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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


No, you would not be free to play as I am doing so now. People do not like house rules modular addons; I've illustrated several times above how, in other games (and earlier editions of 40k), it would be theoretically possible to have narrative, awesome games within the rulesset, but it is practically impossible because of the types of players they attract.

The current people who play 40K for narrative games wouldn't suddenly disappear. The total playerbase might get larger and have some players who don't want to use houserules but you could still play with the people you play with now.
They will not magically disappear once the game becomes more balanced.

Finding them becomes harder. At every store I've been to, everyone I've talked to has been willing to play narrative games of 40k with all sorts of rules changes. If I go in on any other game's night (such as Flames of War, Field of Glory, or Warmachine) they are completely unwilling to compromise the rules in the interests of narrative.

So they may not disappear, but their ideas become overwhelmed and laughed out of the mainstream (I've seen it happen before).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Your "faction" is AM/IG which is capable of fielding Scoring units. Your choice of units (army list) has no scoring units. Which is a different thing.

My Army List is Armored Battlegroup, which is not. I am of the same "faction" as AM/IG in the fluff, but do not have access to the AM codex or its options (aside from allies).

"I fail to see why you would hold 40k to the same standard if there are sufficient alternatives already available."

Because I hold all games to this standard. Otherwise, they are an exercise in futility, not a game.

Martel732 wrote:
"I fail to see why you would hold 40k to the same standard if there are sufficient alternatives already available."

Because I hold all games to this standard.

Then from your perspective, 40k is a terrible, terrible game.

From my perspective, and the standard to which I hold games, 40k is great.

Why is your standard better/more important than mine?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

No, you would not be free to play as I am doing so now. People do not like house rules, I've illustrated several times above how, in other games (and earlier editions of 40k), it would be theoretically possible to have narrative, awesome games within the rulesset, but it is practically impossible because of the types of players they attract.

Except again now we are just excluding players. This is what I don't understand. Is the argument at most players want competitive games so when the game is build for them that is what they want to play? If so they game would overall be better built that way. If the argument is that these players exist and now I need to find other opponents that want to play the way I do. Then it is exactly the same as what you have asked of Martel concerning Eldar, except now there are more players, and less broken armies so fewer people need to turn down games.

Well, what I really have asked of Martel is that he find a different game entirely.

There are games out there that cater to people who really want to play like the have a pair (wink wink). 40k is not one of them. I would be disappointed to see 40k turn into one of them, because I do not enjoy those games as much.

Except it would not "turn into one" you would just have some players that play like that and others that don't. That is what you seem to be missing. Unless you believe as I stated: Most players want to play like that.

IMO asking someone to give up their hobby for another is out of line and not healthy for the community. No one is asking it of you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"I fail to see why you would hold 40k to the same standard if there are sufficient alternatives already available."

Because I hold all games to this standard.

Then from your perspective, 40k is a terrible, terrible game.

From my perspective, and the standard to which I hold games, 40k is great.

Why is your standard better/more important than mine?

Because I think that it could simultaneously fulfill both standards. I think you are wrong that it couldn't.

Breng77 wrote:
Except it would not "turn into one" you would just have some players that play like that and others that don't. That is what you seem to be missing. Unless you believe as I stated: Most players want to play like that.

IMO asking someone to give up their hobby for another is out of line and not healthy for the community. No one is asking it of you.

Yes, it would. The mainstream "play according to the rules" completely overwhelms and drowns out the narrative players until they basically become backroom weirdos who no-one else will play against. And I would say that most players want to play a balanced competitive game, and they are certainly welcome to.

I am not asking people to give up their "hobby" unless you believe 40k is a different "hobby" from Flames of War or Warmachine.

And, yes, they are asking it of me. What I see most people suggest to improve 'balance' would drive me completely away from 40k.

The Armored Battle group is in large part IG, and could largely be replicated in the base codex + FW units, with scoring options. So I feel as if it is different.

"And, yes, they are asking it of me. What I see most people suggest to improve 'balance' would drive me completely away from 40k."

I still don't understand how it would affect narrative play. You basically are making up your own rules every narrative game anyway.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"I fail to see why you would hold 40k to the same standard if there are sufficient alternatives already available."

Because I hold all games to this standard.

Then from your perspective, 40k is a terrible, terrible game.

From my perspective, and the standard to which I hold games, 40k is great.

Why is your standard better/more important than mine?

Because I think that it could simultaneously fulfill both standards. I think you are wrong that it couldn't.

Ok, look at Warmachine - there are very few narrative events. The balance is fine, people play competitively and have a blast. But if you don't play like you're in a tournament Every. Single. Damn. Game. then you get told you're playing it wrong and to go play something else (happened to me).

