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.

 Verviedi wrote:
Traditio, I'd actually be glad to see a general increase in point values across all armies.

In point of fact, we know that this is not happening.

Tactical marines actually decreased in cost from 14 ppm to 13 ppm.

And grav pistols decreased from 15 ppm to 7 ppm.

What we are seeing appears to be a complete rebalance.

And I doubt tournaments will go with 3000 points or something. GW mentioned matched play is designed to be played around 2000 points I think.

Part of a balanced game is the relative cost of each model, to the size of an army. If your army size is 10,000 points, troops will be a tiny piece of it. If your army size is 2,000 points, those units will be more meaningful.

So I wouldn't expect the tournament community to define this, post release. My *guess* is that they collaborated with GW to set a baseline for matched play.

I struggle with seeing how 1 person not having to deploy or roll off for first turn is balanced

nateprati wrote:
I struggle with seeing how 1 person not having to deploy or roll off for first turn is balanced

He's not looking for balance, he's looking for fluffiness

(unless you suggest narrative play, then he is looking for balance)

Luciferian wrote:He's not looking for balance, he's looking for fluffiness

Odd.

Was he looking for fluffiness when he initially made his army?

Surely, he considered playing orks before he settled on his current list?

Traditio wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Traditio, I'd actually be glad to see a general increase in point values across all armies.

In point of fact, we know that this is not happening.

Tactical marines actually decreased in cost from 14 ppm to 13 ppm.

And grav pistols decreased from 15 ppm to 7 ppm.

What we are seeing appears to be a complete rebalance.

Though most special and heavy weapons seem to have increased in price, in some cases significantly. Multi-meltas are something like 30 points now! It'll be hard to estimate what the scale of the game will look like until we see full points.

Narrative has points too, the same system that supposedly saved age of sigmar.

I know for certain that my local group couldn't care less about matched play, not one person considers it a "kiddie pool"

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm sorry, but I can't get behind your argument in any regards. A large number of batreps published were also done by people who consistently pushed a narrative of "no points matches always end up being one sided".

You genuinely had people talking about multi-Nagash armies as if they were going to be a real thing.

Then what is the purpose of points?

If your army of Dudemans is pointed fairly but someone else's army of Dudebros is pointed fairly as well but can't actually do anything to you because you "brought the wrong comp", what is the purpose of those meticulously( ) mathed out point values?

How about you go check out the mini wargaming batreps, those guys have street cred on this site (and the 40k community in general) because they try their best to make interesting bat reps, and they are actually pretty good at it. None of their AoS batreps pre-generals handbook turned out well, and they tried fairly hard. They didn't have Nagash or multiple celestant prime, they tried to make interesting battles that were fluffy, and it was a train wreck. They ended up dropping AoS for some time because it was such a steaming pile. I like AoS now, but before generals handbook I wouldn't touch it, and the vast majority of the AoS community is the same way.

The reason for points is, as I said, to make a good battle more likely, and I think you're being a tad bit dishonest in your expectations if you expect points to make every game great. There are bad games of chess and that is precisely balanced. Beyond that, 40k (and all list/deck building games) have a lot of room for skill in how you put your forces together, and thus it's possible to get a large advantage in the game by being more skilled at list building than your opponent, which is kind of the point. Skill should be rewarded, if not then why have the list building component at all.

HaussVonHorne wrote:
I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

INB4:

Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board. You don't even have to talk. You just play a game. Not a fair generalisation, is it? Of either the style of play, or those who play it, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'? No-nonsense, bare minimum of fuss, etc.

There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical and pragmatic so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Not everything can fit. Some things need to be sacrificed, and frankly, there are scenarios and army lists that don't and won't work with this style of play. Not everything is either practical or pragmatic. Thing is, Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

Good day sir.

Deadnight just won this thread


Good day sir

I find it amusing that you think we have enough information to make that claim OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Different isnt necessarily invalidating, OP

nateprati wrote:
Deadnight just won this thread


Good day sir

Boom. Micdrop. Close the thread. I think we're done here.

Deadnight wrote:

HaussVonHorne wrote:
I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

INB4:

Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board.Not a fair generalisation, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'?

There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Thing is. Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

Good day sir.

By the Emperor, yes! Exalted!

 Grimgold wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm sorry, but I can't get behind your argument in any regards. A large number of batreps published were also done by people who consistently pushed a narrative of "no points matches always end up being one sided".

