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.

 Galas wrote:
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.

What you are describing is usually considered a campaign, which can be both narrative or competitive.

When people push the "narrative play" button in 40k, they are mostly referring to playing a theme game using armies with fluffy choices. For example, a Tallarn army with all rough riders and tanks vs Iron Warriors would be a for narrative play. Or an all Thousand Sons army to play against space wolves. In both cases, you would have to take some serious concession on the IW or SW side to give the other one a chance.

In Bolt Action, they actually help you out with that. For example, I can choose from an army list with my marines that has options from the Guadalcanal campaign or Iwo Campaign, or just a basic any time army. The different time frames limit what options you might have. So you could do an Island Hopping narrative game if you so desired.

We also talked about doing several famous battles linked starting on D-day, but it never materialized.

I can totally understand your point, but thats why to me the pure "narrative" comes from campaings and, at least, conected battles with effect in the nex battles.

I totally understand that you can have a "narrative" game in hitself, but to me thats like... "narrative lite" you know?

I'm a 100% narrative player and RPG player, so thats why I prefer more long standing games that allow me to create a feeling and history to my army, and customice my own heroes and units throug the curse of that campaing/Story

I would actually like to play some persistent compaigns because I think it would be a lot of fun, but it certainly is a bit more work to try and set it all up with others who want to do the same thing, compared to playing one-off pick up games and the like.

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:

Inferior? I consider narrative gaming to be the truly hard mode gaming requiring more skill from the players.

It also seems like fluff and narrative are being used a bit too interchangeably. There can be a fluffy narrative like recreating the fall of cadia or some specific battle but I don't think the word narrative is restricted to fluff.

Narrative can just imply a story behind your army that doesn't need a literal write up. For example your army has a lot of tanks; it's a tank battalion or its a horde of foot slogging orks so it's a waaahg warband.

I don't think gw has a choke hold on what is considered narrative and I don't think narrative play is always a campaign. It could also be a unique deployment. Sisters had awsome missions that told a narrative without needing to know the liststatus (defend the shrine). Even how you set up terrain can make a game narrative. It's just accepting a degree of dynamic ballance that's not always reflected in points

nateprati wrote:
It also seems like fluff and narrative are being used a bit too interchangeably. There can be a fluffy narrative like recreating the fall of cadia or some specific battle but I don't think the word narrative is restricted to fluff.

Narrative can just imply a story behind your army that doesn't need a literal write up. For example your army has a lot of tanks; it's a tank battalion or its a horde of foot slogging orks so it's a waaahg warband.

I don't think gw has a choke hold on what is considered narrative and I don't think narrative play is always a campaign. It could also be a unique deployment. Sisters had awsome missions that told a narrative without needing to know the liststatus (defend the shrine). Even how you set up terrain can make a game narrative. It's just accepting a degree of dynamic ballance that's not always reflected in points

Actually for GW specifically they use narrative rather than fluff because the term 'fluff' came from a different game system, according to rob simes at least.

Matched play doesn't really interest me. It seems that because the balance trumps the lore we may as well all play the same army. I want epic tales of a handfull of marines repelling entire invasion fleets.

I fell like that's a problem with marines in general. Just to be balanced they play like anything else. People regularly take a whole company to a game and lose. In the fluff a company of marines would change the tide of a major war.

ERJAK wrote:

nateprati wrote:
It also seems like fluff and narrative are being used a bit too interchangeably. There can be a fluffy narrative like recreating the fall of cadia or some specific battle but I don't think the word narrative is restricted to fluff.

Narrative can just imply a story behind your army that doesn't need a literal write up. For example your army has a lot of tanks; it's a tank battalion or its a horde of foot slogging orks so it's a waaahg warband.

I don't think gw has a choke hold on what is considered narrative and I don't think narrative play is always a campaign. It could also be a unique deployment. Sisters had awsome missions that told a narrative without needing to know the liststatus (defend the shrine). Even how you set up terrain can make a game narrative. It's just accepting a degree of dynamic ballance that's not always reflected in points

Actually for GW specifically they use narrative rather than fluff because the term 'fluff' came from a different game system, according to rob simes at least.