Ok, Flames of War - this is a haven for narrative events. Except that it isn't, partly due to excellent rules-writing from Battlefront (lots of historical scenarios are taken care of) but also partly because of a similar attitude as Warmachine - if you aren't following RAW, you aren't playing FoW.

Ok, Field of Glory - this one is about the same as Flames of War, really, except with even more of an emphasis on tournaments - If I were to turn down a game with my Greek Hoplites against a player playing Polish Knights, he'd probably have a bunch of ???? over his head, because within the rules there's no reason to, and narrative has escaped the majority of the player base.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except it would not "turn into one" you would just have some players that play like that and others that don't. That is what you seem to be missing. Unless you believe as I stated: Most players want to play like that.

IMO asking someone to give up their hobby for another is out of line and not healthy for the community. No one is asking it of you.

Yes, it would. The mainstream "play according to the rules" completely overwhelms and drowns out the narrative players until they basically become backroom weirdos who no-one else will play against. And I would say that most players want to play a balanced competitive game, and they are certainly welcome to.

I am not asking people to give up their "hobby" unless you believe 40k is a different "hobby" from Flames of War or Warmachine.

And, yes, they are asking it of me. What I see most people suggest to improve 'balance' would drive me completely away from 40k.

SO you agree that more people want a "more balanced game". I'm not sure what changes would drive you away from 40k, I cannot think of any that more balanced options would do. But that is just me.

I do believe that it is a different hobby insofar as investment goes (I've spent thousands on 40k and nothing on Flames of War) SO saying they are the same is akin to saying my hobby is sports and I play baseball, and you say change to Lacross and buy all new equipment because well they are sports afterall.

Breng77 wrote:
The Armored Battle group is in large part IG, and could largely be replicated in the base codex + FW units, with scoring options. So I feel as if it is different.

Martel's Blood Angels could be replicated with the regular Space Marine codex, with winning options, so I feel as if it is the same.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The Armored Battle group is in large part IG, and could largely be replicated in the base codex + FW units, with scoring options. So I feel as if it is different.

Martel's Blood Angels could be replicated with the regular Space Marine codex, with winning options, so I feel as if it is the same.

I don't own Centurions, so not really.

" At every store I've been to, everyone I've talked to has been willing to play narrative games of 40k with all sorts of rules changes"

I have never really seen this in 40K. This is a fundamental disconnect of experiences and expectations.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except it would not "turn into one" you would just have some players that play like that and others that don't. That is what you seem to be missing. Unless you believe as I stated: Most players want to play like that.

IMO asking someone to give up their hobby for another is out of line and not healthy for the community. No one is asking it of you.

Yes, it would. The mainstream "play according to the rules" completely overwhelms and drowns out the narrative players until they basically become backroom weirdos who no-one else will play against. And I would say that most players want to play a balanced competitive game, and they are certainly welcome to.

I am not asking people to give up their "hobby" unless you believe 40k is a different "hobby" from Flames of War or Warmachine.

And, yes, they are asking it of me. What I see most people suggest to improve 'balance' would drive me completely away from 40k.

SO you agree that more people want a "more balanced game". I'm not sure what changes would drive you away from 40k, I cannot think of any that more balanced options would do. But that is just me.

I do believe that it is a different hobby insofar as investment goes (I've spent thousands on 40k and nothing on Flames of War) SO saying they are the same is akin to saying my hobby is sports and I play baseball, and you say change to Lacross and buy all new equipment because well they are sports afterall.

Also, yes, of course the majority wants a balanced game. They can have it; hell, they have several. But I'm in the minority, and would appreciate leaving a game like 40k for us narrative gamers.

There are some rules you can use 40k minis for that I've heard good things about, such as Tomorrow's War or Future War Commander which even explicitly states that it supports GW minis.

Depending on his choices they also cannot.

Assault marines as troops = Not available
Different Dreads= Not available
Sanguinary Guard and Priests = not available
Fast attack preds= Not available
Death company = not available
Special characters = different.

Are there units in Armored company that are not available to AM in any way?

Flames of War is not what I would considered balanced, either. Maybe you and I have very different ideas of balance as well.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The Armored Battle group is in large part IG, and could largely be replicated in the base codex + FW units, with scoring options. So I feel as if it is different.

Martel's Blood Angels could be replicated with the regular Space Marine codex, with winning options, so I feel as if it is the same.

I don't own Centurions, so not really.

" At every store I've been to, everyone I've talked to has been willing to play narrative games of 40k with all sorts of rules changes"

I have never really seen this in 40K. This is a fundamental disconnect of experiences and expectations.

Come to PA. I've been to four stores in four cities, and three clubs in one city and one club in another, and they've all universally been friendly and willing to changeup games with odd things such as moving objectives or whathaveyou - and they weren't a close collection of friends whom I knew I could trust or anything.