You genuinely had people talking about multi-Nagash armies as if they were going to be a real thing.

Then what is the purpose of points?

If your army of Dudemans is pointed fairly but someone else's army of Dudebros is pointed fairly as well but can't actually do anything to you because you "brought the wrong comp", what is the purpose of those meticulously( ) mathed out point values?

How about you go check out the mini wargaming batreps, those guys have street cred on this site (and the 40k community in general) because they try their best to make interesting bat reps, and they are actually pretty good at it.

These are the same guys that got blasted last year for supporting Blue Table Painting, and before that for their long-winded videos about how GW "killed" their store.

They might have "street cred" but they also have been long known to push certain narratives.

None of their AoS batreps pre-generals handbook turned out well, and they tried fairly hard. They didn't have Nagash or multiple celestant prime, they tried to make interesting battles that were fluffy, and it was a train wreck. They ended up dropping AoS for some time because it was such a steaming pile. I like AoS now, but before generals handbook I wouldn't touch it, and the vast majority of the AoS community is the same way.

Yeah, they tried so hard and yet got rules wrong fairly consistently.

The same thing happened/happens with Infinity batreps from them.

The reason for points is, as I said, to make a good battle more likely, and I think you're being a tad bit dishonest in your expectations if you expect points to make every game great. There are bad games of chess and that is precisely balanced. Beyond that, 40k (and all list/deck building games) have a lot of room for skill in how you put your forces together, and thus it's possible to get a large advantage in the game by being more skilled at list building than your opponent, which is kind of the point. Skill should be rewarded, if not then why have the list building component at all.

If we're going to be honest, it's more important that players be knowledgeable of their army's capability.

Not "oh I can make a list with point values!".
Why?

Because point values, inevitably, lead to compromise for effectiveness versus what is enjoyable for both parties.

Brilliantly put good sir, well said.

Deadnight wrote:
Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board. You don't even have to talk. You just play a game. Not a fair generalisation, is it? Of either the style of play, or those who play it, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'? No-nonsense, bare minimum of fuss, etc.

There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical and pragmatic so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Not everything can fit. Some things need to be sacrificed, and frankly, there are scenarios and army lists that don't and won't work with this style of play. Not everything is either practical or pragmatic. Thing is, Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

Good day sir.

Man I wish we had a featured posts feature. Beautifully said.

Deadnight wrote:

HaussVonHorne wrote:
I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

INB4:

Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board.Not a fair generalisation, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'?

There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Thing is. Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

Good day sir.

I think you are blaming players too much and you are skirting over that this is the reality GW has created. There is a connotation that there is no narrative play in 40k because the game was designed against it in the current iterations of the game.

The issue here is that no care has been made to make even the slightest bit of balance in the game. The result is that there are a lot of units that are bad with rules that don't help their function and then there are a bunch more that are damn worthless. There are armies that are below the power curve and then there are armies that are so pointless they do terrible even if you take only the best options. Then on the other side of the spectrum you have armies like Eldar that have really fluffy units that are OP. Sure they have all their rules that match their fluff, but because there are no balance at all even taking them is putting your army so far head why bother. Then you have formations, armies are now really "fluffy" because GW said so. Really they are just pay to win BS that hands out buffs like candy.

I believe there isn't really narrative play in 40k because you have to rewrite the game from the ground up to make it function. Then you have to go in again and make units feel like they are supposed to. Then back again to rebalance it. Its like how many changes and conversations do you have to have before the game is fun? If I want to play Green Tide Orks in this edition, how many concessions must my opponent make until the game approaches fair? How about vs IG another army that sucks? Do I drop the Wvyern, nerf the Manticore, nerf priests, and Vultures? This is where that kiddie pool comment probably comes from, at what point does my does that balance out. Is it at the point where every game I play my opponent has a nerfed army and I have 500 points worth of extra models? Everyone has a differing opinion on the subject. Never mind that IG still suck hard. RR are terrible, Ogryns are over priced garbage. Putting sponsons on vehicles is pointless. Nearly every Leman Russ variant is overpriced and die to a wet fart. Commissars are pointless. Neither army feels like it should from the start, neither plays against the other like it should in a narrative game because of the rules, and while not every game has to be equal when everything is one sided the loos of tension and risk basically eliminates the narrative value.

