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.

As requested in the thread Army Size - What Happened to 40K?, here is a spinoff thread to continue the discussion about narrative gaming in 40k. Feel free to post ideas, custom scenarios and in general discuss what many of us feel to be the saving grace of 40k, which is the approach to narrative gaming.

I'll start the discussion by re-iterating some of the thoughts I had in the other thread, namely that I feel that 40k is best approached from a casual and narrative standpoint. Not to say I cannot be a competitive minded person, because I can be, but 40k is the one game where I care less about winning and more about having a cool story play out. I like to name my armies, my characters, even my squads, I like to have a reason for playing a game against someone beyond the meta fact that I was at the game store looking for a game, and they came in and was also looking for a game, so we decided to have a game. I'm talking about a fluff reason why my KDK Warband, the Revelation of Gore, has come to this planet and why I'm battling the noble Raven Guard marines (obvious answer in this case, but still you get the point), even if it doesn't matter outside this game. What I find is too many 40k players are, and I dislike using such insulting terms, ignorant philistines when it comes to thinking about this stuff. At least in my area, and possibly it's a US culture thing, but I see a ton of people who vehemently play 40k, they don't look at or touch other games (or if they do they quickly abandon them for 40k again and then disparage them as not being as good), but only care for playing things "by the book" in what could be construed as a tournament standard, even if not necessarily with tournament lists (i.e. everything has to be by the book, no deviation, no customization, no discussion about narrative or adding things to a scenario).

On the contrary I would love the notion of setting up to play and spinning a quick narrative overview of why we are playing, maybe even adding some custom objectives or rules to the scenario to make the game more interesting; it doesn't even have to be a lot, just something more than "pick a random mission and go" which is too commonly what I see.

So let's hear your ideas and thoughts!

Oh, absolutely.

My chaos warband is getting its own background story - and each and every model is named (on the base) and has its own story.

Every battle is an occasion to tell a new story (with a bit of suspension of disbelief obviously, otherwise I'd lose named characters in every battle only for them to come back next time) and I'm not against using other units which aren't in the Codex.

I want to add some Iron Warriors operating a mortar, and make a couple of Alpha Legion snipers, even though there's no such thing in the 40k codex.

Trying to find like minded opponents is the key, probably for most wargames. There's nothing worse than trying to play thematically when the other guy simply doesn't get it

Designing scenarios is what I usually do to get a narrative going.
Adding some randomly drawn objectives within the theme of the scenario helps alleviate any fears of bias when making the game.
I usually have the rule with my friends they can switch armies with me if they feel it is not balanced enough.
People are leaning rather heavily on Maelstrom random objectives and I feel it lacks any focus or creates some rather peculiar objectives for certain armies.

I have read so many game books, many novels and played many games all in the 40k universe.
There comes a point where you have a pretty good idea how insane certain situations can get.
So why not explore that on the tabletop.

I seem to remember I think it was a Grey Knight novel that Chaos was trying to raise a chaos titan that was entombed after a battle long ago.
So there was this frantic activity of repair / sacrifice by the enemy and the GKs grimly thumping anyone they could find: taking on a functional but damaged chaos titan is no fun.

There were the stories of the undead plague when Typhus was released.
Many stories can be explored there.
Something about fielding a ton of zombies and having Grey Knights carving through them would be fun.
Objectives can be contaminated water pump stations or other sources of contamination that need to be purged or entire cities succumb.

Soul Drinkers had to dig into their past where large portions of their history were missing or blank.
They were "blessed" by a greater daemon of Tzeetich so were mutating badly.
Their apothecary can explore that a certain "mutant" strain of their gene-seed was resistant to mutation: a "dominant" strain that could correct abnormalities.
The greater daemon thinks this will not do... so trying to find the cache with a few apothecaries to help identify them and we have a shell game to play.

The scenario was that the governor of the world was tired of paying the tithe and would just quietly kill off any representative that showed up from the imperium.
He has been slowly developing propaganda that other imperium planets were jealous of their prosperity and was trying to take over their planet.
So his planetary defense force would happily engage any Imperium force that appears all angry on their planet.
Multiple objectives: SM only had to get one marine to reach a communication hub to take down the old propaganda and transmit the charges against the planetary governor.
The secondary objective is that a particularly skilled and nasty Baneblade tends to backup the IG/AM forces and needs to be destroyed to demoralize them.
I actually played thsi game where my friend had a fully mechanized SM army with all Rhinos with crack missiles and 3 lascannon Predators.
It was glorious, marines carving their way into big blobs of guard to reach the communication stations.
The Baneblade blew up at the hands of the last smoking Predator... fun stuff.

