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.

 Griddlelol wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

The balance issues are hugely there unless you specifically houserule against them or don't care about what you're doing to the point that it doesn't matter whether you're using rules at all or are throwing some dice around for the sake of it. "Competition games" have been part of WHFB, 40K, BFG, Warmaster and so on since the very start of them. Necromunda and such have a greater campaign focus but are nonetheless about vying for supremacy. If 40K is non-competitive, why doesn't it rely on a game master? Why isn't it structured more like Inquisitor? That was, after all, a narrative-focused game.

Never mind that balance issues can exist in games not meant specifically for competitions, too. Dungeons and Dragons had huge power imbalances among classes to the point that a non-magic class would end up useless because whatever they could do there was a spell for it. Magic ruling supreme made classes that couldn't cast spells less able to contribute which decreased the fun their players had. A well-balanced game with clearly written rules is of benefit to tournament and story gamers alike.

The game has evolved, they would lose customers if they changed it too much. Simple answer.

Korinov wrote:It still amuses me to this day that some people seem to believe that an unbalanced, lazily written, clunky and obsolete ruleset is some sort of requirement in order to enjoy a relaxed game.

Because clearly the better balanced, written and tested rulesets in the marker do not allow players to have any kind of fun.

Not only 40k is currently one of the worst game systems for sci-fi/space fantasy out there, it's also the most expensive one by a sea mile. But hey, it's ok 'cuz beer & pretzels.

Nice, you seem to have read something completely different to what I wrote. That takes serous skill.

To be fair, he is not the only one to give this interpretation - I came to the same conclusions reading your post.

GW let the rules be written either by hacks, or by talented people but without an overall vision/coordination. We can argue which one of these two is the real thing happening, but the reason is that management does not care because people will buy their minis anyway for the awesome fluff (that they are destroying since 5th) and stupendous minis (that are becoming more and more an over-designed nightmare).
They must be right, look what happened to Warhammer Fantasy Battle!

BTW, people should explain me why a balanced ruleset is a bad thing. You can ignore the rules if you want more "narrative", but make up rules on the fly is far more difficult.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

BTW, people should explain me why a balanced ruleset is a bad thing. You can ignore the rules if you want more "narrative", but make up rules on the fly is far more difficult.

Because accepting that the separation of "good/balanced rules are for tournaments only and bad/imbalanced/highly random rules are for funny games at home", does not exist would destroy the illusion of the whole 40k gameplay.

I can understand this, investing 600€ just to realise that there is actually no game to play, but just putting your minis on the table, move them around and put them back in the shelf (and roll a D6 at the end to see who won) let people ignore the facts and come up with "I don't need good rules to have fun".

Similar to "I don't need to drive fast on the highway, I like to drive slow and watch the landscape" after they get tricked into buying a broken car

 kodos wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

BTW, people should explain me why a balanced ruleset is a bad thing. You can ignore the rules if you want more "narrative", but make up rules on the fly is far more difficult.

Because accepting that the separation of "good/balanced rules are for tournaments only and bad/imbalanced/highly random rules are for funny games at home", does not exist would destroy the illusion of the whole 40k gameplay.

I can understand this, investing 600€ just to realise that there is actually no game to play, but just putting your minis on the table, move them around and put them back in the shelf (and roll a D6 at the end to see who won) let people ignore the facts and come up with "I don't need good rules to have fun".

Similar to "I don't need to drive fast on the highway, I like to drive slow and watch the landscape" after they get tricked into buying a broken car

I laughed loudly

You can always just build a list around fun. The options available give you a wide array of options to play. If you want to optimize your list for competitive play then you can. But you can also make a fluffy list thats fun to play as well. Seems like your FLGS has a lot of competitive players.

 mrveng wrote:
But you can also make a fluffy list thats fun to play as well.

No,
You can make a fluffy list, but it is not fun to not even have a chance to win against other fluffy list.
Some armys need to get the best and most competitive list available on the table, just to have small chance to win against a "fluffy" list.

If you don't mind being the guy losing every single game he plays, than this is ok. But for most others just losing is not "fun" and gets boring after a while.

 Desubot wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
1) don 't play 40k, go play something more balanced and good (WarmaHordes, Malifaux, etc.)

2) Stop caring, have fun, profit

Pick one. I doubt GW will rewrite the rules anytime soon, it will keep being the mess it is. But it's a fun mess

Is Warmahordes really that balanced?

from what i understand there are entirely armies that can fully counter lists before it even hits the table. that sounds far from balanced.

Honestly a more balanced game while helping the tournament scene would still help the casual scene as they will be able to take whatever they want while still having a close game. it leads to both players having fun instead of one getting roflstomped for taking something subpar.

I play both.

There are far, FAR more frustrating WMH lists to play against than 40k, if you can believe that. The utter infuriating frustration of playing against a list that is built around the principle of "You can't do anything" which many WMH lists are.

You pick a caster? There is almost always an optimal list for that caster. ALSO (and I don't know why people have the impression this isn't the case) formations with free rules for abiding by them are totally baked into WMH with "theme lists." And some of the theme bonuses put stuff like "get 15% of your army for free" to absolute shame.

The "pro" of WMH is that a really, really good player is GOING to stomp on a weak player, as long as they're both optimizing their lists.

and, if you really like a particular unit? Odds are you can use it in an army. As long as you are perfectly OK with structuring your whole list around it, your caster, and basically everything. With my army, I picked 3 monsters I liked, and I was able to create a list that was semi-good based on those. I can hack it with most tourney lists. But I picked 3 models, and 18 were mandatory, essentially.

