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.

Yeah. Apparently you were closer to the 40K spirit when you were just using action figures to stop Cobra Commander and the Decepticons when you were a kid.

I hear the term "Forging the Narrative" and always get a bit disgusted by it. It's silly to me. It reminds me of all the times I've played team games in 5th and someone walks up confused asking why Tau are teamed up with Chaos Space marines and they were confused when I answered "uh... Because?".

Apparently if you're playing a game you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to be putting on a play. You're supposed to pick up the sarge in each squad and give the order to move out before actually moving your models. You're supposed to give heroic speeches when rolling morale. You're not supposed to use dice with actual numbers on them, the rolling sound is for the audience and the result is determined by what Act of the play you're currently in. Also, like allies and supplements, musical numbers are not required but are highly encouraged.

I think it is perfectly fine to do all of that and, in fact, narratives were forged before we had cinematic things like random warlord tables and allied formations. It's a stupid excuse for a broken game though since I bought a wargame not a RPG.

I think the problem with this edition of 40k is that it has all of these rules designed to make it a non-competitive game, but by the very nature of being something where two players playing against each other with a win condition, it is always going to have some element of competition. Instead of trying to figure out how to take the elements they want in the game and make them work with the style of game they're making, they just throw everything together and expect people to make sense of it.

Trying to compare 40k with an RPG doesn't make any sense, because while 40k is clearly not "competitive" in the tourney sense of the word, it is by definition competitive because there will be a winner and a loser. Now, in a good game, both the winner and the loser come away having had fun, which happens in most of the games I play. But this form of competition means it can't be compared to an RPG where all the players are, in theory, cooperating, and a win for one means a win for all.

Expecting 40k to only be played like an RPG, where everything is set up and decided upon beforehand, also severely limits the biggest thing 40k has going for it: that it is the most played wargame and you can generally go to a store and find someone else to play with. It's nonsensical that GW doesn't pick a path to go down, because they can't have it both ways. The game either needs to be able to stand alone on its rules, or it needs to throw away the idea that it can be played by two strangers in a pickup game and actually design towards the whole pre-planning thing. Thankfully, there's always X-Wing .

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Yeah. Apparently you were closer to the 40K spirit when you were just using action figures to stop Cobra Commander and the Decepticons when you were a kid.

I hear the term "Forging the Narrative" and always get a bit disgusted by it. It's silly to me. It reminds me of all the times I've played team games in 5th and someone walks up confused asking why Tau are teamed up with Chaos Space marines and they were confused when I answered "uh... Because?".

Apparently if you're playing a game you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to be putting on a play. You're supposed to pick up the sarge in each squad and give the order to move out before actually moving your models. You're supposed to give heroic speeches when rolling morale. You're not supposed to use dice with actual numbers on them, the rolling sound is for the audience and the result is determined by what Act of the play you're currently in. Also, like allies and supplements, musical numbers are not required but are highly encouraged.

Around here when we see the foolishness we call it "playing GI Joe". I wish I could take credit but my buddy coined the term. I think it comes from the whole fortress of redemption thing, it reminds people of the old gi joe bases. But ya, 5th had unfluffy games in so much that you can only avoid imperial vs imperial for so long, but it was nice more often than not to see one army fighting another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I think the problem with this edition of 40k is that it has all of these rules designed to make it a non-competitive game, but by the very nature of being something where two players playing against each other with a win condition, it is always going to have some element of competition. Instead of trying to figure out how to take the elements they want in the game and make them work with the style of game they're making, they just throw everything together and expect people to make sense of it.

Trying to compare 40k with an RPG doesn't make any sense, because while 40k is clearly not "competitive" in the tourney sense of the word, it is by definition competitive because there will be a winner and a loser. Now, in a good game, both the winner and the loser come away having had fun, which happens in most of the games I play. But this form of competition means it can't be compared to an RPG where all the players are, in theory, cooperating, and a win for one means a win for all.

Expecting 40k to only be played like an RPG, where everything is set up and decided upon beforehand, also severely limits the biggest thing 40k has going for it: that it is the most played wargame and you can generally go to a store and find someone else to play with. It's nonsensical that GW doesn't pick a path to go down, because they can't have it both ways. The game either needs to be able to stand alone on its rules, or it needs to throw away the idea that it can be played by two strangers in a pickup game and actually design towards the whole pre-planning thing. Thankfully, there's always X-Wing .