So yeah, not easy for pickup games but something that can be done for a gaming group.

I have always been a fan of the encircled small group versus a numerically superior foe, last stand. Special weapons run out of ammo after three shots, bolters six and then it is a case throwing yourself at the enemy with whatever comes to hand. Extraction is available if the squad(s) can get off a board edge, best played on square board. Problem is enemy has quasi endless host IA13.

I frequently have an overzealous compunction for terrain and trying for a realistic, thematic board - regardless of the game I'm playing. So much so that when I used to play in early 3rd edition at my buddy's GW store (we'd get people together and game in the store after the mall closed) - they'd bring out the terrain tubs, push the tables together and let me go nuts while they were vacuuming, closing out registers etc.

No one gave a crap when I mumbled about "well that's the generator shed which is powering this fence..." etc. They just let me do my thing. I found a key element was to create the board first...scenarios/board edges later. This is something I almost never ever see in 40K (with good reason, the games are normally about just killing the other guy's soldiers).

A table built with a purpose can promote it's own change to the way people play. I see a lot of "nice" terrain deployed on 40K battle reports, but it's always carefully placed around all the quarters of the board, etc. There isn't any purpose to the layout of the city or the random buildings. The worst are when everything is equidistant and placed "fairly". Ugh.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to set up an interesting table. A well set-up table can often inspire a story of it's own. Big mansion on one side of the table? Imperial Governor's palace...Imperial Guard player gets to place one squad of the Governor's bodyguards inside the Mansion at the beginning of the game. Everything else shows up on a random reserve roll as the opposing team enters from the far board edge...bla bla bla.

As Noise Marine mentioned above...there is little that's more fun than a game of survival against the Tyranids or Necrons etc. This is a game you can even play co-op. Everyone takes 500 points including a character and their bodyguard. A huge swarm of X, Y or Z enters on the opposing table edge...last as many turns as you can. As enemy units die they come back in on the same board edge, etc. Players can control both their own and the Tyranids (introduce a simple logic system for what/who the Tyranids attack etc.).

Mainly, we do narrative gsmes with flames of war, or infinity, but there is no reason these couldn't be ported over to 40k.

Ome very memorable game we played with fow was an 'inverse escalation' game. Attacker/defender scenario. Defender had two 'lines' of defense and a town, the attackers had to hold the town centre. All on a 12 by 6 board.

The attacker started by bringing on about 75% of his army. The defender had a small screening force (some light tanks, and gun emplacements) representing a picket line. The idea was the attacker would have the break through the picket line whilst conserving as much force as possible, push forward to the objective knowing that the defender would be getting very heavy reinforcements (their 75%) if they didn't move fast. The defenders picket line had to do as much damage as possible to slow/delay the inevitable before being destroyed or retreating. The defender also had some ambush units (a squad of stugs) between the two lines as an additional defense measure - (the attacker would not know where they would appear from).

I imagined this in 40k terms as imperial guard assaulting a space marine outpost (yeah, yeah!). The guard had snuck around from the back over very mountainous terrain (cunning guard! Marines never saw it! Defending marine commander neversawitcomingicus is off to the deathwatch as penance whatever happens!), and therefore could only bring infantry and walkers. No heavy tanks I'm afraid! They were deployed elsewhere to draw out the space marine battle companies, while only the reserve companies were left defending their Lz. It was hoped to cripple this with the infiltrating force and force the marines to withdraw.

In terms of rosters, I would run 'regular' guard, with Two proper full platoons (ie command squad, 6x squads, heavy weapons, support weapons etc) and light support in the form of sentinels. Typical guard weapons - grenade launchers,flamers, las cannons and h.bolters. The officer 'might' have a power weapon... In reserve would be a third platoon of guardsmen. Maybe some kasrkin spec ops. Or a kasrkin 'platoon' could be in thr I initial wave - up to you!

The defending skirmish line would comprise scouts of the tenth company - several squads, of sniper, boltgun, and biker variety. Their job was to harass and raid and do what they could. backing them up would be a single squad of tactical marines (sixth company) on garrison duty. The ambush unit would be two tactical squads in rhinos (representing a quick reaction force) thst can be brought on by the defender at a specific point (draw a rough diagram of the board and mark the spot with an x)The main space marine force (the inverse) would be represented by elements of one of the battle companies, mounted - again, representing a rapid redeployment.

Victory would be determined by the attacker taking and holding the space marine command point/position/runway/thing for a specified length of time, and holding off the sm retaliation.

The marine reserves could be staggered, and the guard forces increased/decreases to match the scale at which you would like to fight.