Fun fact, the old manager at the local GW (long gone) actually disliked it when you said "fluff" in store because it "diminished its importance". He insisted we called it "backstory" or "narrative". This was before 7th edition.

I'm in the same boat..

I started a Stormtrooper army (Militarum Tempestusbla, i doubt they will exist anyway in 8th, GW will force me to buy Imperial Guard stuff i dont want..) army half a year ago, and i only started them to have an elite paratrooper army. I never cared on how effective they are (i'm like 1-6 win/loss with em..). All i wanted was well equipped dudes jumping out of their Valks and get their air support.

Ye i can play narrative, but noone else will play narrative, i think noone will want to play it. The problem will be that i can't equip my dudes the way i want. Narrative play probably restricts you to pre-equipped squads and dont even have points anymore..

I usually started with 1-2 Taurox scouts or Infantry units on the board before dropping all the gak in 2nd round. I always told my enemy that i have lots of Flyers, and my happy Tau enemy intercepted the gak out of my Stormis anyway. I still had great fun with these games see them die in glory.

Im just a bit pissed that i can only drop 50% of the army now.
Yea..! Lets bend the fluff to: 50% of em already dropped and are waiting for backup...

NO goddamnit! It was the f***in D-Day feeling i want from that list.

Kremling wrote:
NO goddamnit! It was the f***in D-Day feeling i want from that list.

There is nothing D-Day about paratrooping into a firefight. That simply wasn't and isn't what paratroopers were or are about. First of all, D-Day paratroopers were faaaaaaaar from the majority of troops landing on D-Day, and second, when they landed, they at least tried to do so in uncontested areas, only to then group up and move on foot in to take an area. They did not drop a few meters from an enemy and then siege their position from where they dropped.

I get what you're saying. You had some kind of an idea of what it all looked like, and you want to keep that. But don't try to fasten that idea in any kind of realism or any kind of existing warfare tactics, because that's simply not how paratroopers work. The only person to come down in a parachute firing would be someone like Rambo.

Your idea is a bad 80s action film, and that's fine. But let's not pretend it is anything else.

If no one will play narrative with you to allow a null deploy drop force (and they can have a dug in defensive force), then it's not a rules issue, it's a friends issue. Those types of games are often the most enjoyable, find someone who will play it with you. I once set up a D-Day game where all my Eldar wraith hosts deployed at sea and just marched up onto the beach. Defender had bunkers, trenches etc. It was a blast.

The rules changed as null deploy can be unbalanced. Just because you feel that your list ins't doesn't stop the problems that can occur.

So either find some scout type units to deploy on ground and play matched, or talk a buddy into playing the odd narrative game (you can still used matched points you know) and play a drop game.

Either way, the rules still look to be vastly improved, even at the expense of your so called enjoyment (which really isn't true).

Sure but the first wave is already on shore (and the first one to fall).

I'll say it again and repeat this ad nauseum if I have to : Matched play should restrict extreme scenarios because they have a tendency to break the game.
Wether It's reserves, powers, unit spam any extreme has the chance to break the rules a bit so it had better be limited.

 Purifier wrote:

I get what you're saying.

Thats great. Just because i refered to a "d-day feeling" doesn't mean i pulled out my history book and tried to recreate an authentic 101st airborne division deployed in normandy.

I refered to it, so people get what i'm saying.

Excuse my bad english articulation.

 Purifier wrote:

Your idea is a bad 80s action film, and that's fine. But let's not pretend it is anything else.

Exactly. Suicide surgery strikes in an 80s developed completly over the top dystopia, Warhammer 40k, fits nicely i think. I dont (want to) play Bolt Action.


I'm just really curious in general on how Stormtroopers will fit in 8th and how i can get my army concept to work.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Earth127 wrote:
I'll say it again and repeat this ad nauseum if I have to : Matched play should restrict extreme scenarios because they have a tendency to break the game.
Wether It's reserves, powers, unit spam any extreme has the chance to break the rules a bit so it had better be limited.