I couldn't agree more with you. The more I saw the term "forging a narrative" come up in the rulebook, the more I thought "what a copout".

The closest thing I can really see to "Forging a narrative" is to play some sort of scenario other than basic ones people usually play, and that mindset has always existed before such a catch phrase.

One of the best examples is one from...Daemonhunters codex, I think?....where one army is trying to summon a Daemon before the other army stops them, with some other conditions. I always thought it would have been cool when playing the previous edition of Necrons to have the unit entry for the Daemon be a count-as for a generic C'Tan they are trying to free from a Tomb

Even that is much more interesting than just beating the crap out of the other player's army.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I think the problem with this edition of 40k is that it has all of these rules designed to make it a non-competitive game

That's not really the problem. 40k doesn't have rules designed to make it a non-competitive game, it has laughably bad rules where the designers didn't care about making a good game of any kind. They don't make it a better casual game at all, they're just so bad that the only way to put up with them is to play "casually" and value the narrative/cool models/etc more than the gameplay so that you don't notice all the problems.

it is by definition competitive because there will be a winner and a loser

I think the better definition here is "zero sum". 40k is a zero-sum game because one person wins when the other person loses. No matter how much fluff you put into the game you're still standing on opposite sides of the table and trying to beat the other player. A typical RPG, on the other hand, is a non-zero-sum game because everyone, including the GM, "wins" at the same time through cooperation.

I think I have a solution to all of this...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/567821.page

 oni wrote:
I think I have a solution to all of this...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/567821.page

Well, a partial solution. It doesn't fix a lot of the balance problems and awful rules, and the "take anything you want" format isn't likely to be popular enough that anyone actually plays it. You might as well just take the simpler approach and say "single FOC, no other detachments".

 oni wrote:
I think I have a solution to all of this...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/567821.page

That helps with some of the recent bloat, but doesn't address the core issue of the BRB rules not knowing what they want to be.

Blacksails wrote:Well, remember that if you bring anything that isn't a random hodge-podge of units, you're playing the game wrong and taking it way too serious.

I mean, its not like people have different ideas of what casual is, or what fluffy means, or what competitive is, or what constitutes spamming. There is only one undeniable definition all gamers must abide by in discussions like this.

"Why are people having fun in a way I don't like to have fun! They shouldn't be doing that!"
See, I can make straw men too!

Blacksails wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:


Am I the only one who thinks that "Forging a narrative" is an empty buzzphrase that basically means "You cant enjoy the actual game but you can pretend that something cool is going on!"?

There are people who think it isn't an empty buzz phrase?

Some of us like the story behind the game? I mean yeah people treat it like a joke and I think it is funny too, but there IS some content behind it.

Peregrine wrote:I think the better definition here is "zero sum". 40k is a zero-sum game because one person wins when the other person loses. No matter how much fluff you put into the game you're still standing on opposite sides of the table and trying to beat the other player. A typical RPG, on the other hand, is a non-zero-sum game because everyone, including the GM, "wins" at the same time through cooperation.

Look at pg. 354 of the BRB. The third example mission, called "The Blood of Martyrs." It is not a zero-sum scenario. There are 5 different degrees of victory. The BRB mentions multiple times how the games you set up don't have to be balanced, and how they could sometimes be more interesting when they're lopsided like The Blood of Martyrs. inb4 badwrongfun

 Talore wrote:
Some of us like the story behind the game? I mean yeah people treat it like a joke and I think it is funny too, but there IS some content behind it.

I don't think you understand the difference between enjoying the story and "forging a narrative". One of them is a valid way of enjoying the game, the other is a meaningless phrase used by GW to pretend that bad rules and lazy design are somehow "narrative" even when those rules are bad for story-based gaming. GW uses the phrase to essentially mean "shut up and stop questioning our rules".