That is why forge the narrative is such a joke, because GW kept torpedoing that concept by making unbalanced garbage to sell models. When I first started the first piece of advice I got was pick an army with a theme you like. I was having a blast with my fluffy army and took things that they would have. Even when I lost I didn't mind. I feel like if you would start now the first thing people would say is don't play that army because it so bad you will hate it or good luck getting games with that OP crap. The things is, now I don't disagree. Starting certain armies for the fluff will just lead to frustration. Maybe narrative play is harder, but for narrative play to work the game needs to start at a point that is at least close to functional. 40k is nowhere near there and that is why the issue exists. A lot of people have only played 40k and don't even understand that narrative play can even be a thing.

They way 7 edition codex books have come out are so inconsistent that it down right damages the fluff of the game. There is a hope that this is at least address in 8th. However, when you see Drop Pod armies are now gone, but the Trygon is now fluffy as hell, I don't think they are making the game more friendly to narrative play. I just think so now they are buffing X unit into space and there are the new army to play to sell models. Because people will buy new marines regardless, but gotta make sure to make those expensive kits worth it! I hope I am wrong, but we will just have to wait and see.

Deadnight wrote:

HaussVonHorne wrote:
I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

INB4:

Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board. You don't even have to talk. You just play a game. Not a fair generalisation, is it? Of either the style of play, or those who play it, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'? No-nonsense, bare minimum of fuss, etc.

There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical and pragmatic so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Not everything can fit. Some things need to be sacrificed, and frankly, there are scenarios and army lists that don't and won't work with this style of play. Not everything is either practical or pragmatic. Thing is, Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

Good day sir.

We're done here. Deadknight wins the thread. Have yourself an exalt, sir.

nedTCM wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

HaussVonHorne wrote:
I've seen this in severa threads as a response to people who've had their current list invalidated in some way by rules changing for 8th. Couple issues with this response:

1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool. "Oh, you've got some army that doesn't fit into 8th or you just have random models? BE BANISHED TO NARRATIVE LAND! You should've been psychic to know your army would be invalidated when you bought it and spent hours painting it months or years ago!"

Matched is functionally, for most, the only game mode. It's designed to be the most balanced, tournaments use it, almost everyone is used to having points.

2) It's very dismissive. It sends the message of, "You can't play for real (Matched), but there's this inferior alternative for you. Or just go buy and model and paint new stuff or buy a new army."

Not saying there's a better alternative. It's just this particular comment reads as "Sorry, but you can still play. Just not for real."

INB4:

Narrative isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? 'Not for real'? Just as dismissive, if you ask me.

It's actually the other way round. It's just as fair to say 'Matched play' is arguably the 'kiddie pool', not narrative, because all you are doing is spamming the power builds of the day and meeting in the middle of the board.Not a fair generalisation, is it? I certainly don't hold to it though I do think matched play, despite its strengths, it can be sowhat more 'shallow'.

Matched play is essentially the lowest common denominator in wargames (and there is nothing wrong with this - I am not criticising). You take your stuff to the board, independent of him , he takes his independent of you, you 'plug it in', meet in the middle and someone wins and someOne loses. Yeah you don't even have to talk. Pick and optimised list, Roll for scenario, roll for sides/going first and off you go. Definition of 'shallow' too, when you think about it. Or will we be grown ups, put a positive spin on it and say no, it's not shallow, but rather, it's 'pragmatic'?

There is nothing wrong with matched play. It's pragmatic. It's built purely for 'function'. It's necessary for tournaments and pick-up-play. It has a genuine, viable niche, and let me state this: I enjoy these games too. But I also acknowledge that a hell of a lot of things need to be sacrificed on the altar to make these kinds of games practical so you can just turn up, expect it to work from the word 'go', and to expect a quality experience. Thing is. Those things that are sacrificed are often hugely fun elements and also quite enjoyable to experience. If you ask me, Ymmv. But I happen to enjoy game building and I appreciate that a lot of work needs to go into it.

Thing is, with narrative, to get the most out of it, it requires a different approach, and a different perspective from that of matched play. It's about a co-operative game building approach. Rather than taking your stuff independent of each other, you 'match it' against what amounts to a common narrative. Rather than focusing on some kind of 'absolute power' (typically the most powerful/optimal builds), you focus on 'relative power'. You,communicate. You cooperate. You build something more than just a game when you turn up independent of each other and meet in the middle, without reasons or justification. It's called 'game building'. Yes, it takes work. You can't just 'turn up'. It requires you to know more about the game than just 'find the optimum build'. It requires a good sense of team building, of building an engaging narrative in terms of both what's gets played, and why they are there. In terms of matching up. I'd argue that as well, It requires a level of emotional maturity and understanding, as well as understanding the differences in the 'social contract' as opposed to matched play. It's not just about you.