Further scenarios could be based on the outcome of this. If the guard win, the marines,could attempt to take their base back with an orbital strike followed by orbital assault, and try and hold it against guard reinfcements (remember the armour that I said was elsewhere trying to distract the battle companies? Well, they're free to roll up onto the base...) if the marines held out, the next mission could be the, sweeping the area against the retreating elements of the guard. The guard have to get as many elements of their army off the table whilst simultaneously retreating and holding the marines off with rearguard actions.

And go!

Here is a "very unbound" example of custom scenario we once played. This is something like "Avengers" Kill Team It is an assymetric, attacker/defender scenario (with two variants), Eldar vs Tyranids. But first a little backstory on "why we have played it":
I play Eldar and, since my early days of 2nd ed, I wanted to play some kind of a doomsday scenario involving the whole Phoenix Court of Khaine. In a "normal" CAD or even Pale Courts decurion-style list it would require a massive Apoc sized game I have neither space or minis to play... So, instead, when I have filled the gaps in my collection of classic Phoenix Lords, we played this. [because I was eager to play this as soon as possible and we had some further limitations regarding models, this particular Court does not include the actual Avatar of Khaine, as I do not particularily like the old model I own and have not yet bought the FW one]. Point values of Phoenix Lords with Eldrad set this game's point limit.

Now, for the actual scenario - first variant, with Eldar as defenders. The story is that a remote Exodite world fell under a Hive Fleet invasion and and souls contained within the World Spirit need to be evacuated through a special ritual and merged with nearest craftworld's Infinity Circut. Phoenix Lords were gathered and Eldrad was summoned to oversee the ritual. In a last breath, the World Spirit power was able to disrupt Tyranid synapse ability, so Tyranid player was reduced in his choice of force only to synapse, HQ and Ld10 choices

The board was 4x4 and Eldar portal was set up slightly off the center of the board and all terrain was arranged to form a kind of natural stronghold with side acces points, while giving the attacker area cover terrain and some elevated shooting ground. Eldar forces were deployed first around the perimeter of the portal and Tyranid player went first, deploying his forces in the movement phase of the first turn "walking in" from three edges of the board.

The goal for Eldar player was to survive with as many models as possible, and if at least one unengaged model survived the last turn closely to the portal he would gain additional points (and having Eldrad in this role gave aditional reward). Tyranid player had a "simple" goal of eating everyone present, with a slightly more nutrient value of Eldrad and Asurmen as their knowledge end experience would benefit the Hive Mind more.

Tyranid force included the Swarmlord with access to biomancy, Deathleaper, Patriarch, Trygon Prime, Old One Eye and Tyranid Prime. The result was almost a draw (Tyranid player won slightly), with Asurmen finishing the ritual, but being the last man standing with half of Tyranid forces still surrounding him.

Second variant, with mirror deployment on the same terrain setup, was focussed around a hatching Hive Progenitor, a breeding organism capable of rapid breeding of various Tyranid forces (represented by a Sporocyst model) - an alternative turning point in an invasion of the same Exodite world. This hatching egg had a custom profile with inv save and CC defending capabilities, and a special rule, that models engaged with it were not treated as locked in CC, so Tyranid player could always shoot at Phoenix Lords and could interrupt CC with other creatures assaulting in. The main goal was obviously to destroy/defend this egg and again, Eldar player gained additional VPs for surviving heroes while Tyranid player for consuming biomass. This time it was pyrrhic victory for Eldar, with (again) a sole Asurmen surviving, but the egg was gone so this Exodite world was not yet lost entirely...

Such scenario can be simply adapted for any factions in the game. Exactly as Elbows wrote above, the most important factor is carefully designing the terrain to play on, in a way that will almost force a style of play mathing the scenario (yet leaving enough space for the unexpected and creative approach) and assigning VPs to different events so that even if the main goal is lost, there is always a chance to achieve a minor victory.

I usually play pick-up games at the local store - but that said, it I the same people every week, and we gradually develop our narrative.

For example, I have a Centurio Ordinatus army and a superheavy tank company for the Solar Auxilia. Each of my Ordinatus engines is named, as is my Archmagos Ordinator - only her bodyguard is expendable. All of my superheavy tanks are named as well, as is the regimental commander.

People will have vendettas against specific named units in my club - for example, Tank 502 'Virgin' is... well, no longer a virgin. Imperial knights have seen to that!

Meanwhile, my regimental XO and 5th company command Tank 500 "Mechanicus Deus' has several superheavy kill rings and almost always survives (usually at the expense of Virgin and Halcyon, the other two vehicles in 5th Company).