Look at pg. 354 of the BRB. The third example mission, called "The Blood of Martyrs." It is not a zero-sum scenario. There are 5 different degrees of victory. The BRB mentions multiple times how the games you set up don't have to be balanced, and how they could sometimes be more interesting when they're lopsided like The Blood of Martyrs. inb4 badwrongfun

I don't think you understand what a zero-sum game is. That mission is a zero-sum game because for every degree of loss or victory there's an opposite degree of loss or victory for the other player. The only way to win a major victory is to give the opponent a major defeat. Likewise, if you fail to achieve your objectives and lose your opponent wins as a result. You can't have a situation where both players win the game through cooperation.

@Taloee

I love the fluff behind 40k besides a lot of the Necron stuff. Its just that the idea behind "Forging a Narrative" is a concept commonly used to justify the horrid rules writing behind the game. The idea is that 40k is a system to tell a story about the battles of the 41st millennium and that the bad rules add to it. This is a ridiculous excuse since it both assumes everyone wants the same thing out of the game and acts like the rules are a good tool for story writing. What if someone likes the background fluff but just wants to play a good game with cool models from their favorite IP? Are they doing it wrong? Secondly, how are things like screamer star and random tables good for story telling? Stories need purpose and the sheer random mess of 6th doesnt provide one on its own merit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Some of us like the story behind the game? I mean yeah people treat it like a joke and I think it is funny too, but there IS some content behind it.

I don't think you understand the difference between enjoying the story and "forging a narrative". One of them is a valid way of enjoying the game, the other is a meaningless phrase used by GW to pretend that bad rules and lazy design are somehow "narrative" even when those rules are bad for story-based gaming. GW uses the phrase to essentially mean "shut up and stop questioning our rules".

No, that's what you want the phrase to mean. All they're saying is that you should turn what happens to minis on a tabletop into a story. If a guy miraculously passes 20 saves in a row, maybe the Emperor's light was shining on that marine in that moment. They're suggesting that you try to have fun in spite of your inability to relax and enjoy a game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Look at pg. 354 of the BRB. The third example mission, called "The Blood of Martyrs." It is not a zero-sum scenario. There are 5 different degrees of victory. The BRB mentions multiple times how the games you set up don't have to be balanced, and how they could sometimes be more interesting when they're lopsided like The Blood of Martyrs. inb4 badwrongfun

I don't think you understand what a zero-sum game is. That mission is a zero-sum game because for every degree of loss or victory there's an opposite degree of loss or victory for the other player. The only way to win a major victory is to give the opponent a major defeat. Likewise, if you fail to achieve your objectives and lose your opponent wins as a result. You can't have a situation where both players win the game through cooperation.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. The goal of the attacker is to crush the opponent. The goal of the defender is to hold out as long as possible. Can both people not achieve those goals? There is no 'winner' or 'loser' there, except for maybe if the attacker fails completely as per the fifth condition.

 Talore wrote:
Can both people not achieve those goals?

Again, you don't understand what a zero-sum game is. Having the possibility of a draw does not make a game a non-zero-sum game because succeeding well enough to earn a draw comes as a direct result of your opponent not succeeding well enough to earn better than a draw. There is no possibility where the players cooperate and both of them win. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article on zero-sum games before continuing this discussion?

There is no 'winner' or 'loser' there, except for maybe if the attacker fails completely as per the fifth condition.

Of course there is. There's a list of levels of winning for the attacker, and an implied opposite list of levels of failure for the defender. That's a textbook example of a zero-sum game.

 Talore wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Well, remember that if you bring anything that isn't a random hodge-podge of units, you're playing the game wrong and taking it way too serious.

I mean, its not like people have different ideas of what casual is, or what fluffy means, or what competitive is, or what constitutes spamming. There is only one undeniable definition all gamers must abide by in discussions like this.

"Why are people having fun in a way I don't like to have fun! They shouldn't be doing that!"
See, I can make straw men too!

Ah, but if you were following the thread and the person I was responding to, you would notice this individual was claiming that the people 'spamming' or not playing 'for fun' were doing it wrong. So no, not a strawman. In fact, you probably missed that my post was satirical. Your response is exactly what I was getting at. People have different notions of fun. Claiming 40k is fine if you start 'forging the narrative' and other buzz phrases ignores the objectionably awful elements of the rules and balance.

 Talore wrote:

Blacksails wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:


Am I the only one who thinks that "Forging a narrative" is an empty buzzphrase that basically means "You cant enjoy the actual game but you can pretend that something cool is going on!"?

There are people who think it isn't an empty buzz phrase?