Personally, I hate the forced removal of the closest model; if my guy in front has a melta and he gets shot, everyone in the squad is too dumb to snag the good weapon. It's foolishness. I fully tossed my marines, and built my army to not have to deal with that type of stupidity.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Personally, I hate the forced removal of the closest model; if my guy in front has a melta and he gets shot, everyone in the squad is too dumb to snag the good weapon. It's foolishness. I fully tossed my marines, and built my army to not have to deal with that type of stupidity.

IIRC 5th didnt have precision shots which would add more use for having it now with owners removal choice. it also prevents arguments about which is closer.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Personally, I hate the forced removal of the closest model; if my guy in front has a melta and he gets shot, everyone in the squad is too dumb to snag the good weapon. It's foolishness. I fully tossed my marines, and built my army to not have to deal with that type of stupidity.

That killed off the Tyranid-CC-lists and others.....

if you don't play competativley, it seems that most of your issues with 40k would be mitigated

And no, WM/H is not cheaper then 40k unless you ONLY collect the models you need, AND NO SPARES. looking at the prices, the price per kit is about the same, but for the "standard" WM'H level, you need less kits. That's not cheaper, that's a case of the meta needing less stuff.

 Ankhalagon wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Personally, I hate the forced removal of the closest model; if my guy in front has a melta and he gets shot, everyone in the squad is too dumb to snag the good weapon. It's foolishness. I fully tossed my marines, and built my army to not have to deal with that type of stupidity.

That killed off the Tyranid-CC-lists and others.....

And slows down the game too. This is another thing I find funny of GW. With precision shots implemented, and the old removal rules, we would have the simulation of aimed shots, the simulation of teammates gathering the cool weapon, and we would spare time.

But not. That would be too easy. Is mind-boggling.

Griddlelol wrote:

Tournament and WAAC play is what makes 40K unbalanced. It's really not meant to be played like that.

Griddlelol wrote:Obviously I meant playing competitively unveils the balance issues. However, I'd argue they aren't balance "issues" at all, since the game isn't intended for competition.

Perhaps you could explain how a game format where two people play in order to determine a winner, frequently by keeping score, is, in any way, not intended to be played competitively?

I think what you're saying, whether you mean to or not, is that 40K isn't meant to be played fairly, which is entirely much harder to argue was done deliberately.

Griddlelol wrote:
The game has evolved, they would lose customers if they changed it too much. Simple answer.

What about customers (like me) who would come back if they changed it?

 Azreal13 wrote:
[

Perhaps you could explain how a game format where two people play in order to determine a winner, frequently by keeping score, is, in any way, not intended to be played competitively?

I think what you're saying, whether you mean to or not, is that 40K isn't meant to be played fairly, which is entirely much harder to argue was done deliberately.

Full disclosure: 40k would be better with balance. But since it's not and has never been balanced, let's talk about what it is.
40k is a strange game in that while it uses a scoring system to tell you who won the game, victory and scores are far less important than how that victory and score came about. In sports, especially professional competitive sports, a goal is a goal. Trouncing the opposition is encouraged. The more points the better, within the rules. You put your best players on the field and exploit every weakness of the opposing side.

40k is far more collaborative. I'd say that it's not designed to be unfair for one player but that it can easily be unfair if the players choose to make it so.
And it will be one player, bringing his best units as if he were picking a fantasy football team with future guns, who unbalances the game.

If the codexes were balanced with each other then there wouldn't be a problem trying to treat the game as a competitive exercise.
The fluff guy and the tourney guys match wouldn't be decided by lists before models hit the table.

But because the game is not balanced, treating it like a sport is a fool's errand that ruins your opponents experience unless they are like-minded.

It is still, at its very core, competitive. Two players determining a victor can be nothing else.

Sure, you can point to Rogue Tader and the recommendation for a GM, but then I can point to the likes of Alessio talking about how there was a drive to simplify and steamline the game to make it more suitable for tournament play.

"It's collaborative" is an excuse out of the same stable as "forge the narrative" and is a retrospective justification for an underinvestment in rules production. The next iteration of the core rules will be the 8th. Most other games are dialed in by the 2nd.

I think the simplest explanation is the decision makers had convinced themselves that the game is unnecessary for the sale of models, and have consequently neglected it for a number of years.

In that time, they've driven off and disillusioned some of the most talented rules writers working today, and now find themselves on the receiving end of that talent deployed elsewhere, alongside coming to the realistion (or perhaps simply people who understood it all along getting in places to affect change) that many players wanted a game that they enjoyed playing after all.

Ironically, considering the mess I feel current 40K is, I also feel more optimistic about the future of the game than I have in some time, but make no mistake it is inherently intended to be competitive, that it isn't merely illustrates how unfit for purpose it has become.

 Desubot wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
1) don 't play 40k, go play something more balanced and good (WarmaHordes, Malifaux, etc.)

2) Stop caring, have fun, profit

Pick one. I doubt GW will rewrite the rules anytime soon, it will keep being the mess it is. But it's a fun mess

Is Warmahordes really that balanced?

from what i understand there are entirely armies that can fully counter lists before it even hits the table. that sounds far from balanced.

Honestly a more balanced game while helping the tournament scene would still help the casual scene as they will be able to take whatever they want while still having a close game. it leads to both players having fun instead of one getting roflstomped for taking something subpar.

There aren't full armies that counter lists. Specific pieces? Sure. But the factions are all very well balanced against each other. And hard counters are ok - anti tank guns should counter tanks, but be less useful against infantry, for example.

Now, let's be clear - Warmachine is broken out of the box. Thankfully, most games are organised around their steamroller format, which is very well balanced. To be specific, it is perfectly imbalanced. go look that one up! Steamroller is what makes Warmachine good as a competitive game.

