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.

 streamdragon wrote:

Define "narrative player" for me then (or redefine if you've explained and I missed it). Examples would be helpful. I know that sounds snarky, but it is an honest request.

Defined just now ^


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mikhaila wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?

I've hosted a ton of historical narrative games at my shop. We'll spend a day setting up a 6 foot x 30 foot table and play "A bridge too Far" with 10 players over two days, or a D-day landing or romans vs celts.

And every single person playing from 16 -65 wants to win.

Just because you're playing a historical game does not mean you're playing a narrative game to me.

 mikhaila wrote:

Spoiler:

 insaniak wrote:

overtyrant wrote:


While I don't condone GW actions GW is a British company not an American company so yes they should set the policy (no matter how poor/ridiculous they are) and have the main HQ n home ground.

It's not quite that simple. Stuff that works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. The US market is very different to the UK, and trying to run it the same as the UK is pretty much doomed to fail .

Exactly this.

Go back a decade. I was playing a game of WFB with the head of Trade Sales, (still get in games, he just isn't at GW anymore), and he was complaining about the UK staff not getting it. He told me that the US, in particular US independent stores were the most profitable part of GW that year. But since the UK has a pitiful amount of FLGS, and hundreds of GW stores, the UK doesn't take independent stores seriously. They also arent as large a store as we have in the US, and don't run the leagues, tournaments, and other activities we have here that drive sales. They certainly don't seek our opinion on anything. They don't even listen to their US employees.

Get a beer or two into on of the US guys and you'll find out they hate the Disinformation policies and crappy marketing as much as US retailers do. And the UK policies are frustrating to them because they can't do their jobs.

So because the US is bigger and better then everyone you think the US should call the shots. As far as we know they listen to the US branch and make decisions on that and their in this mess because they listened to the US. Your info is from a decade ago, is it still relevant today?

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's a warGAME first, warSTORY second. You can play like that but stop pushing it on others.

Hey, all I did was say that it was possible that GW was trying to move Warhammer to a more narrative, scenario based stance where balance is not quite so important (that's probably a couple of pages back now). Then people start telling me how that's a bad thing and that winning is most definitely the point of playing with toy soldiers and have tried to bring up historical precedents for why balance is not everything. That's fine, you can have your opinion. But that doesn't make mine any less relevant.

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's a warGAME first, warSTORY second. You can play like that but stop pushing it on others.

Hey, all I did was say that it was possible that GW was trying to move Warhammer to a more narrative, scenario based stance where balance is not quite so important (that's probably a couple of pages back now). Then people start telling me how that's a bad thing and that winning is most definitely the point of playing with toy soldiers and have tried to bring up historical precedents for why balance is not everything. That's fine, you can have your opinion. But that doesn't make mine any less relevant.

What people are saying is that a solid, balanced system does not detract from casual or narrative play, but instead enhances it, .

There's a difference between casual gaming and having no standards. Just because you don't want to make a list that is intended to be able to stand up to a tournament doesn't mean that you aren't best served by a solid rule set.

You know, a dynamic, well maintained weighting system is a very cool solution to the inefficiency of the current point system.

Points work well with few entries that are relatively close to each other in terms of power level and complexity. The more they diverge, the more all potential combinations of effects, unit counts and intrinsic game mechanics distort the value of a single point. A single Riptide might be worth X points, but three Riptides are worth more than three times X.

Thing is, I'm not sure if I trust GW to be able to maintain that kind of intricate web of dependencies well enough to be worth me being slaved to an online app that can cut off my ability to game at any time.

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Of course it has a competitive element, it's a game about war. But it's an element that shouldn't take over the whole experience. My problem is with the concept of balance. Balance is impossible, even with a points system. And imbalance is an inherent element of war. The enemy might be more powerful than you, or weaker. Strategy involves taking that into account and trying to do the best you can with what you have in the right place at the right time. If you don't win against a superior force, so be it, you tried your best.

Again, you're describing historical wargaming to a tee because we're talking about a game here, not actual war; I've never been able to look at GW miniatures and suspend disbelief enough to envision these sometimes silly looking figures actually fighting on a field of battle.

I suppose that we'll differ here, and that's fine, because I think that once you determine that you have zero chance of winning a game, there's little point in continuing to play. I've played games where my opponent got a powerful spell off, for example, and I lost a large portion of my army; in my mind it was much better to pull everything off the table at that point and run another game. That said, I have little time to game and would derive more enjoyment from a match in which both sides are more evenly matched so that there is at least a reason to continue.

Yeah, I guess we'll always differ there, but that's okay. I still think there is enjoyment to be had in playing a loss as best you can.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

Fascinating. It does go some way to explaining the whole no points/lack of proper army composition construction thing so far.

ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

Trolls gonna troll. I expect a lot of this kind of thing to pop up shortly from little gaks who smell an opportunity to drive a lot of concerned gamers up the wall.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Norsed wrote:
And if you are playing with someone who spams 30 bloodthirsters at your 10 spearmen, well then I suggest you find someone else to play with.

What? You've never heard the Legend of the Ten Spearmen? Once upon a time there were ten spearmen out on patrol and out of nowhere they were ambushed by thirty bloodthirsters! The ten spearmen fought gallantly but alas they all died pretty much instantly.

Now I spent quite a sum of money on these 30 bloodthirsters and as a narrative gamer you are honor bound to help me reenact the spearmen's heroic last stand so get out your spearmen and let's play!

The Legend of Ten Spearmen lol.

That's not only funny but also a great example of how arbitrary it all get when you don't have clear, properly thought out rules.

I also realised how much time it would take to explain to the wife why I'm laughing. This is a serious nerdfest I guess.

UKS wrote:
Hello! This is my first post on dakkadakka. Best way to describe me is a non gamer. (Last was Necromunda back in the mid/late nineties) I'm dipping my toe in the oldhammer world and loving it.

This game is obviously aimed at Children. And that isn't a bad thing. Many legacy hobbies like wargaming are struggling with a shrinking and ageing audience. You must have fresh blood to survive. Look at baseball cards, comics, etc, and how they are dead or dying. You do need to appeal to that audience.

Destroying the fluff though is a silly act. Again, I can understand defending your IP and distilling it into something unique… But these are all subtle acts done over time by successful companies. Change is generally successful when done in small frequent wins - Not in big cataclysm leaps. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Big change will cause big backlash. Continuity is something that holds people in product spaces they may otherwise leave. Apples Walled garden is a great example. What GW are doing here is giving everyone a perfect jumping off point and damaging one of their key offerings.

Age of Sigmar is New Coke. It may have rigorous Product management thought behind it - But the way its introduced will cause massive backlash.

....errr....what?

I may be insanely biased about Comic Books because i own two of the larger shops in the US, but I'm also sort of tied to the industry. One only has to look at the 30 or so comic book inspired movies coming out to see where their popularity is going. Comics are hardly dying. The format is just changing. We don't sell 100% periodicals (floppies, 32page scs, however you think of it). The stories are online, on DVD collections, and a massive inventory of trade paperbacks. The amount of comic related products is massive: clothing, posters, toys, movies, tv series.

Walking Dead alone brought in a huge chunk of new readers, as did Watchmen, Avengers, and GotG. Groot alone is a pop culture icon and budding religious cult

As to AOS being for children, I agree. They made a game that's dead simple to play. However.....once the two 10 year olds are past the starter scenarios, i have no idea how to get them to keep playing. Telling Little Timmy and Little Joey to just put all their models on the table and "have fun" isn't going to work really well. Kids games are all about the rules, not about lack of rules.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Norsed wrote:
And if you are playing with someone who spams 30 bloodthirsters at your 10 spearmen, well then I suggest you find someone else to play with.

What? You've never heard the Legend of the Ten Spearmen? Once upon a time there were ten spearmen out on patrol and out of nowhere they were ambushed by thirty bloodthirsters! The ten spearmen fought gallantly but alas they all died pretty much instantly.

Now I spent quite a sum of money on these 30 bloodthirsters and as a narrative gamer you are honor bound to help me reenact the spearmen's heroic last stand so get out your spearmen and let's play!

Not honour bound at all. But if you put it that way, that could actually be quite fun. Especially with multiple players, secret objectives and the like.

Well, I read the rules last night, as I'm sure everyone here has.

My favorites:

(everyone's already discussed the "measure from the closest point of the model" absurdity, but it's still SOO GOOOD that I have to reference it again)

The terrain rules - _all_ terrain has some sort of effect (cursed, inspiring, etc). Terrain movement rules basically non-existent. There are 0-3 pieces of terrain per 2' square. So lots of forests and buildings killing your models outright because they all have a stupid effect.

The movement rules - walk: Move in inches; run: Move in inches + d6; charge: 2d6. What the fu? The flying dudes have a special rule for 3d6 charge, but the cavalry hero does not. Yup, he plods along as slow as the ground pounders.

Charge: you have to complete the charge - aka be within 0.5" for a successful charge. Then models in the unit can move 3" to get close. But then models within 3" of an enemy can strike. Again, what the fu? GW better sell Warmachine style rulers with 3"x0.5" dimensions

Setup: continue setting up until you _run out of space_, utterly hilarious, my favorite quote in the rules

Anyone notice the included Sigmarite army immediately gets Sudden Death due to the number of models?