Some of us like the story behind the game? I mean yeah people treat it like a joke and I think it is funny too, but there IS some content behind it.

Some content, but no more than there was in 5th ed, or any other wargame. Which is why most people find it silly to mention; nearly every other wargame I've played naturally forges a narrative without the rulebook telling me to do so or how to do it.

All they're saying is that you should turn what happens to minis on a tabletop into a story.

And the rules GW applies their ridiculous "forge the narrative" idea to don't actually help with story-based gaming. It's an empty advertising phrase whose sole purpose is to make you think the game is about story-based gaming and not just a half-finished mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Some content, but no more than there was in 5th ed, or any other wargame. Which is why most people find it silly to mention; nearly every other wargame I've played naturally forges a narrative without the rulebook telling me to do so or how to do it.

This, exactly.

Blacksails nailed it. Now, if only we could dispell the attitude that having a broken game somehow makes it better for the casual players.

Blacksails wrote:

 Talore wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Well, remember that if you bring anything that isn't a random hodge-podge of units, you're playing the game wrong and taking it way too serious.

I mean, its not like people have different ideas of what casual is, or what fluffy means, or what competitive is, or what constitutes spamming. There is only one undeniable definition all gamers must abide by in discussions like this.

"Why are people having fun in a way I don't like to have fun! They shouldn't be doing that!"
See, I can make straw men too!

Ah, but if you were following the thread and the person I was responding to, you would notice this individual was claiming that the people 'spamming' or not playing 'for fun' were doing it wrong. So no, not a strawman. In fact, you probably missed that my post was satirical. Your response is exactly what I was getting at. People have different notions of fun. Claiming 40k is fine if you start 'forging the narrative' and other buzz phrases ignores the objectionably awful elements of the rules and balance.

I have been following the thread. Maybe I just worded it poorly, but I was playing along

Peregrine wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Can both people not achieve those goals?

Again, you don't understand what a zero-sum game is. Having the possibility of a draw does not make a game a non-zero-sum game because succeeding well enough to earn a draw comes as a direct result of your opponent not succeeding well enough to earn better than a draw. There is no possibility where the players cooperate and both of them win. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article on zero-sum games before continuing this discussion?

There is no 'winner' or 'loser' there, except for maybe if the attacker fails completely as per the fifth condition.

Of course there is. There's a list of levels of winning for the attacker, and an implied opposite list of levels of failure for the defender. That's a textbook example of a zero-sum game.

Dear god, this has got to be bait. You're willfully ignorant of what a false dichotomy is. I'm going to stop feeding you now.

 Talore wrote:
I have been following the thread. Maybe I just worded it poorly, but I was playing along

Well, as long as we understand each other.

Did we have all this crying and moaning when planet strike and cities of death came out?

rothrich wrote:
Did we have all this crying and moaning when planet strike and cities of death came out?

Planetstrike and Cities of Death are expansions and aren't part of "Regular 40k". Escalation and Stronghold Assault are supplements and can be used in any game like Farsight Enclaves or Sentinels of Terra. The fact that titans can be used in regular games RAW is what the problem is.

rothrich wrote:
Did we have all this crying and moaning when planet strike and cities of death came out?

Not really, because those were complete books that were clearly for separate special games, not half-finished garbage for normal games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talore wrote:
Dear god, this has got to be bait. You're willfully ignorant of what a false dichotomy is. I'm going to stop feeding you now.

No, you just don't understand what a zero-sum game is. You joined the discussion with a completely absurd comment, and now you're trying to justify it by accusing me of trolling.

Um... the definitions of expansion and supplement are pretty similar.
sup·ple·ment
addition: an addition to something to increase its size or make up for a deficiency
publication: a publication that amplifies or corrects one already published
periodical part: an additional section included in or sold with a magazine or newspaper, especially an additional section that appears regularly
Synonyms: addition, extra, complement, enhancement, increase, increment, add-on, appendage, addendum, adjunct, extension, insertion, annex
ex·pan·sion [ ik spánsh'n ]
process of enlargement: the process of increasing, or increasing something, in size, extent, scope, or number
increase: an increase, or the amount by which something increases, in size, extent, or scope
growth by land acquisition: the increase of a country's size by the acquisition of new territory
Synonyms: growth, development, increase, extension, spreading out, opening out, enlargement

Seems like splitting hairs to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:gw changed what they call their optional add-ons! PANIC!

