give you an unexpectedly poor assault, it leaves your unit to be shot to hell in front of its would-be target. The upshot of which is that more often than previously, an uncontrolled random roll will have a significant effect on the outcome of a game Do you not understand why I don't like this?

Edit: in any case, as I said, I accept that we're stuck with random charges, like them or not. Let's get back to trying to salvage a meaningful tactical game from this mess.

40k not always being 'narrative' might be true, but it has always been 'beer and pretzels'. And if you ever read the commentary from the game designers (excepting Alessio), we're all playing the game wrong by playing tournaments, spamming units, and trying to find rules loopholes for advantage. GW has just never been able to build a game that is tight enough for tournament play, and it has never been their intention either. Ever.

And 40k hasn't randomized movement, it has randomized charge distances. And it did so because it also moved to 'always measure' distances. In my opinion, it'd be worse to have set charge distances, with the ability of my opponent to dance out of my charge range all the time via pre-measure. That's less likely in the current rule format.

Cruentus wrote: it has always been 'beer and pretzels'. And if you ever read the commentary from the game designers (excepting Alessio), we're all playing the game wrong by playing tournaments, spamming units, and trying to find rules loopholes for advantage. GW has just never been able to build a game that is tight enough for tournament play, and it has never been their intention either. Ever.

Cruentus wrote:40k not always being 'narrative' might be true, but it has always been 'beer and pretzels'. And if you ever read the commentary from the game designers (excepting Alessio), we're all playing the game wrong by playing tournaments, spamming units, and trying to find rules loopholes for advantage. GW has just never been able to build a game that is tight enough for tournament play, and it has never been their intention either. Ever.

As I have already pointed out, the last four editions of the game have all introduced it as a tactical wargame; you're welcome to disagree with my analysis, but could you be polite enough to try to engage with the points I've made, rather than ignoring them? If you could find an official statement made prior to the publication of this edition that 40k wasn't intended to provide a competitive experience, that would be a start.

Whether or not 40k is a good competitive, tactical wargame is another issue - my contention is that it has become less so with the new edition. Moreover, not only have I never encountered 'beer and pretzels' as a description of 40k prior to 6th ed., but isn't the customary definition of a beer and pretzels game one that is simple to learn, quick to play and cheap? In which case, whatever its shortcomings as a tactical game, it's vastly worse as a beer and pretzels one.

CT GAMER wrote:

Cruentus wrote: it has always been 'beer and pretzels'. And if you ever read the commentary from the game designers (excepting Alessio), we're all playing the game wrong by playing tournaments, spamming units, and trying to find rules loopholes for advantage. GW has just never been able to build a game that is tight enough for tournament play, and it has never been their intention either. Ever.

Jervis said something to this effect when he started his Standard Bearer series in WD. I don't have the issue in question, but there was a bunch of talking about it at the time.

Cruentus wrote:40k not always being 'narrative' might be true, but it has always been 'beer and pretzels'. And if you ever read the commentary from the game designers (excepting Alessio), we're all playing the game wrong by playing tournaments, spamming units, and trying to find rules loopholes for advantage. GW has just never been able to build a game that is tight enough for tournament play, and it has never been their intention either. Ever.

And 40k hasn't randomized movement, it has randomized charge distances. And it did so because it also moved to 'always measure' distances. In my opinion, it'd be worse to have set charge distances, with the ability of my opponent to dance out of my charge range all the time via pre-measure. That's less likely in the current rule format.

Yeah, it'd be terrible if skill had something to do with the game.

That's the same as saying poker has no skill because the cards are random.

Yes, making movement more random makes the game less chesslike and the movement less reliable. That doesn't mean it removes skill. It changes what skills are required. I've always used precise tactical movement to win, and carefully set up assaults in the assault phase gauging those 6" assault moves carefully. Yes, some of the skill I had and was able to use in 5th has been removed, but I can understand why they did it, and it does make the assault phase a bit less "gamey"/more representational.

English Assassin wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

English Assassin wrote:On what do you base that assertion?.

Apart from anything else the 6th ed rulebook...

So you're arguing that 40k has always been primarily a narrative game... because it now proclaims itself to be one? As I said, for the previous four editions (representing nineteen years of twenty-five), the rulebooks' introductions have emphasised tactical competition (and in the last two cases, tournaments), not narrative.

It always has been; I think the best example of this is the old WD battle reports, Yarrick at Gulgotha for example (technically that was Epic but never mind), or the Jervis Vs Andy game where Dante got hit by a melta gun. They were perfect showcases of what the rules were designed to be and given that they are now 20 years old and I can still remember them they were obviously effective. Tactical competion and narrative are not mutually exclusive, but it is plain to me which plays the bigger role in 40k's development.

I haven't played 4th or 5th ed so maybe things changed then but 2nd certainly was all about the 'narrative'. 3rd may have been the edition where the game became 'competative', but to be honest I can't remember any change of tone.

