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.

I'd prefer to use jump BA, but bikes are so much better in 7th I had no choice.

I intend to play mainly Narrative especially at the start, until I know what is good and not for tourney then play a bit more matched.

But I do see a lot of Narrative being played.

But if you like to min/max matched is where it is at, if you just want to play fun lists Narrative will be great

Martel732 wrote:
I'd prefer to use jump BA, but bikes are so much better in 7th I had no choice.

You might enjoy the new jumping Terminators...I mean Intercep..that's not right...Inceptors?
Not sure why they call them "starters" but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
They got awesome ski/shovel booties for...reasons.

Wayniac wrote:
That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.

Optimizing a list is fun, and weaker lists are not magically more fun than powerful ones. The argument here is essentially that, because your opponent refuses to bring a powerful list of their own, you need to take all those weaker options (including buying and painting the models to do so if WYSIWYG is expected) and modify your own list.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.

Optimizing a list is fun, and weaker lists are not magically more fun than powerful ones. The argument here is essentially that, because your opponent refuses to bring a powerful list of their own, you need to take all those weaker options (including buying and painting the models to do so if WYSIWYG is expected) and modify your own list.

Magnets.
Magnets make life so much easier.

On the other hand they mean you need to carry a few pairs of plastic tweasers and thick sponges.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
That's where I think the disparaging "pretend it's a tournament" thing comes in. Outside of a tournament, there is no reason to only pick optimal choices, because in a casual game it's IMHO pushing too far into the powergamer/min-maxer/WAAC approach if you just pick the "best" choices because nothing stops you from doing it. It's a very tournament type mentality that bleeds into the rest of the game.

Optimizing a list is fun

For some.

and weaker lists are not magically more fun than powerful ones.

The reverse is true as well.

The argument here is essentially that, because your opponent refuses to bring a powerful list of their own, you need to take all those weaker options (including buying and painting the models to do so if WYSIWYG is expected) and modify your own list.

...no? You don't need to do anything in particular to your own list, besides take a similar power level. If the armies are seriously unbalanced just from wargear options, you can always do some small handicaps with a narrative scenario.

Just play narrative, then. This attitude may not be the reason why it exists, but it existing certainly is a reason to say perhaps you should stick to pretend 40k.

Edit: Before my comment throws someone into a blind fury for daring to insinuate that the methods of play that don't use points, or structure are "pretend" do note that this was a general statement and not to anyone in particular.

I play DND to set a story, and make things up as I go. There's nothing wrong with that, same for 40k. However, arguing back and forth is rediculous. Hobby how you want to play, but at least acknowledge that there are multiple set of "matched" rules, and then a way for you to play however you want. Just pick one and leave people alone about it.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd prefer to use jump BA, but bikes are so much better in 7th I had no choice.

You might enjoy the new jumping Terminators...I mean Intercep..that's not right...Inceptors?
Not sure why they call them "starters" but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
They got awesome ski/shovel booties for...reasons.

perhaps because the Inceptor squads are Intended to be a high speed first strike unit?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd prefer to use jump BA, but bikes are so much better in 7th I had no choice.

You might enjoy the new jumping Terminators...I mean Intercep..that's not right...Inceptors?
Not sure why they call them "starters" but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
They got awesome ski/shovel booties for...reasons.

perhaps because the Inceptor squads are Intended to be a high speed first strike unit?

I bet there's better ways of getting first turn charges.

Dakkawolf, you are posting your complaints in the wrong thread.

Now about the narrative... I might be damaged by my environment, being raised on White Dwarf where folks took mixed armies, where orks with their random equipment tables and Jervis Johnson wrote articles on how a deployed force might be equipped, with a focus on the background. In the real world and on Dakka I met min/maxers (or better list analysts), for whom the game was about the lists.

Anyways, regarding the fun of a less than perfectly tuned list: Seeing a spammy tournament list doesn't do much for me, while seeing a list with mixed units and weapons makes my head start to think how and where each should be positioned, and what role against that particular opponent each should be given. That won't hold long against a superior list, but really, why would my opponent even bring a tuned list? Yes, I believe I belong in the narrative crowd when writing lists.

This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.

 Purifier wrote:
If you've ever read a thread on this forum you know that people here can't balance anything. Everyone thinks their army is the weakest and everyone else's is the strongest.

No, I wouldn't trust a single point either of you two are trying to make.

Lol what I'm describing is time honoured tradition. That's how wargames have been played and funnily enough it's actually worked pretty well outside 40k.

And instead you trust company that has shown itself to be crap at making balance and vested interest in ensuring balance shifts all the time. Yup yup.

You know just because your group isn't able to work out things by talking doesn't mean everybody are incapable. Widen group of players you play with to include people who don't care one wiff who wins as long as game is fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


I was always taught never to close my mind to different ideas, and to always keep an open mind and try new things.