Totally agree, gamebreakers should be fixed, although there will be always possibilites to play something to the extreme just to win tournaments. That Drop pod guy maybe sells all his pods for Rhinos or whatever the hotness is soon, who knows..
While crying, at the same time i dont have any compassion for the drop pod guy. I'd rather laugh at him cause he agaim has to pay more to win more.

Iam just a crybaby right now because i feel punished for something i did not do (evil exploitation of spamming reserves to win games)
My poor weak guys had no staying power and are far from OP anyway and now they are not even allowed to do what they like to do

But its always like that, there will be always people on the wrong side of (under) the nerf.. uh balance hammer.

Its not like i totally rage at 8th edition, i see alot of improvement. Fun times for Tyranids and people maybe dont give me looks when i say "uh i'd maybe.... like to play my Eldar.. some time.."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

or talk a buddy into playing the odd narrative game (you can still used matched points you know) and play a drop game.
.

I haven't fully understand the full difference between narrative and matched play games yet, but i fear that narrative rules will be missing even more detail. How do you know matched points still work? I might have missed some news about the 3 game modes.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/

that one only talks points for Matched. In newer articles they talk about "power levels"...

To me, Narrative is about creating a story, whether by setting up a scenario or campaign and playing in it, or describing what happens afterwards and incorporating it into your personal/campaign/store fluff. People are trying to move the CASUAL VS. SERIOUS-COMPETITIVE gaming argument into MATCHED VS. NARRATIVE play, and that just is not accurate. Competitive games are where the outcome of the game and scoring on objectives is the goal, while casual is about relaxing and chilling out with plastic figures and dice. Matched Play is a recommended rules set that give options for "more balanced" games, while Narrative Play gives story and campaign ideas to have a bigger picture for what your little plastic soldiers are fighting for, the bigger picture to provide context to their actions. In Narrative Play, it's where the story itself is the goal of the game, not to defeat your opponent.

There are instances in history where people would sacrifice themselves for the bigger picture. The 300 Spartans held the line, knowing that they likely wouldn't survive the entire onslaught of the Persian empire marching upon them. But they held the line long enough for the Greek City-states to unite and hold off Persia better. But that's because the Spartans weren't worried about holding an objective for so many turns or trying to get more kill-points than their opponents, they had a bigger picture to worry about, and through that motivation they were willing to sacrifice themselves. To them, victory is a big picture thing, wanting to win the war, not the battle. The history behind these events are a narrative. If you were to look at the battle itself in a competitive sense, you would think "man, that Greek player handicapped himself by only bringing 900 points of models to the Persian player's 5000, he must have wanted to lose!". But there was more going on behind the scenes of the battle, both before and after, that gives that battle some significance.

I'm a much bigger Narrative player now than I was before, but that is because I realized it and embraced it. To get others into a Narrative, you have to give it some meaning. I had a D&D campaign years back that had a loose Narrative base of "players go explore in this area for a growing empire" as the hook, but that in itself is not enough. We all contributed to the story, which really grew from how the players reacted to the situations I threw at them. Thanks to their silliness/strategies/rolling, we now share the stories of the Brain-in-a-jar overlord, the insulting of the great Ant-Queen, the taming of Derpy the Griffon, and the Arena rescuse-battle-and-escape. Did we get sidetracked several times? Yes. Who was the winner out of those encounters? All of us were, because winning in D&D cannot be measured in points or objectives being held. Winning in D&D is having a good time. In that same vein, my story and campaign experiences have given me the moments of Guardsman Sgt. Bob being promoted after defeating Dark Eldar Incubi in melee(!), Commisar Thomas felling over a dozen Necron Flayed ones before being overrun, that time a single Ogryn Bone'ead ducked for cover from a Vindicator blast the then wreck it on the charge later, the time my Commissar chased down fleeing Guardsmen and summarily executing nearly every one of them before getting to the table edge, and my personal favorites, The Last Ride of Epidemius, and the Great Stormlord Explosion of Nemesis Tessera.