Warmachine is a complex game, with a lot of hard counters (some things straight up out match other things, but everything has that one thing that counters it, so no one thing really dominates) and soft counters (imagine 40k where all ranged weapons were ap2 and all cc weapons were power weapons) which is reflected in the fact that the damage output of models is often quite staggering, and even a basic guy with a rifle can inflict a whole lot of hurt. What this means for you as a player is that generally, no matter what the other guy has, chances are you have some thing that can kill it. Warmachine is a very empowering game in that sense in that there is always something you can do.

A further word about steamroller. Those hard match ups that I spoke about? Well, steamroller is based around the principle of multiple lists (meaning if you come up against a hard counter for one, you can still play the other), multiple victory conditions (scenario or assassination), faction sideboards along with a very comprehensive and pretty balanced set of tournament scenarios. On top of this, privateer press frequently errata things that are op or things that are skewing or otherwise unbalancing the game g(eg, the Haley 2 nerf). There is no 'one way' to play this game. And there is a lot of variety in the approaches you can take, as the factions are quite varied in their play books.

At the end of the day, Warmachine is probably one of the best (or at least better) balanced wargames out there. Individual 'pieces' might be rocks to some other pieces paper, but on the macro scale, and the faction scale, the game plays well, and in terms of 'duds', there are very few real stinkers in the game. The synergy/combo based nature of the game means thst everything can be built into a game winning list. No, not everything works with everything else, against every conceivable opponent, all of the time. But pretty much everything does have real, legitimate in-game 'value' and has a place.

I recall an army that is supposed to have some kinda ghost defense. its there shtick, then there is another army that has nothing but magic weapons that bypasses all of that. that sounds like a massive dick punch to one player.

Isnt perfect imbalanced entirely not balanced at all? its just rock paper scissors which is just as bad. its the Exact same problem as 40k in that the game is won and lost from list alone.

 Brennonjw wrote:

And no, WM/H is not cheaper then 40k unless you ONLY collect the models you need, AND NO SPARES. looking at the prices, the price per kit is about the same, but for the "standard" WM'H level, you need less kits. That's not cheaper, that's a case of the meta needing less stuff.

Thats nice, needing less Boxes for the same price =/= cheaper?
So for 40k you get only what you need and for WM/H you get more than you need and you spend the same amount of money for them. That makes WM cheaper.

Just because you buy more than you really need does not make it expensive (otherwise X-Wing would be twice as much as 40k)

 Desubot wrote:
I recall an army that is supposed to have some kinda ghost defense. its there shtick, then there is another army that has nothing but magic weapons that bypasses all of that. that sounds like a massive dick punch to one player.

Not really.
You're talking about cryx ghost lists? Yeah, they're not op. When they attack, they become corporeal for a turn, so normal weapons can get them too. If ghost lists were untouchable by anything other than magic weapons, you might have a point, as like 40k, it would boil down very quickly to 'ghost lists' versus 'magic weapon spam to kill the ghost lists'. As it is, the cryx ghosts units have their place, have value, but don't dominate. Neither do magic weapon lists (like my doom reaver lists).

the thing with Warmachine is nothing is immune. Unlike 40k where there pendulum is swung very much towards 'survival' for your basic weapons, in WMH, it's very much swung towards offense. By choice.

The issue with 'all x' lists is that they are spam lists, or skew lists. By their very nature, skews will do well against some stuff, and get hard countered by others. Thankfully those multi-list formats allow for both the existence, and validation of spam/skew lists (I love my mad dogs of war list-50 doom reavers is a thing of beauty!) but at the same time, they don't dominate overall, and are certainly not 'unfair'.

 Desubot wrote:

Isnt perfect imbalanced entirely not balanced at all? its just rock paper scissors which is just as bad. its the Exact same problem as 40k in that the game is won and lost from list alone.

It's not quite the same thing though. 40k suffers from a lot of other structural issues too. 'The list' wins in 40k is more of a consequence of its appalling game design and lack of care or serious design choices than perfect imbalance. 40k is horrendously schitzofrenic, and doesn't know what it's trying to be, too many things essentially have no value/place and are basically pointless in the grand scheme of things. Too many things in 40k don't do enough. The power pendulum swings very much towards 'survival' - thing of the 'kill math' of a basic marine with a Bolter. I mean, this guy should be gunning things down like crazy, instead you often need huge numbers of them, putting down huge numbers of shots to kill basic infantry. When the game 'skews' towards survival, basic dudes and basic gear become nothing more than wound counters, and the guy with the melta gun and the power fist is the guy who carries the weight of 'doing things' - the game frequently becomes about them, and everyone else is pointless. And then this evolves into the arms race of getting the biggest gun on the board, going first, apply target priority and roll dice. GW does not help with releasing ever more powerful things of whose in game value (ie points costs) is seemingly decided on a whim, and you get a hundred points of x being three times the value of a hundred points of y, or whatever. And the arms race and power creep continues and accelerates. In other words, it's not perfectly imbalanced, it's just imbalanced.

No, wmh is certainly not won and lost from 'the list' alone. If the game was about 'one list' you might have a point, but it's not. You need to examine the entire steamroller package. Steamroller is played at a certain 'game size' for a reason, as severe skews have less of an effect. I've looked across the board plenty of times and thought 'prey' only to have a gruelling slog of a game that came down to the wire. Like I said previously, there are multiple win conditions, side boards, multi-list formats and essentially, whatever happens, thanks to the game mechanics favouring offence and damage output, chances are that you can always kill the offending piece. there is always a way and always a work around. How you use your list is often quite important.