This is the worst ruleset I have read in 20 years of miniatures gaming. The miniatures look cool at least, and there are dozens of other game systems out there that are better deserving of being played than this garbage. It's like two drunk morons scribbled out a ruleset on a napkin at a bar/pub after someone described miniatures wargaming to them.

nudibranch wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's a warGAME first, warSTORY second. You can play like that but stop pushing it on others.

Hey, all I did was say that it was possible that GW was trying to move Warhammer to a more narrative, scenario based stance where balance is not quite so important (that's probably a couple of pages back now). Then people start telling me how that's a bad thing and that winning is most definitely the point of playing with toy soldiers and have tried to bring up historical precedents for why balance is not everything. That's fine, you can have your opinion. But that doesn't make mine any less relevant.

What people are saying is that a solid, balanced system does not detract from casual or narrative play, but instead enhances it, .

And I would say - not necesarily. But I would also say that expecting balance from any GW product is overly optimistic.

Now, as to this online points calculator pay by the month rumor......

-I'm actually hoping for it because it's better than no points system.
-I could actually play games with it.
-I can run leagues and tournaments.

The cost is minimal....because each of us will have a buddy who has an account and can look up points for us. And someone will easily just retro engineer the system. It's just math, no matter what algorithm they use, we have all the data points and can reconstruct it. People will have cheat sheets out that give an idea of the values.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Sure you guys can teach them all that lifting own models or effortless winning for a sake of a simplistic story of a 100000th made up battle is fun and all power to you but is that wargaming really? Sounds like warcuddling tbh.

REAL wargaming is a MANLY affair, full of badassery. FETH YEAH!

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's a warGAME first, warSTORY second. You can play like that but stop pushing it on others.

Hey, all I did was say that it was possible that GW was trying to move Warhammer to a more narrative, scenario based stance where balance is not quite so important (that's probably a couple of pages back now). Then people start telling me how that's a bad thing and that winning is most definitely the point of playing with toy soldiers and have tried to bring up historical precedents for why balance is not everything. That's fine, you can have your opinion. But that doesn't make mine any less relevant.

The point is, you can play your game in a balanced system, I will have a hard time playing mine in a narrative, scenario based one. You defend the latter when in fact the alternative wouldnt hurt you at all, not to mention GW loves you for your generosity.

See I like scenarios from time to time, assuming there's some way to win. Withstand an attack heavily outnumbered for given number of turns, kill a centerpiece model with a guerilla force etc but from my experience, those are rarely balanced and require switching sides to determine the winner. And if you don't have a winner, it's often hard to say whether your tactics were actualy good or not. Sure I have an eye for that but it's still a guess, especialy that, as mr. Swastakovey said,it's harder in varied fantasy games.

Norsed wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

Define "narrative player" for me then (or redefine if you've explained and I missed it). Examples would be helpful. I know that sounds snarky, but it is an honest request.

Defined just now ^


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mikhaila wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?

I've hosted a ton of historical narrative games at my shop. We'll spend a day setting up a 6 foot x 30 foot table and play "A bridge too Far" with 10 players over two days, or a D-day landing or romans vs celts.

And every single person playing from 16 -65 wants to win.

Just because you're playing a historical game does not mean you're playing a narrative game to me.

Ah, awesome fallacy mate. So by your definition of "Narrative", if i play anything that wasn't exactly what you think is narrative, by game wasn't "narrative".

Tell me, WTF do you think setting up a huge table with the force orgs used from a battle, no points, giving people the objectives based on a story line set up for the game?

You're trolling at this point.

nudibranch wrote:
I have a feeling that within the wargaming community, 'competitive' has become such a loaded word that it only seems to refer to 'WAAC TFGs' for some people.

Quite possibly. That's certainly how I respond to the word competitive. Perhaps that is wrong of me.

On the other hand, the wargaming community now seems to think that narrative gaming is about making a story up about your army you've built for a tournament, explaining why the shoebox you've brought is actually a tank, or that it's about 'group therapy' or 'cuddling'.

overtyrant wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

Spoiler:

 insaniak wrote:

overtyrant wrote:


While I don't condone GW actions GW is a British company not an American company so yes they should set the policy (no matter how poor/ridiculous they are) and have the main HQ n home ground.

It's not quite that simple. Stuff that works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. The US market is very different to the UK, and trying to run it the same as the UK is pretty much doomed to fail .

Exactly this.