My point is that the Narrative is what you make of the game. If you only focus on the standard definition of "winning" the game on objectives or kills, then that is your Narrative, and it is what so many people focus on; they want to win the battles, not the war. To "competitive" players, the game in front of them is the most important thing for their army, not the battles to come, as those haven't happened yet, and not the battles before, though they give tactics and strategy and experience to help with this battle. And that is fine if that is what those players want to focus on.

There is not a right or wrong way to play the game - these are little plastic toys, after all. But to deride and criticize others for wanting to have a different version of fun is not acceptable. The goal of the game is to have fun, but the objectives are subjective ( ) - are we trying to beat the player or beat his army? To paraphrase some other poster on another forum I have read: Are we playing a game WITH another player? Or AGAINST the other player?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kremling wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
or talk a buddy into playing the odd narrative game (you can still used matched points you know) and play a drop game.

I haven't fully understand the full difference between narrative and matched play games yet, but i fear that narrative rules will be missing even more detail. How do you know matched points still work? I might have missed some news about the 3 game modes.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/

that one only talks points for Matched. In newer articles they talk about "power levels"...

If it is anything like Age of Sigmar, you have nothing to worry about. In that game, Matched Play rules are basically army construction methods that give you the options for taking the equivalent of Troops, Heavy Support, HQs, etc., in your games, and have the AoS version of Faction-wide "Chapter Tactics" and Warlord Traits, alternative mission types to play out, and the "living" points values for units and formation/Battalions that can be changed from time to time.

Narrative Play gives you a bunch of ideas and concepts to try out, depending on what kind of campaign of story or scenario-based battle you are wanting to play. Each section is modular in its rules presentation, and you can pretty easily pick out what you want to play with without breaking the rest of the system. To me, that modularity is Age of Sigmar's greatest strength right now.

"They be more like guidelines than actual rules."

The 300 Spartans held the line,

Along with about 4000 allies.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The 300 Spartans held the line,

Along with about 4000 allies.

Spartans are the Space Marines of classic greece. They have all the merit, but everyone forgot about the Arcadians/Imperial Guard

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The 300 Spartans held the line,

Along with about 4000 allies.

I'm aware of that (I majored in Classical studies in college, among other degress). But enough people aren't aware of it, so I figured the 300 would be enough for now.

Still, the Greeks were severely outnumbered!

Kremling wrote:
I'm in the same boat..

I started a Stormtrooper army (Militarum Tempestusbla, i doubt they will exist anyway in 8th, GW will force me to buy Imperial Guard stuff i dont want..) army half a year ago, and i only started them to have an elite paratrooper army. I never cared on how effective they are (i'm like 1-6 win/loss with em..). All i wanted was well equipped dudes jumping out of their Valks and get their air support.

Ye i can play narrative, but noone else will play narrative, i think noone will want to play it. The problem will be that i can't equip my dudes the way i want. Narrative play probably restricts you to pre-equipped squads and dont even have points anymore..

I usually started with 1-2 Taurox scouts or Infantry units on the board before dropping all the gak in 2nd round. I always told my enemy that i have lots of Flyers, and my happy Tau enemy intercepted the gak out of my Stormis anyway. I still had great fun with these games see them die in glory.

Im just a bit pissed that i can only drop 50% of the army now.
Yea..! Lets bend the fluff to: 50% of em already dropped and are waiting for backup...

NO goddamnit! It was the f***in D-Day feeling i want from that list.

Actually I believe the tempestus sections will be their own mini faction after all. The guard will more than likely get a regimental bonus, it wouldn't make sense for the attached sections to also have it. What you can also do is have flyers start on the table. Nowhere has it said they HAD to start in reserves, so the enemy comes upon a mobile insertion point and the game begins. Also note that your valks will probably be able to come in first turn and there is no rolling for reserves.

Now, if your tau buddy also enjoyed those games and the feeling thereof, why would he deny you the ability to do so? Use the point system and play an open game. Done. You get to play your game style (with a bit more umph, I might add) and there really isn't a reason to complain at that point.

People act like you aren't ALLOWED to use points and a balanced list in open/narative games...