And perfect imbalance is actually pretty ok as a game theory. It means that everything has its place and has 'value'. Unit a is a good counter for unit c, but is countered in turn by unit b, whilst unit c has other value elsewhere as a support piece, The trick is to essentially make sure that it's cyclical, and that there are always answers available and to hand. No one thing acts as 'all the answers' and everything has its 'silver bullet'. And thankfully, WMH has enough variety and enough elements acting as 'shock absorbers' for those hard counters that it's rare that you need a very 'specific' answer (Ie 'I need unit x!' to a question your opponent gives you.

"Forging the Narrative" works in an RPG where there is a GM that is playing one "side" and the other players are playing the other "side". In such a scenario, it is fine for the GM to "lose" almost every battle, because he/she is there to tell a story involving the heroics of the player-characters.

This is less-valid when you are talking about 2 players setting up a game where each has spent $500 dollars on their "side" and when Timmy says "My Blue Marines are the best in the galaxy, they never lose!" and Tommy says, "Feth you, my Evil Marines are going to win today"... but Tommy's Evil Marines are *designed* to lose the game. This is not fun for Tommy and, pretty soon, Timmy has no one to play against.... until Tommy returns (having spent another $500) and says, "Feth you and your Blue Marines, Timmy, I have Space-Cows and Giant Robots."

Now Timmy is sad that his Blue Marines are dying in droves to the long-range firepower of the Space-Cows and their untouchable Giant Robots. Timmy doesn't have another $300 to spent on the Yellow Marines needed to beat Tommy's Giant Robots, and so, as far as he is concerned, the narrative being forged is Not Fun... so now Tommy (having spent $1000 on this game) has no one to play with.

 Psienesis wrote:
"Forging the Narrative" works in an RPG where there is a GM that is playing one "side" and the other players are playing the other "side". In such a scenario, it is fine for the GM to "lose" almost every battle, because he/she is there to tell a story involving the heroics of the player-characters.

This is less-valid when you are talking about 2 players setting up a game where each has spent $500 dollars on their "side" and when Timmy says "My Blue Marines are the best in the galaxy, they never lose!" and Tommy says, "Feth you, my Evil Marines are going to win today"... but Tommy's Evil Marines are *designed* to lose the game. This is not fun for Tommy and, pretty soon, Timmy has no one to play against.... until Tommy returns (having spent another $500) and says, "Feth you and your Blue Marines, Timmy, I have Space-Cows and Giant Robots."

Now Timmy is sad that his Blue Marines are dying in droves to the long-range firepower of the Space-Cows and their untouchable Giant Robots. Timmy doesn't have another $300 to spent on the Yellow Marines needed to beat Tommy's Giant Robots, and so, as far as he is concerned, the narrative being forged is Not Fun... so now Tommy (having spent $1000 on this game) has no one to play with.

And yet the co-operative, think-like-a-gm approach that you dismiss as unworkable for Timmy and Tommy would in fact make most of their arms race irrelevant, and solve a lot of the issues when you think about it. In other words, it's just as true to state that their petty games of pay to win and one-upsmanship is what is actually 'less valid' as an approach.

You are essentially saying that 'forging the narrative' is incompatible with a toxic, self-centred, self-defeating, and fundamentally hostile approach to wargaming and community. Yeah, that sounds like a good thing to me, being perfectly honest.

'Forging the narrative' works just fine. With the right approach and mentality, along with a bit of emotional intelligence and maturity. historical players have been 'forgive the narrative' for decades, telling the stories of the heroics of their Normans and Saxons and Romans and celts. I mean, we do the same thing as 40k players - folks name their space marine captains and far seers, and our chapters, guard regiments and craft worlds. It's not 'just' a game if you don't want to to be.

players can also wear gm hats. Once the dice are rolling, fair enough - go for the throat. But there is no reason thst two players can't co-operate pre-game in terms of 'game-building' and game design and work out an interesting scenario, and good match ups that fit the theme of the scenario. You'd be surprised - wargamers have been doing this for decades, and it predates the idea of points, pugs, and tournaments. All it takes is a change in perception in how you approach wargames.

As for your two players - it's certainly less valid for the simple reason that they are self centred, entitled idiots. Timmy and Tommy need to grow the hell up and step out of the arms race, petty one-upsmanship and 'pay to win' mentality. Assuming tommy's army is curpstomping timmy's, and assuming that they're friends (shocking, I know - nerds socialising and building connections with other people?! Gasp!) Couldn't thry just as easily have a chat, and work out a compromise in terms of making a fair game? Drop some stuff (hey, you've proved you can best me with that list, let's move on) Or build it up against an interesting story or scenario. I mean, if they're mates and all, surely it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they'll (gasp!) talk, and (gasp!)co-operate if they want to have fair, fun games, if thst arms race means one of them is miserable. If they insist on the pay to win approach, then they're the ones that are wrong, it's their approach that is the problem and all they're doing is destroying their own hobby and probably friendship. But I suppose though that I'm probably expecting too much though when I talk about gamers having emotional maturity .

I think a lot of people get burned in 40k because they rightfully assume that it's a "versus" game and expect an army of Space Orks to have a fighting chance of beating an army of Eldar. They expect a unit of IG Veterans with grenade launchers to be 83% as effective as a unit of IG Veterans with melta guns, because, ya know, they are 83% the points value.

But then they actually start playing the army they spend the past few months and several hundred dollars building and start to realise, oh, the Orks they spent so much time, effort and money on are actually just the punching bags of the game.

Or they realise, oh, the points values are actually completely whack, high Str low AP weapons are worth more than their points would suggest, so Veterans are simply a vehicle for carrying 3 melta guns or plasma guns while grenade launchers degrade the value of taking the unit in the first place.

Deadnight wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
"Forging the Narrative" works in an RPG where there is a GM that is playing one "side" and the other players are playing the other "side". In such a scenario, it is fine for the GM to "lose" almost every battle, because he/she is there to tell a story involving the heroics of the player-characters.