I was taught that some things, like sticking your hand in the toilet and eating the contents found there, don't need to be tried to know it's a bad idea. Get off your high horse. You're saying that you know how to balance better than anyone else, like the highly competitive gamers with a lot of background in hosting huge events that GW are now assembling. You do you. But doesn't convince me one bit.

You say points are flawed, so instead you want to use... other points. Because they're better. Ok. Whatever. Your arguments are bloody weird and not worth my time.

You are claiming it's possible to have perfect balance in flawed system.

How you factor in point value for tactical for every scenario? 8th ed tactical is 13 pts. HOWEVER value of tactical marine changes based on many factors. If opponent is actually predator company value changes. If scenario involves defending fort it's another. You need to get to other side of board? Again value changes.

Matched points are based on averaging different situations and trying to figure correct value.

When seeking for perfect balance THAT IS FLAWED! You cannot get point value that is correct for every situation. Even if you had god himself that cannot make mistakes doing it he couldn't do it. It's the nature of the beast.

It's not a question about skill. It's about what's possible. There's too many variables that changes to make one fixed point value be correct in every situation.

Opponent puts in unit X instead of unit Y. This has immediately effect that point value of your every unit actually changes...

This is why if you want to have as balanced as possible you need to have control of every variable. This is what matched play cannot do as it's not designed for that. It's only approximation of balance but there's limit it cannot exceed.

Narrative however by it's nature(2 players working out scenario they are going to play) has meanwhile has more freedom to multiple ways in terms of balance. It can go from quick&very rough estimation to as close to 100% as players in question have skill and willingness to put in effort(you don't get that on one go but by repeated playtesting). The limit toward 100% is much higher than matched can have. It obviously is not easy and is hell of an effort but if how close to 100% balance you want to get is your priority then sooner or later you have to go to narrative. Or accept there's limit toward that 100% you can go for.

Maybe you should read what people are saying before going on with rude insulting "get off your high horse". Only one here with high horse is you...I'm not saying I'm better game designer. However if I'm willing to put in effort I'm sure our group can get closer to 100% balance for a game with narrative because we can use playtesting to sort out balance _for exact variables involved_. How can GW assign fixed point value for unit that accounts the terrain we use? Huh? We don't even use GW terrain so they can't even try to use that and amount and locations are most definitely not on their knowledge.

Whatabout what models we have in collection? Do they know what my space marines will be facing? That will alter my units value.

It's less about skill and more about what it's possible. Point values in game with fluid variables are always just best guesses. They aren't absolute values.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.

Seriously?

Anyone from an RPG background (you know, a storytelling game) is going to be looking at narrative play and will be thinking this is going to be cool.

Why wont *a lot* of RPGer be as interested in Matched/Competative play, because the game by its very nature is unbalanced (the units you have available are limited by factions). Those from an RPG background who are more interested in Min/Maxing (and believe me, RPGers can do it with the best of them) will play games like competitive MTG. Its because the game rules are balanced and every player has the same choice of cards to choose from.

I also think you will find older/long term players jumping into narrative play simply because they will have a lot of un-optimised units and models sat on their shelves that haven't been used in years because the unit was underpowered for the 7th ed meta.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.

Exactly. Perhaps 8th will finally change this, but in the past "narrative" has been a smug way of talking about how superior you are for taking a weak list that can't win in tournaments, not anything to do with telling a story. It's just presumed that if you're not playing competitively then you must be doing something else well (because it's impossible to accept that you might be bad at 40k), and "narrative" is the default option. The armies are boring and often unpainted trash, there's no story behind the game, no character development over time, etc. It's just two weak armies playing the same standard missions on the same bland terrain as the competitive players.

And no, your list with a bunch of random units and weapons is not fluffier than a spam list. Spam lists are fluffy, because standardization is how real armies operate.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.

Exactly. Perhaps 8th will finally change this, but in the past "narrative" has been a smug way of talking about how superior you are for taking a weak list that can't win in tournaments, not anything to do with telling a story. It's just presumed that if you're not playing competitively then you must be doing something else well (because it's impossible to accept that you might be bad at 40k), and "narrative" is the default option. The armies are boring and often unpainted trash, there's no story behind the game, no character development over time, etc. It's just two weak armies playing the same standard missions on the same bland terrain as the competitive players.

And no, your list with a bunch of random units and weapons is not fluffier than a spam list. Spam lists are fluffy, because standardization is how real armies operate.

depends on how it works. if I take 2 squads of scouts, and space centurions, thats not terriably fluffy. thats actually one thing I DID like about some of the formations out there. the Gladius was (when used as part of a full battle company) broken. but at the same time it was a VERY fluffy list.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.