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The 300 Spartans held the line,

Along with about 4000 allies.

I'm aware of that (I majored in Classical studies in college, among other degress).

And did that lead to a career at:

a) Starbuck's

b) Olive Garden

c) Best Buy


My degree was in Middle European History. I went with B and C.

HaussVonHorne wrote:


1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing?

Absolutely. Narrative games and campaigns are the high point in wargames for me.

In highly tactical games systems, I enjoy matched play almost as much because winning is a testament to tactical prowess and out-thinking ones opponent. Victory in 40k, on the other hand, largely consists of being proficient in math hammer, building a list with the right mix of the best units and guns (and having the money to procure them). Then hoping your opponent fields the optimum targets for those super killy uints, and that the dice doesn't screw you. I don't meant to come across as condescending, but winning a game based on that is the height of dullness to me, and holds zero appeal.

I think the idea that "no one will play narrative" is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Be the change you want to see in the world! If you want to play your fluffy list but can't run it in Matched play, start asking people to play Narrative - you can even use points and forsake scenario rules. Build the gameplay experience you want.

In my opinion there's always going to be a tension between the idea of narrative fluffiness and competitive balance. Just because an idea is cool doesn't make it healthy for the game as a whole, so in a setting where balance matters then sacrifices have to be made. That's why I think Narrative and Open play should not be regarded as second-class game types - they're there to service a different kind of player who wants their fluffy null-deploy lists or such without impacting the experience of people who care about competitive balance and tournaments.

Kremling wrote:
I'm in the same boat..

I started a Stormtrooper army (Militarum Tempestusbla, i doubt they will exist anyway in 8th, GW will force me to buy Imperial Guard stuff i dont want..) army half a year ago, and i only started them to have an elite paratrooper army. I never cared on how effective they are (i'm like 1-6 win/loss with em..). All i wanted was well equipped dudes jumping out of their Valks and get their air support.

Ye i can play narrative, but noone else will play narrative, i think noone will want to play it. The problem will be that i can't equip my dudes the way i want. Narrative play probably restricts you to pre-equipped squads and dont even have points anymore..

If something will restrict you to pre equipped it's matched play. The less options closer to unarchievable balance it is. Narrative is all about variety. It's about players deciding what's fun for them and creating interesting games with actual story in them.

And I think you would be surprised how many play it. Remember forums are not that good indicator of players. Tournament inclined players tend to be more vocal than narrative but there ARE lots of players who play narrative games as well.

This has been an interesting read.

Point about Space Marine Drop Pod Assaults. I doubt they actually get much use in pitched battles for the following reason:

It is very difficult to get you opponent to line up nicely into a battle line that you can assault

UNLESS

There is already a force on the ground that the enemy has arrayed against. Now realistically, this can be done very cheaply with Imperial Guardsmen (you need half the number of units, not points). Now, you may loose access to <chapter> specific strategems, but if a Space Marine Force has had to deploy into such a battle via drop pods, chances are they haven't had chance to discuss strategy and tactics with the Imperial Guard Forces before hand. If you really want/need your chapter specific strategims, then take two detachments (Guard and Space Marine Chapter).

Now, I do agree that Space Marines will often deploy into strategically important locations via drop pod, but the enemy isn't going to be lined up waiting for you, you are likely dropping into the middle of an airbase, on top of a defence laser or some other such location, in which case you are going to want to play a narrative game.

As for my position, due to the type of player I am, I think I will almost exclusively be playing narrative based games using power levels rather than points. I don't care if I win or loose, I care about having a cool and fun game.

HaussVonHorne wrote:

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

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.

Amen to that! Its actually sad that it took 4 pages of replies to find one person who pointed this out about the original post. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the original post was pretty insulting and hypocritical towards narrative gamers.

As for your reply, in my experience it takes a considerable amount of maturity, self confidence, and effort to create, run, and enjoy a narrative game or campaign. To put it another way, I've known many older tournament gamers but have never met a younger narrative gamer (I'm 35). Not that they don't exist but they are undoubtedly rare.