Again, neither approach is wrong. Both have merit. Both have value. But to dismiss narrative play as you have - by saying it isn't 'the real deal'? 'Inferior'? 'Shallow kiddie pool'? I think it's dismissive. I think it's inaccurate and I think it's unfair. By all means dislike it if you wish. You are entitled to that. But despite what you think, it's an enjoyable approach to wargames, and certainly not deserving of the condescension you heap upon it.

Good day sir.

I think you are blaming players too much and you are skirting over that this is the reality GW has created. There is a connotation that there is no narrative play in 40k because the game was designed against it in the current iterations of the game.

The issue here is that no care has been made to make even the slightest bit of balance in the game. The result is that there are a lot of units that are bad with rules that don't help their function and then there are a bunch more that are damn worthless. There are armies that are below the power curve and then there are armies that are so pointless they do terrible even if you take only the best options. Then on the other side of the spectrum you have armies like Eldar that have really fluffy units that are OP. Sure they have all their rules that match their fluff, but because there are no balance at all even taking them is putting your army so far head why bother. Then you have formations, armies are now really "fluffy" because GW said so. Really they are just pay to win BS that hands out buffs like candy.

I believe there isn't really narrative play in 40k because you have to rewrite the game from the ground up to make it function. Then you have to go in again and make units feel like they are supposed to. Then back again to rebalance it. Its like how many changes and conversations do you have to have before the game is fun? If I want to play Green Tide Orks in this edition, how many concessions must my opponent make until the game approaches fair? How about vs IG another army that sucks? Do I drop the Wvyern, nerf the Manticore, nerf priests, and Vultures? This is where that kiddie pool comment probably comes from, at what point does my does that balance out. Is it at the point where every game I play my opponent has a nerfed army and I have 500 points worth of extra models? Everyone has a differing opinion on the subject. Never mind that IG still suck hard. RR are terrible, Ogryns are over priced garbage. Putting sponsons on vehicles is pointless. Nearly every Leman Russ variant is overpriced and die to a wet fart. Commissars are pointless. Neither army feels like it should from the start, neither plays against the other like it should in a narrative game because of the rules, and while not every game has to be equal when everything is one sided the loos of tension and risk basically eliminates the narrative value.

That is why forge the narrative is such a joke, because GW kept torpedoing that concept by making unbalanced garbage to sell models. When I first started the first piece of advice I got was pick an army with a theme you like. I was having a blast with my fluffy army and took things that they would have. Even when I lost I didn't mind. I feel like if you would start now the first thing people would say is don't play that army because it so bad you will hate it or good luck getting games with that OP crap. The things is, now I don't disagree. Starting certain armies for the fluff will just lead to frustration. Maybe narrative play is harder, but for narrative play to work the game needs to start at a point that is at least close to functional. 40k is nowhere near there and that is why the issue exists. A lot of people have only played 40k and don't even understand that narrative play can even be a thing.

They way 7 edition codex books have come out are so inconsistent that it down right damages the fluff of the game. There is a hope that this is at least address in 8th. However, when you see Drop Pod armies are now gone, but the Trygon is now fluffy as hell, I don't think they are making the game more friendly to narrative play. I just think so now they are buffing X unit into space and there are the new army to play to sell models. Because people will buy new marines regardless, but gotta make sure to make those expensive kits worth it! I hope I am wrong, but we will just have to wait and see.

Counter-exalted. If the game rules are simple yet expansive/non-restrictive, there isn't horrid disconnect between fluff and gameplay, and there's enough extreme edgewise testing to deal with odd cases...everyone wins.

Making separate rulesets for narrative versus matched play is just artificially dividing the community further and will only contribute to a more fragile gamer's contract ("LGS" or "Matched" becomes "Narrative, soft matched, hard matched, etc"), thus further Balkanizing neckbeards into spergwars.

I have rarely seen a tabletop game from GW being played close to anything I'd call "narrative". It's a very loose term tossed around a lot recently because GW has used it for AoS and now 40k to describe some sort of soft matched play rules.