Exactly. Perhaps 8th will finally change this, but in the past "narrative" has been a smug way of talking about how superior you are for taking a weak list that can't win in tournaments, not anything to do with telling a story. It's just presumed that if you're not playing competitively then you must be doing something else well (because it's impossible to accept that you might be bad at 40k), and "narrative" is the default option. The armies are boring and often unpainted trash, there's no story behind the game, no character development over time, etc. It's just two weak armies playing the same standard missions on the same bland terrain as the competitive players.

And no, your list with a bunch of random units and weapons is not fluffier than a spam list. Spam lists are fluffy, because standardization is how real armies operate.

I feel pretty confident when predicting that the people you are describing won't be playing narrative in 8th, they will probably be playing matched. The use of the word narrative in your example is a misuse (and not even by GW).

icn1982 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.

Seriously?

Anyone from an RPG background (you know, a storytelling game) is going to be looking at narrative play and will be thinking this is going to be cool.

Why wont *a lot* of RPGer be as interested in Matched/Competative play, because the game by its very nature is unbalanced (the units you have available are limited by factions). Those from an RPG background who are more interested in Min/Maxing (and believe me, RPGers can do it with the best of them) will play games like competitive MTG. Its because the game rules are balanced and every player has the same choice of cards to choose from.

I also think you will find older/long term players jumping into narrative play simply because they will have a lot of un-optimised units and models sat on their shelves that haven't been used in years because the unit was underpowered for the 7th ed meta.

Because the half decent storytellers from RPG backgrounds are usually poached to become GMs/DMs.
RPG guys in my area will make very tempting offers to entice good storytellers.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

icn1982 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
This is why "Narrative" is code for "Kiddy Pool" the people getting turfed in there aren't particularly good story tellers either.

Seriously?

Anyone from an RPG background (you know, a storytelling game) is going to be looking at narrative play and will be thinking this is going to be cool.

Why wont *a lot* of RPGer be as interested in Matched/Competative play, because the game by its very nature is unbalanced (the units you have available are limited by factions). Those from an RPG background who are more interested in Min/Maxing (and believe me, RPGers can do it with the best of them) will play games like competitive MTG. Its because the game rules are balanced and every player has the same choice of cards to choose from.

I also think you will find older/long term players jumping into narrative play simply because they will have a lot of un-optimised units and models sat on their shelves that haven't been used in years because the unit was underpowered for the 7th ed meta.

Because the half decent storytellers from RPG backgrounds are usually poached to become GMs/DMs.

RPG guys in my area will make very tempting offers to entice good storytellers.

Whilst that is often true (as a DM myself its not uncommon to get people wanting me to DM their games or join mine), being a DM a lot of bloody work, and often work I don't get to immerse myself in as a character. 40k allows me to put as much effort as I wish to, and actually enjoy being part of the progression of the fluff. Also, when creating it for yourself, you wont put hours of time into areas of the fluff that will never be explored (trying to get players to follow plot lines is like herding cats)

I only tend to see "narrative" to mean "not tournament" or more specifically "not bringing a list suitable for a tournament to a casual game" or to put it another way "not bringing a gun to knife fight".

Typically the only people I see disparage narrative are the folks like Peregrine who tend to go on venom-laden rants against anything that isn't trying to game the system and bring the most optimal thing just because you are allowed to, including constantly talking about "making bad lists" "being bad at the game" and such to sound superior to the non-competitive players and put them down for NOT powergaming. A narrative player will bring mainly tactical squads (without that Gladius nonsense) because they have a fluffy army made up of a Battle Company. A competitive player will be all "Tactical Squads are garbage" or "They are a tax" and take the minimum possible to satisfy requirements, and then load up on the "most powerful" units and laugh at anyone who cares about the fluff and backstory; they approach the game solely as a competition between two people, and the setting or backstory means squat to them in most cases. I think that's normally where the disconnect ends up being; the narrative player wants to have a story about the game, while the competitive player just wants to play with minimal talk involved beyond announcing what they are doing.

I've read Sirlin's "Playing to Win", so while I get the notion of "playing the game to win" I find that Warhammer, probably more than any other game bar historical wargaming, tends to want you to experience the entire depth of the setting not just the list building portion of it. Unlike say Warmahordes where it seems to be (or at least felt like) the opposite, in that most people don't give a hoot about the lore and only care about the balanced rules and tactically complex gameplay.

Wayniac wrote:
I only tend to see "narrative" to mean "not tournament" or more specifically "not bringing a list suitable for a tournament to a casual game" or to put it another way "not bringing a gun to knife fight".