This is less-valid when you are talking about 2 players setting up a game where each has spent $500 dollars on their "side" and when Timmy says "My Blue Marines are the best in the galaxy, they never lose!" and Tommy says, "Feth you, my Evil Marines are going to win today"... but Tommy's Evil Marines are *designed* to lose the game. This is not fun for Tommy and, pretty soon, Timmy has no one to play against.... until Tommy returns (having spent another $500) and says, "Feth you and your Blue Marines, Timmy, I have Space-Cows and Giant Robots."

Now Timmy is sad that his Blue Marines are dying in droves to the long-range firepower of the Space-Cows and their untouchable Giant Robots. Timmy doesn't have another $300 to spent on the Yellow Marines needed to beat Tommy's Giant Robots, and so, as far as he is concerned, the narrative being forged is Not Fun... so now Tommy (having spent $1000 on this game) has no one to play with.

And yet the co-operative, think-like-a-gm approach that you dismiss as unworkable for Timmy and Tommy would in fact make most of their arms race irrelevant, and solve a lot of the issues when you think about it. In other words, it's just as true to state that their petty games of pay to win and one-upsmanship is what is actually 'less valid' as an approach.

'Forging the narrative' works just fine. With the right approach and mentality, along with a bit of emotional intelligence and maturity. historical players have been 'forgive the narrative' for decades, telling the stories of the heroics of their Normans and Saxons and Romans and celts. I mean, we do the same thing as 40k players - folks name their space marine captains and far seers, and our chapters, guard regiments and craft worlds. It's not 'just' a game if you don't want to to be.

players can also wear gm hats. Once the dice are rolling, fair enough - go for the throat. But there is no reason thst two players can't co-operate pre-game in terms of 'game-building' and game design and work out an interesting scenario, and good match ups that fit the theme of the scenario. You'd be surprised - wargamers have been doing this for decades, and it predates the idea of points, pugs, and tournaments. All it takes is a change in perception in how you approach wargames.

While this is all true, it's not how 90% of the people play this game, or tabletop wargames in general. "Tournament-style" play, even if not actually at a tournament, is the predominant style of play for most tabletop games. What I mean by that is people build and army around a list (sometimes with extra stuff for change it up, sometimes they literally buy and build a specific list), and bring that (or some variant thereof) to play against other people's similar armies with the idea that they can decide on a commonly-played points level, pick a mission, set up a board in a few minutes, and play a relatively "standard" game.

The missions and army construction are based around this philosophy, just very poorly, with all the "narrative" stuff piled on top to disguise the poor state of the rules, the game doesn't really actually support "narrative" style play well at all, it basically leaves it all up to the players to create that experience themselves...which basically means they need to throw out most of the rules and write their own.

For the type of well thought out narrative play you're talking about, that typically requires close, long term gaming pals and regular playgroups with highly concentrated similar views on the game, which is rarer than one might think. In playing 40k through 4...5, however many editions, I've never really seen people "GM" a game themselves in this sense, at least not outside of a couple Apocalypse games. Other games I've seen it, games like Battletech put out truly excellent campaign material the likes of which 40k has never had. 40k's "narrative" stuff largely boils down to a couple extra random tables, lots of pre-posed pictures, and some absurd one-sided bonuses for otherwise "tournament" -style missions.

There are wargames where players play co-operatively, but 40k has never been well suited to it (well, at least 3rd ed onwards).

When it comes to co-operative games, I usually think of games where one person builds both sides of the game or historics where you are trying to recreate specific events.

Yes, wargames have often traditionally been played that way going back 25+ years ago, but making a game so it can only be played that way massively reduces the size of your potential audience.

Vaktathi wrote:
While this is all true, it's not how 90% of the people play this game, or tabletop wargames in general. "Tournament-style" play, even if not actually at a tournament, is the predominant style of play for most tabletop games. What I mean by that is people build and army around a list (sometimes with extra stuff for change it up, sometimes they literally buy and build a specific list), and bring that (or some variant thereof) to play against other people's similar armies with the idea that they can decide on a commonly-played points level, pick a mission, set up a board in a few minutes, and play a relatively "standard" game.

Is it? I'm always wary of claims as to how '90%' of people plat, or how things are a 'predominant style'. 'Tournament style' far less of a thing within the historical sphere, and that sphere is quite a bit bigger than a lot of people realise, for example. Pick up games and tournaments are certainly a feature of the flgs culture, but in a lot of clubs and amongst groups that primarily play at home, it's far less of a done thing. And yet again, those circles are quite a bit bigger than people realise; they're often just less visible, especially on the Internet.

Now, let's be clear - I don't disagree with what your saying here in terms of hoe some people build and play their armies. I do it myself for pugs and tournaments. I just don't necessarily agree with it as being the 'gold standard' or the 'de facto' way of doing things.

Vaktathi wrote:
The missions and army construction are based around this philosophy, just very poorly, with all the "narrative" stuff piled on top to disguise the poor state of the rules, the game doesn't really actually support "narrative" style play well at all, it basically leaves it all up to the players to create that experience themselves...which basically means they need to throw out most of the rules and write their own.

Oh, I don't disagree with you here vak. 40k is a schitzofrenic mess of a game that is essentially a ramshackle space hulk at this point. It's old, dated, cobbled together from scraps and built upon over years with no thoughts of consequences or direction. And then there are all the 'gene stealers' running around causing havoc. As you say, 'forge the narrative' is GW shrugging their shoulders and saying don't take it so seriously, be a spectator. Not a participant (which isn't a bad approach to take, to be fair).