Go back a decade. I was playing a game of WFB with the head of Trade Sales, (still get in games, he just isn't at GW anymore), and he was complaining about the UK staff not getting it. He told me that the US, in particular US independent stores were the most profitable part of GW that year. But since the UK has a pitiful amount of FLGS, and hundreds of GW stores, the UK doesn't take independent stores seriously. They also arent as large a store as we have in the US, and don't run the leagues, tournaments, and other activities we have here that drive sales. They certainly don't seek our opinion on anything. They don't even listen to their US employees.

Get a beer or two into on of the US guys and you'll find out they hate the Disinformation policies and crappy marketing as much as US retailers do. And the UK policies are frustrating to them because they can't do their jobs.

So because the US is bigger and better then everyone you think the US should call the shots. As far as we know they listen to the US branch and make decisions on that and their in this mess because they listened to the US. Your info is from a decade ago, is it still relevant today?

Dude, you're reading way too much into what he stated. The US and UK are two very different markets when it comes to GW's games. The UK is full of GW stores but the US is reliant on FLGS and LGS because there are barely any GW stores here.

Mikhaila is a FLGS owner with stores in Philadelphia. There's about 2 million people in that metro area, 1 GW store, over 2 dozen independent stores. Mikhaila's stores literally have a bigger market presence than GW's store and he's been gaming, running stores and selling GW products for decades. Independent stores are not the same as GW stores. If GW wants to be successful and profitable in the US they need the independent stores to carry, promote and sell their products. Independent retailers are essential partners when it comes to the success of GW games in the US and Mikhaila is just lamenting the fact that GW's corporate offices in Nottingham seem to be willfully ignorant of the realities of that symbiotic relationship. Consequently GW policies that are put forth from Nottingham for use in the US aren't tailored to fit the realities of the US market and help independent retailers successfully sell GW products.

Since Mikhaila still has a bigger retail presence in the Philadelphia market than GW and is still selling and promoting their products and dealing with GW reps on a regular ongoing basis his info is still relevant.

The whole ugly American being arrogant and condescending is a fabricated straw man on your part and that stereotype has not been evidenced in the discussion you reference.

 gorgon wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Sure you guys can teach them all that lifting own models or effortless winning for a sake of a simplistic story of a 100000th made up battle is fun and all power to you but is that wargaming really? Sounds like warcuddling tbh.

REAL wargaming is a MANLY affair, full of badassery. FETH YEAH!

WHERE DO YOU LIVE? I'LL MAKE YOU EAT YOUR OWN OVAL BASES.

It's not actualy and making it even cuddlier doesnt help tbh.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's a warGAME first, warSTORY second. You can play like that but stop pushing it on others.

Hey, all I did was say that it was possible that GW was trying to move Warhammer to a more narrative, scenario based stance where balance is not quite so important (that's probably a couple of pages back now). Then people start telling me how that's a bad thing and that winning is most definitely the point of playing with toy soldiers and have tried to bring up historical precedents for why balance is not everything. That's fine, you can have your opinion. But that doesn't make mine any less relevant.

The point is, you can play your game in a balanced system, I will have a hard time playing mine in a narrative, scenario based one. You defend the latter when in fact the alternative wouldnt hurt you at all, not to mention GW loves you for your generosity.

Indeed. It's far easier to write a scenario like Norsed wants out of a points based system where you can just ignore all the army building rules and points than it is to do the reverse.

 mikhaila wrote:


Ah, awesome fallacy mate. So by your definition of "Narrative", if i play anything that wasn't exactly what you think is narrative, by game wasn't "narrative".

Tell me, WTF do you think setting up a huge table with the force orgs used from a battle, no points, giving people the objectives based on a story line set up for the game?

You're trolling at this point.

No mate, I'm not. Did you mention any of that before? No, you did not. Sounds like a narrative game to me.

I said:

"Just because you're playing a historical game does not mean you're playing a narrative game to me."

"Just because" <-- see that bit? It means that historical does not automatically mean narrative, which a lot of people on this board do seem to think...

Was there a story involved? Was everyone in the game involved in that story? Why, yes they were. Therefore: narrative game.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's a warGAME first, warSTORY second. You can play like that but stop pushing it on others.

Hey, all I did was say that it was possible that GW was trying to move Warhammer to a more narrative, scenario based stance where balance is not quite so important (that's probably a couple of pages back now). Then people start telling me how that's a bad thing and that winning is most definitely the point of playing with toy soldiers and have tried to bring up historical precedents for why balance is not everything. That's fine, you can have your opinion. But that doesn't make mine any less relevant.

The point is, you can play your game in a balanced system, I will have a hard time playing mine in a narrative, scenario based one. You defend the latter when in fact the alternative wouldnt hurt you at all, not to mention GW loves you for your generosity.