Not in 40k terms.

The expansions modify the game to a point where both parties must be known in advance to prepare a force suitable for the expansions.

The supplements are fully legal (whatever the definition of it is anyways) rules to use against any opponent. It doesn't fundamentally alter the game, just your force.

That's the difference, and its pretty significant.

So that's why there wasn't moaning. You couldn't surprise your opponent with a Planetstrike game.

And I saw your edit. We're all indeed panicking. Running around and screaming, claiming the sky is falling. Oh, the dramatics.

Why not actually participate in the discussion intelligently? No one here is panicking. Most of us have a vested interest in the game, and would very much so like it to improve.

rothrich wrote:
Um... the definitions of expansion and supplement are pretty similar.
sup·ple·ment
addition: an addition to something to increase its size or make up for a deficiency
publication: a publication that amplifies or corrects one already published
periodical part: an additional section included in or sold with a magazine or newspaper, especially an additional section that appears regularly
Synonyms: addition, extra, complement, enhancement, increase, increment, add-on, appendage, addendum, adjunct, extension, insertion, annex
ex·pan·sion [ ik spánsh'n ]
process of enlargement: the process of increasing, or increasing something, in size, extent, scope, or number
increase: an increase, or the amount by which something increases, in size, extent, or scope
growth by land acquisition: the increase of a country's size by the acquisition of new territory
Synonyms: growth, development, increase, extension, spreading out, opening out, enlargement

Seems like splitting hairs to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:gw changed what they call their optional add-ons! PANIC!

Dictionary definition =/= Contextual Definition. To Games Workshop, an Expansion book adds a different game mode and a Supplement is an addition to the "Core Game".

rothrich wrote:
Um... the definitions of expansion and supplement are pretty similar.
sup·ple·ment
addition: an addition to something to increase its size or make up for a deficiency
publication: a publication that amplifies or corrects one already published
periodical part: an additional section included in or sold with a magazine or newspaper, especially an additional section that appears regularly
Synonyms: addition, extra, complement, enhancement, increase, increment, add-on, appendage, addendum, adjunct, extension, insertion, annex
ex·pan·sion [ ik spánsh'n ]
process of enlargement: the process of increasing, or increasing something, in size, extent, scope, or number
increase: an increase, or the amount by which something increases, in size, extent, or scope
growth by land acquisition: the increase of a country's size by the acquisition of new territory
Synonyms: growth, development, increase, extension, spreading out, opening out, enlargement

Seems like splitting hairs to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:gw changed what they call their optional add-ons! PANIC!

It's not splitting hairs. These are objective definitions. Expansions were entirely optional, such as Apocalypse, while supplements are intended for use in any regular game without requiring your opponents direct permission. (Unless he just refuses the game when you show up with your legal army)

What does compendium then mean? Like death from the skies? Is everyone required to accept the fighter dules rules? Can one take fighter ace upgrades and all the other things in that book without the other players knowledge or consent? I hope that these awesome new rules do end competitive 40k and power gamers move on to a different system because I for one am tired of people who think anything gw produces is meant for power gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What page number do the new supplements say that they can be used without the permission of your opponent?

On the subject of Imperial vs. Imperial it's one of the more annoying aspects of 40k. I try thinking of "stories" behind battles I have with my Imperial Fists but it's pretty hard to come up with a lore friendly explanation for Ultrasmurfs vs. Imperial Fists. Warp-storms? Chaos influence? Matt Ward? I gave up on "forging a narrative" by the second game of SM vs. SM.

Planetstrike and Cities of Death didn't enable you to field Titans in regular 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
On the subject of Imperial vs. Imperial it's one of the more annoying aspects of 40k. I try thinking of "stories" behind battles I have with my Imperial Fists but it's pretty hard to come up with a lore friendly explanation for Ultrasmurfs vs. Imperial Fists. Warp-storms? Chaos influence? Matt Ward? I gave up on "forging a narrative" by the second game of SM vs. SM.

Training... exercise?

rothrich wrote:

What page number do the new supplements say that they can be used without the permission of your opponent?

What page numbers in the codex suppliments say you need permission?