SO the largest Miniature wargame should be supporting the minority of its players? Sorry that makes little sense especially as a buisiness move for GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The Armored Battle group is in large part IG, and could largely be replicated in the base codex + FW units, with scoring options. So I feel as if it is different.

Martel's Blood Angels could be replicated with the regular Space Marine codex, with winning options, so I feel as if it is the same.

I don't own Centurions, so not really.

" At every store I've been to, everyone I've talked to has been willing to play narrative games of 40k with all sorts of rules changes"

I have never really seen this in 40K. This is a fundamental disconnect of experiences and expectations.

Come to PA. I've been to four stores in four cities, and three clubs in one city and one club in another, and they've all universally been friendly and willing to changeup games with odd things such as moving objectives or whathaveyou - and they weren't a close collection of friends whom I knew I could trust or anything.

Were these same stores unwilling to do this prior to GW completely unbalancing the game?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The Armored Battle group is in large part IG, and could largely be replicated in the base codex + FW units, with scoring options. So I feel as if it is different.

Martel's Blood Angels could be replicated with the regular Space Marine codex, with winning options, so I feel as if it is the same.

I don't own Centurions, so not really.

" At every store I've been to, everyone I've talked to has been willing to play narrative games of 40k with all sorts of rules changes"

I have never really seen this in 40K. This is a fundamental disconnect of experiences and expectations.

Come to PA. I've been to four stores in four cities, and three clubs in one city and one club in another, and they've all universally been friendly and willing to changeup games with odd things such as moving objectives or whathaveyou - and they weren't a close collection of friends whom I knew I could trust or anything.

I don't want to play that kind of game. I just haven't seen this be a thing in 40K in 20 years. Can I get them to not play Eldar/Tau/Daemons/Gravstar/Knights/GK/Necrons? That seems a bit of burden to have to ask all that of them.

Breng77 wrote:Depending on his choices they also cannot.

Assault marines as troops = Not available
Different Dreads= Not available
Sanguinary Guard and Priests = not available
Fast attack preds= Not available
Death company = not available
Special characters = different.

Are there units in Armored company that are not available to AM in any way?

Yes.
Leman Russ tanks as troops = not available
Commissar tanks = not available
Tank orders = different
Siege tank squadrons as troops = not available
Heavy Weapons heavy support platoons = not available
Beast hunter shells/special ammunition = not available
Special Characters = different

Martel732 wrote:Flames of War is not what I would considered balanced, either. Maybe you and I have very different ideas of balance as well.

It's more balanced than 40k. But it does have problems, like any game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Makumba wrote:

However, this means that one can never play narrative games -

Scenarios played every seson and theme lists disagree with that statment.

Are those organized by the company? I'm 100% sure those aren't house-ruled narratives, and in fact are company-mandated narratives, like GW used to do.

What is a house ruled narrative? What is stopping you from creating your own story, instead of using the "official" story, for your characters in any game that you play?

"It's more balanced than 40k. But it does have problems, like any game."

I refuse to play that game until they remove the Stormtrooper rule, which will never happen, so yeah..

Breng77 wrote:SO the largest Miniature wargame should be supporting the minority of its players? Sorry that makes little sense especially as a buisiness move for GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The Armored Battle group is in large part IG, and could largely be replicated in the base codex + FW units, with scoring options. So I feel as if it is different.

Martel's Blood Angels could be replicated with the regular Space Marine codex, with winning options, so I feel as if it is the same.

I don't own Centurions, so not really.

" At every store I've been to, everyone I've talked to has been willing to play narrative games of 40k with all sorts of rules changes"

I have never really seen this in 40K. This is a fundamental disconnect of experiences and expectations.

Come to PA. I've been to four stores in four cities, and three clubs in one city and one club in another, and they've all universally been friendly and willing to changeup games with odd things such as moving objectives or whathaveyou - and they weren't a close collection of friends whom I knew I could trust or anything.

Were these same stores unwilling to do this prior to GW completely unbalancing the game?

The other one's I've gamed at (different stores) were unwilling to. And these exact same communities are unwilling to with other games such as Warmachine, Flames of War, or Field of Glory (I keep mentioning them because they're the only other ones I play).

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The Armored Battle group is in large part IG, and could largely be replicated in the base codex + FW units, with scoring options. So I feel as if it is different.

Martel's Blood Angels could be replicated with the regular Space Marine codex, with winning options, so I feel as if it is the same.

I don't own Centurions, so not really.

" At every store I've been to, everyone I've talked to has been willing to play narrative games of 40k with all sorts of rules changes"

I have never really seen this in 40K. This is a fundamental disconnect of experiences and expectations.