So when we do our PUG days we usually have people call each other out for games more to change each army's storyline than to win. For example we use the Horus Heresy campaign character death chart at the end of each game to see if destroyed or slain units are permanently destroyed! We have even made our own death charts for units like my tanks or important squads.

After every PUG day most people write a page of fluff on the club page, describing the battle, it's dramatic moments, and if anyone important died!!

I have personally gone through three Regimental Commanders, starting with Illus Krasnov, and my current one is Katerina Malinenko. Maybe she will die this week and I will have to write up another!

As to the casual/competitive dichotomy, I look at it like this: If the point of a game is to test the relative skill of the players then the game should be designed so that the players are in control of what happens during the course of the game. So as soon as I see that a game uses dice or a shuffled deck of cards or any other randomizer, especially for resolution, I am pretty skeptical that the point is really to pit skill against skill. That is to say, while that may be part of the point of a given game that uses a randomizer, the presence of the randomizer works directly against it. Games that use randomizers cannot just be about seeing who is the better player (although there is something to be said for the skill it takes to overcome bad luck or uncertainty generally). The other thing games designed primarily for competive play require is clear, evenly-applied rules. That is, the primary role of the rules should be to create fairness if the point of play is to test skill. So again, as soon as I see rules designed to simulate rather than to balance, I'm skeptical that a game is really primarily about competition.

For these reasons, it's hard for me to understand why some people think of 40k as a competitive game. Rolling dice is both crucial and constant and the army lists are all designed to evoke the feel of the faction rather than give each side a fair chance. To me, 40k is clearly designed to tell a story rather than to determine who is best at 40k.

Isn't adapting your tactics to mitigate the impact of a 'randomiser' not working in your favour skillful?

 Manchu wrote:
As to the casual/competitive dichotomy, I look at it like this: If the point of a game is to test the relative skill of the players then the game should be designed so that the players are in control of what happens during the course of the game. So as soon as I see that a game uses dice or a shuffled deck of cards or any other randomizer, especially for resolution, I am pretty skeptical that the point is really to pit skill against skill. That is to say, while that may be part of the point of a given game that uses a randomizer, the presence of the randomizer works directly against it. Games that use randomizers cannot just be about seeing who is the better player (although there is something to be said for the skill it takes to overcome bad luck or uncertainty generally). The other thing games designed primarily for competive play require is clear, evenly-applied rules. That is, the primary role of the rules should be to create fairness if the point of play is to test skill. So again, as soon as I see rules designed to simulate rather than to balance, I'm skeptical that a game is really primarily about competition.

For these reasons, it's hard for me to understand why some people think of 40k as a competitive game. Rolling dice is both crucial and constant and the army lists are all designed to evoke the feel of the faction rather than give each side a fair chance. To me, 40k is clearly designed to tell a story rather than to determine who is best at 40k.

I completely agree. Although that's not to say a game cannot be competitive if it uses dice; I'd say Warmachine is pretty competitive (sometimes too much) and still has dice as the mechanic, but there are so many things you can do or could do that you have to constantly be considering them. Ironically part of the reason I have not played Warmachine in many months (since the new edition basically) is because I feel overwhelmed at all of the tactical depth of the game to where I feel almost like an idiot, for lack of a better word. When I would play before, I would constantly get stumped by little things that I didn't even consider because they weren't on my radar, but were not only allowed by the rules but could easily allow the tide of battle to be turned. At the time when I picked up that game, it felt like a great way to play, constantly thinking, highly competitive, always engaged in the game and what you could do, with each decision being a meaningful choice as opposed to 40k's "roll tons of dice" with seemingly little or no tactics beyond very straightforward stuff.

However, as I said in the 40k size thread I feel a lot of the problem is that the players of 40k seem to want something that you just show up and throw down, without thinking of anything else. I can only speak to my area, but I constantly see people, sometimes the same people every week (observing as I don't have an army to play with yet), but the talk is minimal and it evokes more of the feel of Warmachine with none of the substance. What I mean by that is I constantly see someone at the game shop, someone else comes in the store, and then it's "Want a game?" "Sure, how many points?" "1850 sound good?" "Okay" and then right into unpacking, rolling a scenario, and playing. 40k does not in any way, shape or form seem conducive to that style of play, yet that seems to be what 40k players want while at the same time lamenting how the game operates in that style, or, as I frequently see, seemingly ignoring the fact 40k doesn't work in that style at all. I've met so many seemingly smart people not even notice that 40k doesn't really work to "out of the box" play, while constantly praising the game and GW as a whole and disparaging any other game including those more suited to the type of play they seem to actually want.