It takes maturity and perspective to understand that you personally do not have to win every game for it to be enjoyable. You can have fun even though you "lose". You can lose and understand that no one thinks less of you for losing, that you are not 'bad at the game', or need to 'get gud'. As a high school teacher for 12 years, I speak from experience when I say young people rarely show that level of maturity and confidence. So its a good thing that no one expects them to!

As far as Apocalypse Now stunts go, I think the ability to reliably bring the thunder on turn 1 and grav-chute with no scatter will more than make up for having half your army start on the table.

The only downside is that the 9" rule will drop the Stormies just barely outside of rapid-fire range unless they end up getting a way around it, or hot-shots get a slight range extension.

icn1982 wrote:
This has been an interesting read.

Point about Space Marine Drop Pod Assaults. I doubt they actually get much use in pitched battles for the following reason:

It is very difficult to get you opponent to line up nicely into a battle line that you can assault

UNLESS

There is already a force on the ground that the enemy has arrayed against. Now realistically, this can be done very cheaply with Imperial Guardsmen (you need half the number of units, not points). Now, you may loose access to <chapter> specific strategems, but if a Space Marine Force has had to deploy into such a battle via drop pods, chances are they haven't had chance to discuss strategy and tactics with the Imperial Guard Forces before hand. If you really want/need your chapter specific strategims, then take two detachments (Guard and Space Marine Chapter).

Now, I do agree that Space Marines will often deploy into strategically important locations via drop pod, but the enemy isn't going to be lined up waiting for you, you are likely dropping into the middle of an airbase, on top of a defence laser or some other such location, in which case you are going to want to play a narrative game.

As for my position, due to the type of player I am, I think I will almost exclusively be playing narrative based games using power levels rather than points. I don't care if I win or loose, I care about having a cool and fun game.

The thing is you're comparing what is realistic for a drop pod assault to accomplish and what is optimal for a drop pod assault and finding the realistic lacking. Which is true.

What yoi SHOULD be comparing is drop pod assaults and sprinting through a hail of gunfire like a numpty for the 3 turns it takes to hit their lines. Drop pod assault will always be crazy strong for delivering units to combat.

And it should be strong and really cool. The only problem is how to ballance a null deploy.

HaussVonHorne wrote:


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!"

You didn't need to be psychic. GW is easy to predict. Is it exploitive or overselling over everything else? If yes that's going to change. Deal with it.

Seriously. You have to redo your army every edition with very few exceptions, that has not changed for over 20 years. That's the reality of GW games. Either adapt to the system, make peace with "narrative land" or the doors always there for quitters to go have daddy GW issues with the warmachine players

 TheIronCrow wrote:
You didn't need to be psychic. GW is easy to predict. Is it exploitive or overselling over everything else? If yes that's going to change. Deal with it.

Seriously. You have to redo your army every edition with very few exceptions, that has not changed for over 20 years. That's the reality of GW games. Either adapt to the system, make peace with "narrative land" or the doors always there for quitters to go have daddy GW issues with the warmachine players

Ah yes, because not wanting to have to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars (and countless hours of assembly and painting time) on building a new army every time GW puts out a new "change for the sake of change" edition without really improving the game is "daddy GW issues". I swear, 8th is really bringing out the GW white knights...

Or you could just keep playing your army and not be derisive towards the system within the game that allows you to do so?

Seriously this edition switch has done nothing to invalidate armies and people are still complaining about it as if there were an actual reason to do so.

You want a fluff reason to have pods on the table. Marines arrived to stop the forward progression of an enemy army. The logistitians failed to accurately count the enemy on the field. The marines send another wave of pods to reinforce the group.

Done. Fluffy, thematic, perfectly viable tactic in real battle (quick deploy forward positions with emplaced weapons) and you get to play with all of your toys. Now there is also the benefit of simply CHOOSING when your forces arrive from reserve starting on turn one and you got table saturation you would normally have to wait until turn 2-3 to see at the earliest. You'll cover a whole half to 2/3 of the table in overlapping fields of fire at the end of your first movement phase but it doesn't seem like a vice strategy for some reason?