Typically the only people I see disparage narrative are the folks like Peregrine who tend to go on venom-laden rants against anything that isn't trying to game the system and bring the most optimal thing just because you are allowed to, including constantly talking about "making bad lists" "being bad at the game" and such to sound superior to the non-competitive players and put them down for NOT powergaming. A narrative player will bring mainly tactical squads (without that Gladius nonsense) because they have a fluffy army made up of a Battle Company. A competitive player will be all "Tactical Squads are garbage" or "They are a tax" and take the minimum possible to satisfy requirements, and then load up on the "most powerful" units and laugh at anyone who cares about the fluff and backstory; they approach the game solely as a competition between two people, and the setting or backstory means squat to them in most cases. I think that's normally where the disconnect ends up being; the narrative player wants to have a story about the game, while the competitive player just wants to play with minimal talk involved beyond announcing what they are doing.

I've read Sirlin's "Playing to Win", so while I get the notion of "playing the game to win" I find that Warhammer, probably more than any other game bar historical wargaming, tends to want you to experience the entire depth of the setting not just the list building portion of it. Unlike say Warmahordes where it seems to be (or at least felt like) the opposite, in that most people don't give a hoot about the lore and only care about the balanced rules and tactically complex gameplay.

One of the problems is GW have just sucked so much at fostering a narrative game. There is a lot of Fluff army that outside of being told they are Supposed to be a common tactic int he universe they are just kinda dumb, and when put into a game end up degrading the narrative rather than supporting it.
I actually think the narrative play structure sounds awesome, and Is the first time in a long while GW have really started to support it meaningfully. But i also think that GW needs to actually think about what Narrative is under the normal game.
An army that is only suited for a special mission should not even be considered under the rules for the standard, and they need to make sure all the different factions have a realistic base to start from.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could accept that there are those that enjoy min/max play, and those that aren't interested in min/max play. Not because they don't know how to "git gud" or know how to break the game, but simply because its not interesting for them to do so.

And then we could all go into our corners of the realm and play against people that are cool with that.

Instead of trying to parade around "git gud" and calling people "bad".

I think the real difference lies in how people enjoy the game. The sad part is that a lot of people in the gaming community assigning such a large value on winning, and that if you take poor army lists or don't crush-all-before-you that it's somehow a bad thing. In short, that not being good at a wargame actually matters (to the point of insult often, particularly here in Dakka). You can see it eking out in a few of the post above.

i.e. "Why should I listen to you - you're not even good at the game!" kind of approach.

Both above posts are about how everyone enjoys the game in different ways, and then immediately puts the blame on competitive players. Good Job.

If that's how you read that...there's not a lot I can do for ya.

True, "narrative" Is just, as said, "The kiddie pool." To be god honest, if your looking to put story into a warhammer 40k game, your not going to be playing a standard 40k Game, you either want to do a kill team, or even better a Heralds of Ruin Game. Where you are actually encouraged to make a team that has fluff and a story. The most engaging and "Role play" 40k games i played was playing a deathwing strike force of like 4 terminators and some tac marines.

Not really. Calling people "bad" refers to calling competitive players "bad". Nothing is putting blame on competitive players. Its giving an instance of competitive players that do deserve to have some blame put on them though, just like the followup describes a non competitive player who deserves some blame put on them.

Anyone calling "narrative gaming" == "kiddie pool" is trolling.

 auticus wrote:
Not really. Calling people "bad" refers to calling competitive players "bad". Nothing is putting blame on competitive players. Its giving an instance of competitive players that do deserve to have some blame put on them though, just like the followup describes a non competitive player who deserves some blame put on them.

Anyone calling "narrative gaming" == "kiddie pool" is trolling.

Simply dismissing an argument by saying its trolling, a good point does not make.

Narrative play, imo is going to be the same as unbound, hardly ever played, and only there for the kid that just collected models and painted them, has no idea how the game works but just wants to play with his models and make up rules on the fly.

The point being that insulting a group of people is trolling. No matter how clever your response. Yes... I will dismiss a troll post.

There are plenty of groups playing narrative play for AOS to dismiss your argument outright that no one will be using anything but matched play. There's an entire NEO group that focuses entirely on narrative event organization.

Your echo chamber may be nothing but tournament games but that doesn't mean that there isn't a world outside of your echo chamber.

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Simply dismissing an argument by saying its trolling, a good point does not make.

Good point. So what's your argument again?

Narrative play, imo is going to be the same as unbound, hardly ever played, and only there for the kid that just collected models and painted them, has no idea how the game works but just wants to play with his models and make up rules on the fly.

Oh, it's trolling.

You have plenty of games that are co-op like zombicide but 40K is about two armies meeting and one coming out victourious.

competative games are about winning, thats their entire point if they were not there would be no victory conditions would there?

And people dislike weak lists because it ends in the game being a steamrolling sesion thats no fun for either side, if both sides dont have a roughly equal chance to win you can't really take any satisfaction from winning.