I honestly do not get it. I'm by no means a competitive player (I tried to be in Warmachine) but I can see that 40k "out of the box" is inadequate at best and outright terrible at worst, yet it seems a Sisyphean task to try and get others to see this as well. What often boggles my mind more, is it's frequently the same people playing each week, so there's no reason in my mind why they can't talk more and string out a narrative instead of just having random games, but the desire seems to be not to bother with any of that and just come and play. I've actually considered, although I have like no experience in doing so, trying to organize a campaign and then acting as GM (because I don't have enough to play in it) just to try and show some of the regulars that there's so much more to 40k than just random pickup games in a vacuum. Thing is, I'm not sure if they know that and don't care, or if they just don't want to bother with it and nobody else does, thereby creating a cycle where nobody wants to put the effort into making 40k more than just pickup games, so 40k stays with only that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Isn't adapting your tactics to mitigate the impact of a 'randomiser' not working in your favour skillful?

When it can actually be done. Warmachine for example, lends itself to that (you have a lot of buffs and synergy between units, so you can build a force that tries to minimize the impact of random dice). I don't really see that as a thing in 40k though, although it could just be the quality of games I end up seeing.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Isn't adapting your tactics to mitigate the impact of a 'randomiser' not working in your favour skillful?

 Manchu wrote:
(although there is something to be said for the skill it takes to overcome bad luck or uncertainty generally)

@Wayne: WMH strikes me as requiring strategy as much as tactics. That is, you need to head into each game with a plan based on how each of your units work and how they work together with your caster. Tactically, WMH seems to be about preventing your opponent from disrupting your execution of that plan while simultaenously successfully disrupting theirs. But just remembering all the intricacies of each unit's abilities and interactions, which is sort of like playing against your own list and the rules of the game, is as much of a challenge as playing aginst the opponent. The dice just aren't as important to the outcomes as knowing your force and deploying it skillfully. In 40k, so much more just rides on the dice. I think this is why it is easy to guess who will win "on paper" in 40k whereas just comparing two WMH lists isn't usually enough to accurately guess the result.

40k is one of few games that has almost everything for it's universe represented.
I think it needs some citizen models and we would be good.
I agree that a more "realistic" approach to terrain layout and army / kill team composition lends more to the game.
Look at a Bolt Action game, since it is a historical(ish) game people try to have town layouts that make sense.
It makes for a more absorbing game.

It takes time and effort to craft a reasonable scenario.
I think people have busy days and they cannot justify the extra time spent for improving their 40k experience.
Plus, we would not want to appear to be fanatics would we?

 Manchu wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Isn't adapting your tactics to mitigate the impact of a 'randomiser' not working in your favour skillful?

 Manchu wrote:
(although there is something to be said for the skill it takes to overcome bad luck or uncertainty generally)

@Wayne: WMH strikes me as requiring strategy as much as tactics. That is, you need to head into each game with a plan based on how each of your units work and how they work together with your caster. Tactically, WMH seems to be about preventing your opponent from disrupting your execution of that plan while simultaenously successfully disrupting theirs. But just remembering all the intricacies of each unit's abilities and interactions, which is sort of like playing against your own list and the rules of the game, is as much of a challenge as playing aginst the opponent. The dice just aren't as important to the outcomes as knowing your force and deploying it skillfully. In 40k, so much more just rides on the dice. I think this is why it is easy to guess who will win "on paper"mi 40k whereas just comparing two WMH lists isn't usually enough to accurately guess the result.

Quite correct, sir. Remembering all of the intricacies of both forces is also very taxing on the mind, likely one of the major reasons I can't bring myself to play it despite loving the game and the support it gets.

I'm right there with you. I can see that WMH is a great game. But I'd rather play something more narrative than competitive in my free time. But even when it comes to choosing a narrative game, I think AoS tends to be more exciting as a game than 40k.

 Talizvar wrote:
40k is one of few games that has almost everything for it's universe represented.
I think it needs some citizen models and we would be good.
I agree that a more "realistic" approach to terrain layout and army / kill team composition lends more to the game.
Look at a Bolt Action game, since it is a historical(ish) game people try to have town layouts that make sense.
It makes for a more absorbing game.

It takes time and effort to craft a reasonable scenario.
I think people have busy days and they cannot justify the extra time spent for improving their 40k experience.
Plus, we would not want to appear to be fanatics would we?