This thread is pretty good evidence to what I have been saying. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/466001.page, specifically

The play styles within GW (even during play testing) tend to lean towards the cinematic rather than competitive

That's the same as saying poker has no skill because the cards are random.

Poker without betting has no skill involved. It can be played with simple physical machines and a crank and it'll play out the same way it does with people. Poker becomes a skill based game because of the social manipulation involved with its gambling aspect. 40k doesn't have an analogue to that.

Yes, making movement more random makes the game less chesslike and the movement less reliable. That doesn't mean it removes skill. It changes what skills are required.

It changes them into mitigation of luck. Until 40k no longer has user input there will be skill involved with mitigating its random aspects, but you mitigate randomness with redundancy, not cleverness. Redundancy isn't a particularly skillful tactic. Assaulting twice because once isn't reliable enough isn't a particularly great replacement for learning and interpreting spacial distances carefully.

I've always used precise tactical movement to win, and carefully set up assaults in the assault phase gauging those 6" assault moves carefully. Yes, some of the skill I had and was able to use in 5th has been removed, but I can understand why they did it, and it does make the assault phase a bit less "gamey"/more representational.

It makes it less gamey. In a game. A game where assaulting is intended as a tactic to win. Things in games are supposed to be gamey. As for representational I couldn't disagree more as I have yet to see a logical explanation for why there is a six fold difference between the minimum and maximum assault distances a unit can have across an open field when not getting overwatched. They can't all be tripping at the same time.

40k doesn't use a precise ground or time scale. And a given charge across even open ground, in real life, can take a greater or lesser time based on a multitude of factors.

Some game rules are conspicuously artificial, and damage the suspension of disbelief/sense of verisimilitude. Like casualty removal always being from the models most advantageous to the defender; or me being able to exactly set my powerfist vet sgt to line up against your IC and kill him, with you having to roll your socks off (killing my entire squad) to prevent it.

I do think this edition isn't as good a competitive and tactical game, but I can see what they were going for.

And I think that folks who resort to hyperbole implying or outright stating that skill no longer has anything to do with the game, or that random charge ranges are somehow a Rubicon-crossing of tactics no longer mattering, are being silly.

Mannahnin wrote:
And I think that folks who resort to hyperbole implying or outright stating that skill no longer has anything to do with the game, or that random charge ranges are somehow a Rubicon-crossing of tactics no longer mattering, are being silly.

In fantasy the random charge range (along side the removal of the importance of marchblocking and flank charges) had a detrimental effect on the skill requirement of the game. In 40k, which has never really been about maneuver, its effect is effectively negligable, literally so if assaulting through cover.

40k doesn't use a precise ground or time scale. And a given charge across even open ground, in real life, can take a greater or lesser time based on a multitude of factors.

But that is an exception, not a generality. If I run 30 feet across an empty grassy field I will trip maybe once in 50 times due to judging the terrain wrongly and not being able to catch myself. I am not a genetically engineered space elf, demon based on the concept of agility, or 800 pound man who can run through small cars without slowing down. I should be the worst case scenario, no the best.

Random charge ranges are purely random without explanation because no explanation or narrative example for the slowdown exists. It's pure inconsistency.

Some game rules are conspicuously artificial, and damage the suspension of disbelief/sense of verisimilitude. Like casualty removal always being from the models most advantageous to the defender; or me being able to exactly set my powerfist vet sgt to line up against your IC and kill him, with you having to roll your socks off (killing my entire squad) to prevent it.

Yeah, I've never been a fan of how individual models interact in assault in 40k.

I do think this edition isn't as good a competitive and tactical game, but I can see what they were going for.

I can as well, but unfortunately even within the constraints of a narrative game things like taking casualties from multiple blasts or the way flying monstrous creatures work makes it all just break down.

And I think that folks who resort to hyperbole implying or outright stating that skill no longer has anything to do with the game, or that random charge ranges are somehow a Rubicon-crossing of tactics no longer mattering, are being silly.

There were exceptionally few in game tactics in 40k before sixth. It's generally a game that plays itself after both players deploy. You look at your priority target checklist and starting firing at the things that are both damaging and frail in the big imaginary ven diagram. The positioning of assault assets and positioning ones self to mitigate or reduce assaults was one of the few things in the game that took thought beyond math hammering their loss in firepower vs your own expenditure. It's loss hurts, especially in light of the considerably strengthened shooting game and introduction of many other random aspects.

Thank you for your insight in tactics in 40k. I've always found that in 3rd, 4th, and 5th it played itself after both players deployed, which is why I've put so work into learning deployment, and RankingsHQ is changing their rankings to be labeled "Top Deployers".

Part of how we mitigated risk of assaults in 5th was using terrain to make them random/less reliable.