What I am defending though, specifically, is the attitude of 'forging narratives'. Essentially, not viewing it soley through the lens of 'winners or losers', being engaged with the story, with player driven game-building and enjoying the game for its own sake instead of viewing it soley as some kind of duel to prove who has the biggest nerd-penis.

That said, I will disagree with you on one point - the idea that the rules don't support narrative style play. The rules don't need to. The rules just need to provide you with the tools to resolve in-game actions and say how units interact and what not. Players are the ones that are responsible for supporting narrative play and bringing it to life.

Vaktathi wrote:
For the type of well thought out narrative play you're talking about, that typically requires close, long term gaming pals and regular playgroups with highly concentrated similar views on the game, which is rarer than one might think. In playing 40k through 4...5, however many editions, I've never really seen people "GM" a game themselves in this sense, at least not outside of a couple Apocalypse games. Other games I've seen it, games like Battletech put out truly excellent campaign material the likes of which 40k has never had. 40k's "narrative" stuff largely boils down to a couple extra random tables, lots of pre-posed pictures, and some absurd one-sided bonuses for otherwise "tournament" -style missions.

It's rarer in certain circles, but I don't think it's 'rare' per se. It's quite common in historical groups and amongst those who primarily play at home. Not everyone is into the pug/tournament scene. And with respect, you not seeing gm'ing in action doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or can't happen or that 40k players can't broaden their horizons in how they play, and step up to the plate and take it on board.

I make the point myself though - it helps enormously to have a close group of friends. But being honest, what is stopping current groups trying to build towards this? I mean, hell, this is the age of Facebook and internets. It's never been easier to connect with people and communicate. There is nothing stopping this kind of thing happening, bar sheer bloody intertia and laziness.

I'll make the point again - you don't necessarily need random tables, or one sided bonuses to build a narrative structure. Literally, at its core all it needs is 'hey guys, I have this really cool idea for a scenario! It goes like this, and for the game, I was thinking the forces involved would be x and y'. From there, just embrace the story, and enjoy it for its own sake. We did a scenario a few months back which was great fun which was based on one of the running battles in Simon scarrow's Eagle series and pitted a bunch of cavalry and skirmishers, along with some terrain obstacles and choke points guarded by guerrillas, against a large column of heavy infantry (and their King) whose job was to get the King past all the ambushing parties and into the base camp. It ended up being a very tense and exciting game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:There are wargames where players play co-operatively, but 40k has never been well suited to it (well, at least 3rd ed onwards).

You don't need rules to tell you to co-operate. All you need is a bit of communication and desire on the part of the players. The gsme rules are essentially just resolution mechanics.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
When it comes to co-operative games, I usually think of games where one person builds both sides of the game or historics where you are trying to recreate specific events.

This always bothers me that people only view historicals in the context of 'recreating specific events'.historicals are as much of an open tapestry as anything from 40k in terms of what you can do and where you can go. maybe it's a lack of exposure to historicals skink, but they're not really all like that. Thst said, you are right in thinking one person builds both sides is a part of it, or at the very least, the start of the conversation. We always start with a 'I have a cool idea for a scenario guys. How about...' And take ideas and input from the others in terms of what would make good ideas and additions to the scenario or what gets put down on the board. It's not a unipolar approach.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yes, wargames have often traditionally been played that way going back 25+ years ago, but making a game so it can only be played that way massively reduces the size of your potential audience.

Maybe the audience needs to evolve and broaden its horizons in terms of how they view and play games? The funny thing is, this way of playing is quite enjoyable, and quite a bit of fresh air (in my experience) to those that are exposed to it. Players just need to open up.

Deadnight wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:There are wargames where players play co-operatively, but 40k has never been well suited to it (well, at least 3rd ed onwards).

You don't need rules to tell you to co-operate. All you need is a bit of communication and desire on the part of the players. The gsme rules are essentially just resolution mechanics.

I never said you did need rules to tell you to co-operate. I said 40k is not well suited to it, there is a difference.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
When it comes to co-operative games, I usually think of games where one person builds both sides of the game or historics where you are trying to recreate specific events.

This always bothers me that people only view historicals in the context of 'recreating specific events'.historicals are as much of an open tapestry as anything from 40k in terms of what you can do and where you can go. maybe it's a lack of exposure to historicals skink, but they're not really all like that. Thst said, you are right in thinking one person builds both sides is a part of it, or at the very least, the start of the conversation. We always start with a 'I have a cool idea for a scenario guys. How about...' And take ideas and input from the others in terms of what would make good ideas and additions to the scenario or what gets put down on the board. It's not a unipolar approach.

I play historics, there's a bunch of people who are happy to invent lots of new stuff when playing historicals, there's also a bunch of people who will be unhappy if you mix and match forces in a non-historic way and won't play games which historically never happened.

I'd say the "old" historic players fall more in to the latter category.

It's games like Bolt Action that tend to be more open I've found, funnily enough they are picking up a lot of ex-GW customers.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yes, wargames have often traditionally been played that way going back 25+ years ago, but making a game so it can only be played that way massively reduces the size of your potential audience.

Maybe the audience needs to evolve and broaden its horizons in terms of how they view and play games? The funny thing is, this way of playing is quite enjoyable, and quite a bit of fresh air (in my experience) to those that are exposed to it. Players just need to open up.

You need to not assume you are evolved for playing the way you do, and that just because you find it a bit of fresh air that other people will also. Some people simply do not want to or do not have a community that supports that type of play.