Come to PA. I've been to four stores in four cities, and three clubs in one city and one club in another, and they've all universally been friendly and willing to changeup games with odd things such as moving objectives or whathaveyou - and they weren't a close collection of friends whom I knew I could trust or anything.

I don't want to play that kind of game. I just haven't seen this be a thing in 40K in 20 years. Can I get them to not play Eldar/Tau/Daemons/Gravstar/Knights/GK/Necrons? That seems a bit of burden to have to ask all that of them.

No, they play all of those. And we all (yes, even their opponents) have a blast doing so except for one person, who didn't like losing to the Daemon deathstar and quit 40k forever. Good riddance, I say - get used to losing if you play anything other than the OP army of the month, lol.

Yes.
Leman Russ tanks as troops = not available
Commissar tanks = not available
Tank orders = different
Siege tank squadrons as troops = not available
Heavy Weapons heavy support platoons = not available
Beast hunter shells/special ammunition = not available
Special Characters = different

Leman russ as troops are not a special unit, they are an FOC swap.
same with Siege tanks .

I'll accept the rest, but with tank commanders I feel like you are a bit closer to IG than BA are to Space Marines.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But I'm in the minority, and would appreciate leaving a game like 40k for us narrative gamers.

40k is NOT a narrative game. 40k has absolutely no rule that promotes or encourages narrative gameplay. Please stop using marketing speal like the words don't have actual meaning...

"No, they play all of those. And we all (yes, even their opponents) have a blast doing so except for one person, who didn't like losing to the Daemon deathstar and quit 40k forever. Good riddance, I say - get used to losing if you play anything other than the OP army of the month, lol. "

That is a very bizarre attitude if you want to keep a player base.

Martel732 wrote:
"It's more balanced than 40k. But it does have problems, like any game."

I refuse to play that game until they remove the Stormtrooper rule, which will never happen, so yeah..

Well, I play Russians and Brits and I haven't noticed any terrible balance problems, but that's a perfect example - it's easy to say "I'm not playing FOW because of the imbalances" but with 40k it's "FIX IT OR ELSE RAWRRRRRRRRRRRRR" instead of "I'm not playing until they fix it, which'll never happen."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

Yes.
Leman Russ tanks as troops = not available
Commissar tanks = not available
Tank orders = different
Siege tank squadrons as troops = not available
Heavy Weapons heavy support platoons = not available
Beast hunter shells/special ammunition = not available
Special Characters = different

Leman russ as troops are not a special unit, they are an FOC swap.
same with Siege tanks .

I'll accept the rest, but with tank commanders I feel like you are a bit closer to IG than BA are to Space Marines.

Assault marines as troops are not a special unit, they are an FOC swap. And my point stands.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"It's more balanced than 40k. But it does have problems, like any game."

I refuse to play that game until they remove the Stormtrooper rule, which will never happen, so yeah..

Well, I play Russians and Brits and I haven't noticed any terrible balance problems, but that's a perfect example - it's easy to say "I'm not playing FOW because of the imbalances" but with 40k it's "FIX IT OR ELSE RAWRRRRRRRRRRRRR" instead of "I'm not playing until they fix it, which'll never happen."

I'm invested in 40K. I looked at FoW before I leaped and saw that the Germans were absurd. It would be 40K all over again.

'Well, I play Russians and Brits and I haven't noticed any terrible balance problems"

I'm not sure if you would recognize a balance problem because you don't care about winning. Just the narrative. The designers of FoW forgot their narrative evidently: the Germans lost.

The other one's I've gamed at (different stores) were unwilling to. And these exact same communities are unwilling to with other games such as Warmachine, Flames of War, or Field of Glory (I keep mentioning them because they're the only other ones I play).

SO different stores had different issues. Ok, are the Players for WM, Flames, Field the same as those for 40k?

Martel732 wrote:
"No, they play all of those. And we all (yes, even their opponents) have a blast doing so except for one person, who didn't like losing to the Daemon deathstar and quit 40k forever. Good riddance, I say - get used to losing if you play anything other than the OP army of the month, lol. "

That is a very bizarre attitude if you want to keep a player base.

I'm not that worried about it - if it disappears, I will be compelled to play it the way people who support balance suggest I play it: with friends in a club. So I lose the same amount either way, really.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But I'm in the minority, and would appreciate leaving a game like 40k for us narrative gamers.

40k is NOT a narrative game. 40k has absolutely no rule that promotes or encourages narrative gameplay. Please stop using marketing speal like the words don't have actual meaning...

This. If 40K had an experience system wherein your units gain experience points to spend on upgrades for doing things in battle, then it would be a narrative game.

It is a tabletop wargame which you can create a narrative about. But then you can do that about any game. So I guess chess is a narrative game as well.