A real narrative game, like a map based campaign, is actually really involved and requires more dedication from its players than any matched play game.

An example would be the Corellian conflict expansion from FFG for Armada, or the most excellent player vs AI for x wing called heroes of the Aturi cluster. Those are narrative games. A matched play game with no points or a bunch of house rules is just that. It's a word being thrown about way too often I guess just to make it sound like something it often is not IMO.

I'll say it again. In a game where all of this can be fighting in the same table at the same time, you have to sacrifice "fluff" representation for a better game balance. Period.

The people that could do a ruleset that fit all of this things in a proper balanced,fluffy, fun and fast ruleset are out there working to the NASA or the Army of different countrys.



We can arguee about that this is the fault of GW itsellf for losing the scale of its own game. And I'll agree with that. But people want to use their toys. ALL OF THEM. So we have to live with that. Or just go play other games.


A narrative game by definition is a bad competitive game. If not, just look RPG manuals. Approach them as a "competitive game" and you'll kill them faster than a baby in the Sahara without water. So doing separated rulesets, or packs of rules, for a more competitive game, and a more narrative game, is totally aproppiate to deliver both experiences better.

Has anybody mentioned that you can still use the points in narrative play. they dont suddenly just stop existing when you decide on narrative, they still appear in the book and can use them.

the whole point of narrative is play how you want. Use the power levels, or the points, or throw em both out the window. its basically the Matrix of 8th where you can bend and break the rules to your will because GW said you could.

also we havent seen any faction specific force org charts that may allow full drop pod armies or air cavalry. youve seen a couple of generic force charts, and a perhaps not even full rules on deepstriking/reserves and now claimed the sky is falling in on us(but not in the fluffy way you want).

dosiere wrote:
I have rarely seen a tabletop game from GW being played close to anything I'd call "narrative". It's a very loose term tossed around a lot recently because GW has used it for AoS and now 40k to describe some sort of soft matched play rules.

Speaking for myself, I commonly see it used as a term tossed around to deride people who don't want to have to suffer through playing against the same cookie-cutter tournament styled lists.

It usually is accompanied by "fluff at all costs" or "casual at all costs".

I always thought the point of narrative was to play out specific scenarios. So you get together with your buddy and ask, "what would happen if x amount of dreadnoughts deep strike deployed on a fortress manned by y amount of Deathguard?"

"I don't know, let's find out."

 Luciferian wrote:
I always thought the point of narrative was to play out specific scenarios. So you get together with your buddy and ask, "what would happen if x amount of dreadnoughts deep strike deployed on a fortress manned by y amount of Deathguard?"

"I don't know, let's find out."

Or playing narrative campaings with growing forces where the victorie into a battle (Or lost) affect the outcome of the whole campaing, your force, the rest of the battles, your units/heroes/etc... gain experience, equipement, habilities, mutilations, etc...
All of those things are inexistant and irrelevant into a "Pure competitive" game. So is totally reasonable to have different rules for competitive and narrative game.

If you start today, most people will still say pick hat you like the looks of and untill you hit a genuine wall you're probably going to have a blast.

Warhammer 40k is by nature a game that will have a divided community since the biggest common factors are models and hobby. The game aspect has always been to GW a way to sell these miniatures and let people have a fun time. T

he gap already sort of exists between narrative and matched. Codefying it and aknowledging its existence won't widen the gap. In fact it might even bring players closer together as one of the big issues is the lack of clarity here. From 8th forward we wiul have different rules so using quick and easy questions will be easier.

PUG games right now usually involve about half an hour or more of agreements if its between people from different FLGS/ clubs.

If reducing variety improves balance for matched play and pick up games, I am all for it.

Also WAAC mindset players seem to be more common then FAAC mindset players. The second kind only seems to exist when it comes to deriding people (with or without WAAC mindset).
Really read some of the first responses in this thread and you'll realise it's a number of people hiding there WAAC mindset surrounding their list under a thin coat of FAAC mindset. I think it's some of the most hypocritical discussion I have seen so far surrounding 8th.

Sorry didn't read ever post..