If I can get my assaulting unit within 5" of the enemy, I have ~ an 83% change of making my assault. If I got within 5" of the enemy in 5th, but there was difficult terrain involved, my odds were ~54%.

Palindrome wrote:

English Assassin wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

English Assassin wrote:On what do you base that assertion?.

Apart from anything else the 6th ed rulebook...

So you're arguing that 40k has always been primarily a narrative game... because it now proclaims itself to be one? As I said, for the previous four editions (representing nineteen years of twenty-five), the rulebooks' introductions have emphasised tactical competition (and in the last two cases, tournaments), not narrative.

It always has been; I think the best example of this is the old WD battle reports, Yarrick at Gulgotha for example (technically that was Epic but never mind), or the Jervis Vs Andy game where Dante got hit by a melta gun. They were perfect showcases of what the rules were designed to be and given that they are now 20 years old and I can still remember them they were obviously effective. Tactical competion and narrative are not mutually exclusive, but it is plain to me which plays the bigger role in 40k's development.

I haven't played 4th or 5th ed so maybe things changed then but 2nd certainly was all about the 'narrative'. 3rd may have been the edition where the game became 'competative', but to be honest I can't remember any change of tone.

Firstly, I really don't see that two battle reports (one of them for a different game) override what was written by the developers in the rulebooks where they had the opportunity to set out their intentions; secondly, how many special rules were required to create those 'cinematic' events? None, because balanced game rules with a minimum of tacked-on randomness don't preclude you from using your imagination if you want to. Exploding objectives and potentially-useless/potentially game-winning warlord traits, however, much as you may may enjoy them, seriously impact my enjoyment of a tactical game.

Now 40k first and second edition were indeed filled with random unbalancing crap (random equipment tables, random psychic powers, stupid bloody strategy cards like 'Virus Outbreak'). I, and indeed everybody else I played with at the time, was delighted to see the back of them in 1998, and finally to get a game which rewarded tactical play - not a flawless game, but one whose writers had at least tried to reward intelligent decision-making and to create the opportunities for meaningful choices. Fifth edition had its flaws too, but they were problems of poorly-balanced army lists, not of excessive predictability in the core rules.

Thank you for your insight in tactics in 40k. I've always found that in 3rd, 4th, and 5th it played itself after both players deployed, which is why I've put so work into learning deployment, and RankingsHQ is changing their rankings to be labeled "Top Deployers".

I've always been a bit ahead of my time.

Part of how we mitigated risk of assaults in 5th was using terrain to make them random/less reliable.

If I can get my assaulting unit within 5" of the enemy, I have ~ an 83% change of making my assault. If I got within 5" of the enemy in 5th, but there was difficult terrain involved, my odds were ~54%.

that was part of the small set of "gamey" tactics that helped to differentiate good players from lucky ones before.

English Assassin wrote:]
Firstly, I really don't see that two battle reports (one of them for a different game) override what was written by the developers in the rulebooks where they had the opportunity to set out their intentions.

They were examples, quite good ones in fact, of the culture that drove the GW design studio and apparently still does. I really couldn't care less if the rule books explicity stated that 40k was a competative game (I have my doubts that they ever did) , the actual rules say otherwise. There are no specific special rules to make a 'cinematic' game, that would make no sense, but the rules must provide the latitude to allow memorable events to occur.

Now 40k first and second edition were indeed filled with random unbalancing crap (random equipment tables, random psychic powers, stupid bloody strategy cards like 'Virus Outbreak'). I, and indeed everybody else I played with at the time, was delighted to see the back of them in 1998, and finally to get a game which rewarded tactical play

The removal of the 'crap' as you describe it is what drove me away from 40k for years. I have yet to actually play 6th, and while there are doubtless some suspect elements to it and I may end up shelving 40k for another 14 years, I am at least interested enough to give it another try.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Part of how we mitigated risk of assaults in 5th was using terrain to make them random/less reliable.

If I can get my assaulting unit within 5" of the enemy, I have ~ an 83% change of making my assault. If I got within 5" of the enemy in 5th, but there was difficult terrain involved, my odds were ~54%.

that was part of the small set of "gamey" tactics that helped to differentiate good players from lucky ones before.

IMO using terrain to slow an enemy assault is representational, which is the opposite of how I meant "gamey". I meant that word to mean a rule which leaps out and breaks the sense of verisimilitude by its artificiality and lack of connection to simulation or narrative.

Palindrome wrote:I really couldn't care less if the rule books explicity stated that 40k was a competative game (I have my doubts that they ever did)...

"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammmer 40,000 Rulebook 2nd Edition, page 4

"Whatever you chose within this total [points values], the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook 5th Edition, page ix

Firstly, it's more than a little rude to call somebody else a liar, secondly, I give up, obviously the nebulous idea of Warhammer 40,000 in your head supercedes its designers' stated intentions.