People aren't wrong for wanting a balanced game. 40k presents itself as a game that SHOULD be balanced. There are very few narrative components to the actual gameplay, there's nothing to suggest co-operative play, the game comes with points values which implies those points values should be somewhat balanced and the way armies are presented in stand-alone rather than campaign books or compilation books entirely suggests that you should be an army to X points to play against an opponent who themselves has built an army to X points. At least AoS in their wisdom has just given up on lying to customers with regard to dropping points.... though I'm not sure it's for the better as far as people wanting to start the game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for co-operative play. The majority of games I played of WHFB were set up co-operatively, we'd make up a scenario and use the points as a guideline not a hard and fast rule. But it's silly to think everyone wants to or indeed can play that way. Most my 40k games haven't been co-operative because it's not what my opponents wanted to do.

I love seeing people talk about 'fluffy' lists as if eldar jetbike spam isn't a fluffy list. Fluffy lists can be just as broken as competitive lists, because the problem with 40k has nothing to do with the tourney scene and people trying to break the game, the problem with 40k is that the rules suck.

As for the 'is Warmachine really that balanced' debate, Australia apparently has a very strong presence at world championships, and the best Cygnar player in the country frequents my local FLGS. He seems to really enjoy bringing things people say are 'no good' or 'not worth taking' because when it comes down to it, yes the game is balanced.

 kodos wrote:
Because accepting that the separation of "good/balanced rules are for tournaments only and bad/imbalanced/highly random rules are for funny games at home", does not exist would destroy the illusion of the whole 40k gameplay.

I can understand this, investing 600€ just to realise that there is actually no game to play, but just putting your minis on the table, move them around and put them back in the shelf (and roll a D6 at the end to see who won) let people ignore the facts and come up with "I don't need good rules to have fun".

Similar to "I don't need to drive fast on the highway, I like to drive slow and watch the landscape" after they get tricked into buying a broken car

Spot on, every single word.

It's still possible to have a good time while playing 40k. I usually enjoy my two or three hours games at the weekend. But in order for that to happen, you need to have a friendly, relaxed and comprehensive group to play with. And I'm not trying to draw a discriminatory line here between "casual" and "competitive" players, because I play in what could be described as a "semi-competitive" environment, where several players do attend tournaments with a certain frequency. We however try to keep things civil as much as possible, run some campaigns, etc. And when someone wants to try a tournament-level list... he issues the warning in advance so a proper match can be made.

When you need to restrict yourself to such extremes in order to enjoy the game, you know the game sucks.

Coming from WM/H... I'd say its more expensive if you want to play competitively because of the multi-list system in place for many tournaments. For certain factions, the models you run in 1 list are completely different than your other list.

Its also not as balanced as people claim it is. It is often the same 1-2 factions (cryx/legion) dominating the big tournaments, and the same few casters at that. In the rare situation where a rules errata changes the meta some previously competitive casters are nerfed the players of those casters often have to go re purchase nearly brand new armies, and so do the players that have lists to counter the meta and all that. Its insane. The army comp rules don't have troop tax or anything like that so there are few units that are mainstays in all lists of a certain faction. Good for variety, bad for $ and painting time investment.

On top of that the factions feel flavourless fluff wise. The story is non existent compared to 40k. And if you don't love the steampunk robot stuff you won't be particularly attached to your miniatures, the way we are emotionally attached to our 40k factions.

There is also the small detail of model quality....I cant even describe how frustrating assembling the metal WMH models are, and how many mould lines the plastics have.

When fantasy died (rip) I looked for a new game to play and as a tournament player the internet naturally directed me to WMH. Never did I make a bigger mistake, because deep down in my gut I knew that I didn't particularly like the feel of the game and was only playing because of the supposed balance and ruleset. I couldn't understand it... I had the models and the rulebook of this superior game but I couldn't be arsed to paint and couldn't be arsed to play, even online or with proxies. Many $ and time units later I changed to 40k (just recently), and am completely aware of the problems it has on a competitive level. But, I'm prepared to overlook that and rely on community based fixes to balance it out because for whatever overall the game is simply fun. A fun mess, but fun (as someone above stated).

As a final note I leave this thought: We often talk about a fun list vs a tuned list, well obviously the game is going to be one sided. In any game system the fine tuned list will have an advantage. (Don't think for a moment going to WMH is going to let you pick out whatever nice models and give you real chance of winning vs a tournament list). In the situation of 2 fine tuned lists, that is where the skill emerges. And before someone says "well then it comes down to some key dice rolls", that is also the case in WMH in many situations.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think a lot of people get burned in 40k because they rightfully assume that it's a "versus" game and expect an army of Space Orks to have a fighting chance of beating an army of Eldar. They expect a unit of IG Veterans with grenade launchers to be 83% as effective as a unit of IG Veterans with melta guns, because, ya know, they are 83% the points value.

But then they actually start playing the army they spend the past few months and several hundred dollars building and start to realise, oh, the Orks they spent so much time, effort and money on are actually just the punching bags of the game.

Or they realise, oh, the points values are actually completely whack, high Str low AP weapons are worth more than their points would suggest, so Veterans are simply a vehicle for carrying 3 melta guns or plasma guns while grenade launchers degrade the value of taking the unit in the first place.

I think in the real world people do research online to see in general whats good and what isn't before purchasing a single model, and those that don't instead play escalation style games to get a feel of units and troops at the 500-1000 level to see whats going on. I don't know anyone (in 15 years of war-gaming) who has collected and painted "several hundred dollars worth" without having a general idea what they were buying.

Anathir wrote:
I think in the real world people do research online to see in general whats good and what isn't before purchasing a single model, and those that don't instead play escalation style games to get a feel of units and troops at the 500-1000 level to see whats going on. I don't know anyone (in 15 years of war-gaming) who has collected and painted "several hundred dollars worth" without having a general idea what they were buying.

I'm sure a lot of people in the real world do research as well, and I'm sure that's what drives some people who have gone off GW games to keep posting about it.