But people getting upset that their current list may not be valid in the new edition... This happens with every rule change. Its nothing new

But personally I am looking forward to doing some Narrative play, and will likely use it as the main stay when not playing at events.. because it still has a point system, but it isn't going down and costing every single thing, And I have several mates who have only just started playing again after about 10-15years away

dosiere wrote:
I have rarely seen a tabletop game from GW being played close to anything I'd call "narrative". It's a very loose term tossed around a lot recently because GW has used it for AoS and now 40k to describe some sort of soft matched play rules.

A real narrative game, like a map based campaign, is actually really involved and requires more dedication from its players than any matched play game.

An example would be the Corellian conflict expansion from FFG for Armada, or the most excellent player vs AI for x wing called heroes of the Aturi cluster. Those are narrative games. A matched play game with no points or a bunch of house rules is just that. It's a word being thrown about way too often I guess just to make it sound like something it often is not IMO.

Its funny you pointed that out. I remember we did a Bolt action battle based on operation raincoat.

We had 6 players on three tables pushed together into a line with 2 Germans and 1 Italian on one side and 1 brit with 2 americans (with my Marines very lost in Europe) on the other side. Everyone brought 1000 points and while you were matched with a player across from you everyone could cross board lines. Our lists were mostly independently built. One guy brought a Panther tank which in 40k terms is like bring a super heavy.

The game unfolded with the panther taking 2 airstrikes (one whiffed) from my American friend and several of my AT gun shots, but no concrete damage being done. Turn three a fighter bomber showed up and the Nazis were 1 missed roll away from making him retreat with their AA. I rolled three 6s for damage and took the panther out. Because that was a good portion of my direct opponents points, the remainder of turn 3 involved multiple German half tracks moving up from the center table to stop my troops from advancing to the victory points, while he held the line with what little he had left. The game ended a draw.

Bolt Action has an advantage in that it is pretty closely balanced because armies have similar stats. However, there are still some balanced issues especially as this was the first version of the game.

I mention it because this was actually my 3 actual complete game of Bolt Action. I had only played with one other dude on the table and he wasn't on my team. My army was literally everything I had from the starter box and one other blister I bought. I had said hello to 4 of them from the first time that night. Afterwards we all had fun. Even the guy who lost most of his army to a triple six was laughing about how much fun and also how THEMATIC it was to lose the tank to a clutch airstrike roll. Even if it was a very lost F4U that should have been in the pacific. The guy who pitched the idea, used essentially the same rules as standard mission and just expanded them. Random issues that came up were decided upon in place.

It was like this because the game was made with balance in mind. We didn't have to wade through a chaotic mess of unbalanced BS or use two different rule sets to make a fun, themed game for a lot of players. The rules facilitate fluffy play because there were army choice structure, good points system, not a lot of over the top rules. The Panther Tank felt like it should. A scary monster that took combined arms to beat. My army has plenty of fluffy rules that make it feel more like it should. There is some stuff that is over the top, but the hard limits on choices means that one unit isn't a game breaker.

That is what narrative play is all about and it is very possible. I have done plenty of Dropzone, Bolt Action, even Epic 40k community edition games with a narrative focus as well. I feel confident that I could do Infinity this way. I don't feel confident I could do so in 7th. I remember they one time we tried to do so the campaign ended immediately because it was so one sided.

It would be nice if this was the case with 8th. And I think that is all I am asking; just gives us a balanced start point and show us you care about it. Having to re-write a rulebook isn't what I want to do. We live in an age with a lot of great games so really why bother.

To diferent folks different tastes. To me thats not a narrative game, is just competitive play with a nice backstory and "feel". It can be totally fun, don't think I'm saying otherwise.

But at least, as "narrative" I understand a much more complex post and pre-battle ruleset that makes the battles count to a bigger scene. That push your imagination both from the story standpoint, the gameplay standpoint and the paint and conversion standpoint.

 Kanluwen wrote:

dosiere wrote:
I have rarely seen a tabletop game from GW being played close to anything I'd call "narrative". It's a very loose term tossed around a lot recently because GW has used it for AoS and now 40k to describe some sort of soft matched play rules.

Speaking for myself, I commonly see it used as a term tossed around to deride people who don't want to have to suffer through playing against the same cookie-cutter tournament styled lists.

It usually is accompanied by "fluff at all costs" or "casual at all costs".

It's also used disparagingly because 6th was considered the worst edition by many while also being the first one with a core rulebook to use the term "Forge the Narrative" so much that it became a memetic euphemism for excusing sloppy rules crunch in favor of randumb gimmicks.