I think though 40k wants to be a historical (in the gaming approach, not the genre obviously because it's future) game. I think 40k games could benefit from some of those Bolt Action-esque terrain layouts and force compositions, but that would require GW having guidelines for doing so. Part of the issue with that I think is that GW wants to push everything into 40k, when it really should be a focused subsection of a larger battle (like it used to be). Like in Bolt Action, and I'm going off of 1st edition rules, you basically were limited to 1 platoon for a game (you could sometimes take a second one), and those platoons were A) kept historically accurate for the most part but with flexibility, and B) didn't allow for things like entire tank companies (that was a later book IIRC), so you had very close to the action firefights. That's where 40k should sit I think. The big titans and stuff belong in a game that is similar to 40k but more focused on larger scale conflicts (think of Bolt Action's tank supplement that lets you have like a portion of a Panzer Company), and not be part of the "firefight" level game.

FW's Imperial Armour books are a great template for 40k Historicals. I guess some of the boxed sets (e.g., Shield of Baal, the SW one, and more recently, Death Masque) are also working in this direction.

 Manchu wrote:
FW's Imperial Armour books are a great template for 40k Historicals. I guess some of the boxed sets (e.g., Shield of Baal, the SW one, and more recently, Death Masque) are also working in this direction.

They are, but I feel still not really enough in the sense those tend to look just to sell extra formations or FW kits. What I'd really like to see from GW is a real campaign supplement, not gak like Crusade of Fire that was "here's some stuff but you're on your own for using it, but look at the pretty pictures we took while we had fun". That book could have been so much more, and instead it was just a minimum of effort that was basically unusable out of the box. That's what GW needs to do; have some actual guidelines and examples. They don't have to be some deep immersive map campaign either, a simple tree campaign or something for 2 players, a league type of campaign for multiple players, things like that with some suggestions or sample "custom" scenarios just to kind of illustrate how to go about doing narrative type of gaming.

This is going on in AoS. Just another reason I want to see 40k AoSified.

 Manchu wrote:
This is going on in AoS. Just another reason I want to see 40k AoSified.

Maybe it's my area, I don't even see it in AOS. In fact, the General's Handbook seems to have made AOS more like 40k in that sense; it's just "X points" and then throw down.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This is going on in AoS. Just another reason I want to see 40k AoSified.

Maybe it's my area, I don't even see it in AOS. In fact, the General's Handbook seems to have made AOS more like 40k in that sense; it's just "X points" and then throw down.

Right. The fact that the General's Handbook was considered 'necessary' to make the game 'playable' just shows how inflexible and unthinking the playerbase is. Points limits and force structures are by no means required to make a game playable or even fun, yet when devoid of points costs and structures the playerbase panics. Instead of looking into new and innovative narrative scenarios that can be forged in the unstructured environment, they scramble to impose a structure of their own - and then complain about that structure being imbalanced. Which is funny.

It's like they need some structure just so they have something to fight about.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This is going on in AoS. Just another reason I want to see 40k AoSified.

Maybe it's my area, I don't even see it in AOS. In fact, the General's Handbook seems to have made AOS more like 40k in that sense; it's just "X points" and then throw down.

Right. The fact that the General's Handbook was considered 'necessary' to make the game 'playable' just shows how inflexible and unthinking the playerbase is. Points limits and force structures are by no means required to make a game playable or even fun, yet when devoid of points costs and structures the playerbase panics. Instead of looking into new and innovative narrative scenarios that can be forged in the unstructured environment, they scramble to impose a structure of their own - and then complain about that structure being imbalanced. Which is funny.

It's like they need some structure just so they have something to fight about.

Agreed. I mean, look at the latest White Dwarf's battle report. Do they use points? No. They talk about what they want and what fits:

Before playing the game, Matt [Hutson] and I [Dan Harden] discussed how many units we'd each take. We settled on four to five heroes each, plus around 10 units, though we agreed that I'd be able to take a few extra units to help defend the Pyrevault Redoubt from the gold-armoured Stormcasts clamouring at the gates.

That does not seem like a difficult thing to do, but somehow the Warhammer playerbase needs to have things explicitly spelled out, because discussing how many units relative to the battle size is lost on them? Also surprise, they didn't seem to min-max only taking the best units either, something else that you constantly see "will happen" without points and the like keeping things in check. Both armies look pretty well balanced.

In theory GW could do the same, what FW did with Conquest in 30k(generic campaign system...).
But then I remember that GW is still GW....

 Elbows wrote:
I frequently have an overzealous compunction for terrain and trying for a realistic, thematic board - regardless of the game I'm playing. So much so that when I used to play in early 3rd edition at my buddy's GW store (we'd get people together and game in the store after the mall closed) - they'd bring out the terrain tubs, push the tables together and let me go nuts while they were vacuuming, closing out registers etc.