I don't know how many people you've met in 15 years of wargaming, but I'm sure there's plenty of people (and I know several, so it's not based on nothing) that have started an army and not realised until part way through that it's a crap army, like Orks or CSM, or bought lots of crappy units, say Raveners, and didn't realise until later. The example of Vets with grenade launchers was based on a thread on Dakka where someone made a post asking why they were always losing, they posted their list and it was an infantry heavy army where almost all the special weapons were grenade launchers (likely because that's what came in the box) and we had to explain how taking a Vet squad with grenade launchers is wasting points. You can even look at it from the other side, there are people who collected an Eldar army then shelved it because of the bad balance.

Maybe I was slightly off on "several hundred dollars" given that I live in Australia, but even at US pricing a "Start collecting" box is $85 and is only a few hundred points, so add an extra couple of boxes, a codex and a rulebook (well hopefully they got one off a friend or small one off ebay), but it's very easy to spend $200-400 before you really start playing more than intro games

From there if you didn't read a whole heap of negative comments on internet forums about how 40k is horribly unbalanced and specifically picked an army that wasn't crap, it can take you a while to learn enough about the game to realise the reason you're losing all the time is because you picked a crap army or crap units.

I do honestly believe if 40k was upfront about being a "narrative" game (which frankly, it's not very good at either) and terrible for tournaments, terrible for pick up games and terrible for playing games with predetermined balance, then there'd be far less hate towards it simply because there'd be far less people who would start it in the first place.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I never said you did need rules to tell you to co-operate. I said 40k is not well suited to it, there is a difference.

I'm on the fence. I think approaching the game with the right attitude is a huge help towards it. I think all wargames can be approached as narrative games - 40k is no better or worse in that regard (if you can build a story, and homebrew a scenario with an interesting armies facing off, you are half way there) but if your point is that 40k doesn't help because of its schitzofrenic, all-over-the-place design, then I will agree with you here. Games with a more 'universal' structure are probably a bit easier to do this with.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I play historics, there's a bunch of people who are happy to invent lots of new stuff when playing historicals, there's also a bunch of people who will be unhappy if you mix and match forces in a non-historic way and won't play games which historically never happened.

To be fair to them, I would raise my eyebrows towards a game of celts versus mughals, or Mongols for example as well, but even within an 'accurate' or 'semi-accurate' historical context, there is no end of variety in scenarios or potential approaches you can take to your game. This is a far cry from reenacting specific battles, which was my point.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's games like Bolt Action that tend to be more open I've found, funnily enough they are picking up a lot of ex-GW customers.

I've seen the same - bolt action is picking up a lot of steam here in Edinburgh.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You need to not assume you are evolved for playing the way you do, and that just because you find it a bit of fresh air that other people will also. Some people simply do not want to or do not have a community that supports that type of play.

Well, let's out it this way - I've had my horizons broadened since I've fallen in with a couple of guys who primarily play home brews and narrative scenarios, and to be honest, it's done nothing but make me appreciate my hobby even more. I think it's a shame that folks aren't willing to give it s go, or that they have communities that aren't. They're missing out on a lot of fun, if you ask me.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
People aren't wrong for wanting a balanced game. 40k presents itself as a game that SHOULD be balanced. There are very few narrative components to the actual gameplay, there's nothing to suggest co-operative play, the game comes with points values which implies those points values should be somewhat balanced and the way armies are presented in stand-alone rather than campaign books or compilation books entirely suggests that you should be an army to X points to play against an opponent who themselves has built an army to X points. At least AoS in their wisdom has just given up on lying to customers with regard to dropping points.... though I'm not sure it's for the better as far as people wanting to start the game.

As you say, people aren't wrong for wanting s balanced game. When I play pugs or tournaments, it's what I look for. I think, like you do, apparently that 40k falls well short of the mark. It can be home brewed and it can be fixed to a lesser extent with a co-operative and laid back approach, but whether it is worth the effort is another question. Oh, And I'll agree on Aos - it's getting finally being honest and marketing a game thst conforms to their vision and how they play and approach their games.

That said, with regard to what you say about there being no narrative components and no suggestion to co-operative play, part of me feels thst like 'good sportsmanship' it's one of those things that doesn't really need to be stated. Players can easily bring thst kind of stuff to the table themselves, of their own free will. You don't need the gsme rules to tell you how to do this. I think needing this takes a lot of the creative spark out of what the players could do.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for co-operative play. The majority of games I played of WHFB were set up co-operatively, we'd make up a scenario and use the points as a guideline not a hard and fast rule. But it's silly to think everyone wants to or indeed can play that way. Most my 40k games haven't been co-operative because it's not what my opponents wanted to do.

And I don't want you to get me wrong either - I think surprisingly we are more or less on the same page. I genuinely enjoy the homebrew/diy/collaborative approach. But I acknowledge its limitations. It's not practical all of the time - it requires time, space, like minded opponents and a co-operative approach to the gsme. I enjoy pugs and tournaments in equal measure, but in the same way, I acknowledge their weaknesses and limitations, and simply feel whilst useful, they are the 'arcade setting' in a lot of ways, and while fun, don't provide all of the things that the diy approach can do. In other words, in my mind, there is value in both approaches and I genuinely believe both have their place. I just feel gamers are better off embracing both thst just sticking to one.

Anathir wrote:
On top of that the factions feel flavourless fluff wise. The story is non existent compared to 40k. And if you don't love the steampunk robot stuff you won't be particularly attached to your miniatures, the way we are emotionally attached to our 40k factions.

I disagree. For what it's worth, check out the rpg material, especially the older d20 stuff! if you can find it. The lore is excellent. Plenty story. Real hidden gem.