Indeed. It's far easier to write a scenario like Norsed wants out of a points based system where you can just ignore all the army building rules and points than it is to do the reverse.

It is so much easier to make an imbalanced game out of a balanced one than vice versa. It's easy to strip all the points costs and FoC out of a well crafted system, but it's difficult to add all that to a poorly made one.

ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

If that's true, I look forward to pirating the crap out of it when it is inevitably cracked and uploaded within a couple of weeks. Assuming this is accurate, it seems GW still haven't managed to figure out how the internet works.

overtyrant wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

Spoiler:

 insaniak wrote:

overtyrant wrote:


While I don't condone GW actions GW is a British company not an American company so yes they should set the policy (no matter how poor/ridiculous they are) and have the main HQ n home ground.

It's not quite that simple. Stuff that works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. The US market is very different to the UK, and trying to run it the same as the UK is pretty much doomed to fail .

Exactly this.

Go back a decade. I was playing a game of WFB with the head of Trade Sales, (still get in games, he just isn't at GW anymore), and he was complaining about the UK staff not getting it. He told me that the US, in particular US independent stores were the most profitable part of GW that year. But since the UK has a pitiful amount of FLGS, and hundreds of GW stores, the UK doesn't take independent stores seriously. They also arent as large a store as we have in the US, and don't run the leagues, tournaments, and other activities we have here that drive sales. They certainly don't seek our opinion on anything. They don't even listen to their US employees.

Get a beer or two into on of the US guys and you'll find out they hate the Disinformation policies and crappy marketing as much as US retailers do. And the UK policies are frustrating to them because they can't do their jobs.

So because the US is bigger and better then everyone you think the US should call the shots. As far as we know they listen to the US branch and make decisions on that and their in this mess because they listened to the US. Your info is from a decade ago, is it still relevant today?

Nope, that's something you said, not I. But others have answered you more elequently than I would.

I'm probably going to repost this down in YMDC soon enough, but it should be read to see how botched this thing is:

Avian's "WTF moments in the AoS rules" on Warseer

EDIT - Tossed it down in General Discussion

- Salvage

Norsed wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:


Ah, awesome fallacy mate. So by your definition of "Narrative", if i play anything that wasn't exactly what you think is narrative, by game wasn't "narrative".

Tell me, WTF do you think setting up a huge table with the force orgs used from a battle, no points, giving people the objectives based on a story line set up for the game?

You're trolling at this point.

No mate, I'm not. Did you mention any of that before? No, you did not. Sounds like a narrative game to me.

I said:

"Just because you're playing a historical game does not mean you're playing a narrative game to me."

"Just because" <-- see that bit? It means that historical does not automatically mean narrative, which a lot of people on this board do seem to think...

Was there a story involved? Was everyone in the game involved in that story? Why, yes they were. Therefore: narrative game.

Ok, now I'm really confused. I'm trying to understand your argument but you just contradicted yourself.

Was there a story involved? Was everyone in the game involved in that story? Why, yes they were. Therefore: narrative game.

This is literally every historical game invented because the battles have happened and stories of what happened are known. Of course all the players are involved.

At this point the only thing that I can think of is that you're talking about D&D now where there would be a completely fabricated story.

OH, I get it. I heard that the GW design team originally made 40K and WHFB as a kind of D&D-esque storytelling mechanism; I think this is what you're talking about.

Norsed wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:


Ah, awesome fallacy mate. So by your definition of "Narrative", if i play anything that wasn't exactly what you think is narrative, by game wasn't "narrative".

Tell me, WTF do you think setting up a huge table with the force orgs used from a battle, no points, giving people the objectives based on a story line set up for the game?

You're trolling at this point.

No mate, I'm not. Did you mention any of that before? No, you did not. Sounds like a narrative game to me.

I said:

"Just because you're playing a historical game does not mean you're playing a narrative game to me."



"Just because" <-- see that bit? It means that historical does not automatically mean narrative, which a lot of people on this board do seem to think...

Was there a story involved? Was everyone in the game involved in that story? Why, yes they were. Therefore: narrative game.

Strange....you don't know what "a bridge too far" references? It's a story (narrative) about something that happened in world war 2. I think that's the major bit of information in the post. You've heard of WW2, right?

I guess just waiting for more people than a few to play one match of the game before jumping to conclusions is too much to ask for some users.

I'm literally seeing people who have decided the game is bad based on one user saying so who hasn't even played the game, or has played one match of it and just quickly browsed trough the rules ONCE.

Such an unbelievably idiotic way to go about anything really, but yeah, we can't all be sensible.