No one gave a crap when I mumbled about "well that's the generator shed which is powering this fence..." etc. They just let me do my thing. I found a key element was to create the board first...scenarios/board edges later. This is something I almost never ever see in 40K (with good reason, the games are normally about just killing the other guy's soldiers).

A table built with a purpose can promote it's own change to the way people play. I see a lot of "nice" terrain deployed on 40K battle reports, but it's always carefully placed around all the quarters of the board, etc. There isn't any purpose to the layout of the city or the random buildings. The worst are when everything is equidistant and placed "fairly". Ugh.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to set up an interesting table. A well set-up table can often inspire a story of it's own. Big mansion on one side of the table? Imperial Governor's palace...Imperial Guard player gets to place one squad of the Governor's bodyguards inside the Mansion at the beginning of the game. Everything else shows up on a random reserve roll as the opposing team enters from the far board edge...bla bla bla.

As Noise Marine mentioned above...there is little that's more fun than a game of survival against the Tyranids or Necrons etc. This is a game you can even play co-op. Everyone takes 500 points including a character and their bodyguard. A huge swarm of X, Y or Z enters on the opposing table edge...last as many turns as you can. As enemy units die they come back in on the same board edge, etc. Players can control both their own and the Tyranids (introduce a simple logic system for what/who the Tyranids attack etc.).

It is both quite funny and sad, how your post perfectly describes my most common game setup in 40k, and the most sought after but least encountered one of yours at the same time... My main opponent plays Tyranid swarm, loves her endless Hormagaunts, and we play on predesigned terrain setups, with even objectives placed in a meaningfull way before choosing deployment zones. And I would like to add a bit more to your thoughts about terrain importance:

From my experience, the most easy and straightforward way to "forge the narrative" that has real impact on how the game unfolds, is to design an assymetric terrain with some tactically important features. It might be a hill on the one side of the board and some walls/cover on another, a large wall in the middle of the board limiting "shooting gallery" effect, a trenches system that allow to move in cover but on the predefined paths etc... And then placing objective markers with some goal in mind - forcing to move "out of the safe zone" or quite the opposite - creating natural strongholds. Then after designing such terrain and rolling for deployment zones it is quite natural for the story to emerge. It can be emphasized further with assigning different VP values to objective markers or using Supremacy Maelstrom objective cards as mealable custom scenarios generator or inspiration tool (for example: giving one player cards that reward slaying the warlord, killing a psyker and killing a monstrous creature at the same, while simultanously restricting his acces to skyfire can make it really rewarding to spend all those bullets on trying to shoot down a flyrant...) or (non)Mysterious objectives to add some spice to the terrain setup (increasing cover, making charge rolls more difficult or giving skyfire to a certain terrain features is a great way to make things not feel like a simple maze of range and LOS...).

With some experience, creating interesting yet ballanced asymetric terrain is both completely possible and fun. And in those cases when you land with a bad forces match-up it can be a great ballancing tool when playing even the most basic Eternal War scenarios. There was a time, when I wondered why on earth would people say that 7th ed is a shooting edition while I was having a really hard time fending off simple fearless Hormagaunts in large numbers (even without beast type) untill I saw a couple of "tournament prep" battle reports played on almost featureless tables... And that gets me straight to my last point:

I made a modular, fully 3D terrain comprising of six differently carved, turnable 2x2 tiles and a couple of multi level hills, rocks, bridges etc, in less than a week for slightly more than a Wraithknight (and that cost includes my foldable table itself, a bucket of latex paint and some brushes to give it a basic finish), and after dozens of games I haven't had to repeat even a single layout yet. Even if you don't own your own table and always play at your FLGS I don't think it is a huge problem to make and bring to your games a terrain feature that would benefit yours and your opponents playing experience. And it doesn't have to be a fully detailed imperial bastion or ruin sector, it might be a simple modular hill or wall section that can be arranged as a tactically interesting canyon or something... The sky is really the limit here and really only laziness is an excuse not to spare some time on terrain design...

I agree, Nou.

As has been mentioned on various blogs and podcats etc., terrain really is the "third army", and yet it is frequently the most ignored. It can also have the biggest effect on a game, which is why I think you see a lot of games neutered to a very "fair" and evenly set-up table.

I play a number of other games besides 40K including a few of my own invention. I don't consider a project "finished" until I've got a full proper table's worth of terrain (and hopefully more). This includes natural terrain, buildings, and a lot of "detritus" or the boxes, bags, barrels, crates, lamps, wagons, carts etc. which really flesh out a table.

I posted this in the hobby thread a few days ago, but this is an example of my Old West table for a simple skirmish involving six figures per side on a 6'x4'.



I'm only now starting to assemble/build a 40K/Sci-fi table but I expect it will be similarly in-depth when completed. It takes a bit of time and money, but a table can really make a game. I'm firmly a member of the group who doesn't play a game without fully painted miniatures and a fully painted/complete table etc. My goal even from an early age was to be able to replicate some of the old White Dwarf battle reports etc.

Sadly that effort is now seen as being snobbish or elite etc.

Lovely stuff, Elbows!

The way IMHO to "forge the narrative" is simply to discuss a story behind this battle, and again it does not have to be like a novella, even a paragraph just saying why this world is the site of the conflict, and then setting up terrain in a way that fits the type of battle (e.g. if it's the ruins of a settlement, a lot of ruined buildings but maybe not forests, etc.). I get that a lot of people have limited terrain and space, so IMHO the way to do this generally speaking is to try and build a thematic board. So maybe you only have like some jungle terrain, maybe an outpost. That can easily turn into a table themed around a jungle world with an Imperial station, and you can theme your narrative around that, just maybe not always use the station and set the terrain differently to be a different part of the jungle, but all of a sudden you have a narrative story involving various battles on this planet.

The biggest issue I find is people don't want to do this, or often even theme their own armies for different battles; they will play the same 1850 point ITC style list regardless of battle, when it's highly unrealistic that this same force composition has been dispatched to several different battlefields.

That for me is one of the major bonuses to narrative play: You figure out the scenario and mission, and then come up with a suitable force to undertake it; naturally you want to pick a force with a chance of winning, but also want to have an eye towards an enjoyable game.

However, that requires effort beyond netlisting and showing up with a set army list, which is IMHO another big problem with "pickup game" culture. I think if more people would bring like a larger collection with them (not saying bring everything you have, but like a larger force) and then pare it down to something more manageable based on the mission and narrative, that's a good way to game. So maybe I do bring what is roughly 2000 points with me, but after talking with my opponent we decide on a mission and figure a 1500 point game is best suited, now I can actually pick forces that might be better suited to the mission at hand than rigidly sticking with my single list.

I've resigned myself to the notion though this is a pipe dream and a fantasy that will never happen, because people don't want to bother with it. They don't want to field less than their methodically created 1850 ITC style list; I know some people who have stated in passing that they won't play less than 2000 points, because they refuse to give up some of their big toys; that to me is a complete anathema of the game itself. These kinds of people seem to play the exact same list every game, without thought or care for the narrative of the game and mission.

You cannot fathom how disappointed that makes me.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I've resigned myself to the notion though this is a pipe dream and a fantasy that will never happen, because people don't want to bother with it. They don't want to field less than their methodically created 1850 ITC style list; I know some people who have stated in passing that they won't play less than 2000 points, because they refuse to give up some of their big toys; that to me is a complete anathema of the game itself. These kinds of people seem to play the exact same list every game, without thought or care for the narrative of the game and mission.
You cannot fathom how disappointed that makes me.

Sometimes it just needs the question: What kind of battle do you want to see for 40k?
My friend had just completed his fully mechanized company of marines so I made a scenario to justify doing a Rhino rush and needing those Whirlwinds and Predators.

Exploring the game using the "sandbox" that is 40k I find is the one redeeming feature to me with this game.
The plethora of the new mini-game releases prove there is plenty of room for a story containing a game.
I find the only drawback is you either really need to know how each army plays very well and/or some practice runs to ensure a fun, close game.

I am thankful guess weapons are not a thing: I made most of my terrain on 1' square hardboard so a city layout can quickly be made where the sidewalks and lighting (street detail) are integrated. I need to figure out something like a frame or cover so they can be stacked. My only issue is we will forever play a town in 40k because a hive or city would need some fairly tall structures and I found out the hard way that 7 story buildings get rather unmanageable for playing on. (Needed getting knocked off high-rise building walkways as an option).

I make piles of debris by putting emptied sprues through an actual hand crank meatgrinder: it makes awesome twisted / smashed looking bits that are vaguely brick-like but you cannot be sure.

I still have the original release box sets for Necromunda, they offer many campaign or just general ideas for a narrative which would be helpful in this thread.
I think the Kill-Team / Warband / Gang play is the most exciting and easier to control in this regard. I find I have grabbed so many odds and sods of stuff that I could conduct a 40k game much like Frostgrave (Excellent game BTW).

Yes Kill Team and like Combat Patrol (which really needs to make an "official" comeback) seems like they can be a lot of fun, although I do wish GW had "borrowed" the HoR format instead of their own which is still ultimately squad-based, with like 1850 being the "maximum" point.