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.
What makes them the default approach, and everything else has to be segregated into its own?
* the community's acceptance that that is the default overall
* the heavy skew of forum and facebook topics that center around optimizing lists making it the default vs topics and threads about narrative campaigns
* the distinct lack of public narrative events vs the over abundance of min/max tournament events makes it the default
Survivorship bias.
There is no need to deeply discuss narrative campaigns in the same terms, because you can deal with everything right then and there.
If you actually wanted to discuss narrative you'd make a post about a branching campaign you set up and not worry so much about points or competitiveness.
If the rules are made up and the points don't matter, how can competitive people ruin the game? They can ruin A game, but not THE game.
This is what gets me about this thread. The entire premise (for some) is some people who don't care about winning are upset that other people, who are winning, are doing so the "wrong way". Which implies that they all want to win.
The thing about that is either they cheated, or they played by the rules. If the former then they auto forfeit, risk being banned, and are subject to other forms of punishment. If the latter the player has found a weak point in the gaming system which should be fixed. That loophole exists because of poor rule writing, which is the responsibility of GW not the players.
This problem would almost disappear if GW simply created a balanced game system.
auticus wrote: But what if its GW designers basic intent to make interesting decisions not be a design consideration? What if they want to appeal to a wide audience wherein rolling tons of dice and making your opponent remove models wholesale is fun, and having to use tactics and strategy is considered frustrating?
Will the feedback at that point matter?
What kind of tactical strategies do you feel 40k needs that isnt already in the game?
Maneuvering and movement is relatively benign and next to useless. ALpha striking and point and click is fairly standard I've found. There are no facings of the troops or vehicles so you can move willy nilly and not have to worry about getting in a bad position because everything moves very fast and has no facing considerations.
Cover and terrain is for the most part not existent and managing the battlefield doesn't really exist anymore.
The most important aspect of the game from a competitive standpoint will largely be the power of your list vs the power of your opponent's list. Listbuilding. Its a game about maximizing lethality in your list and then managing dice probability. The second skill you need is target priority. After that, there isn't much to the game of 40k. Or AOS now either.
The game of 40k has always had issues feeling like a battle, but the modern game feels nothing like a battle and entirely like a board game or close to a board game.
Scale creep is also an issue. 40k's physical scale is a legacy of the RT/2nd ed era and those games were generally played with far fewer models than current era 40k. Of course 3rd ed was a conscious move to make a ruleset which scales upwards whereas the far less abstract RT/2nd ruleset scales well downwards but very poorly upwards. This seemed like a no brainer for GW because gamers wanted to use a larger proportion of their collection in games and it also meant that they could sell more miniatures. To put things into perspective, a standard 1,500pt game in 2nd ed would have contained little more than half the number of models in an equivalent size. 3rd ed onwards is too abstract to make a smaller scale game particularly interesting whereas 2nd ed becomes laborious above 2,000pts.
2nd ed, for all its flaws, remains a far more tactically rewarding game than anything that has been released since. Part of the reason for this is that it's the "correct" rules scale for 40k's physical scale. You have fewer turns which punishes poor placement and strategies. You have a greater range of tactical options - overwatch and screening can both be used to great effect. Close combat is time consuming but very tactical. That's not to say that 2nd is the be all and end all (I'm taking off those rose tinted spectacles) - it's just a different game and GW simply have never done a very good job of transitioning 40k into a different rules scale.
Going back to my original point, I think this is due to a mismatch between he physical scale and rulescale. 40k's physical scale still places an emphasis on the individual model which doesn't really fit in a more abstract system (except at the level of larger models and special characters). Basically it's been caught in a no man's land between 2nd ed and Epic. Why don't they fix it (and I mean really fix it)? Because it sells. They people who buy GW miniatures want the high detail of 28mm and they want to be able to field large collections in games. Clearly this is more important to them than the integrity of the ruleset.
Well, truth has been spoken above by several discutants:
Terrain doesn't matter, range doesn't matter, movement doesn't matter, all that matters is how efficiently you optimized your dice and how well you identify your priority targets each turn.
The game used to be a battle in former editions. I can add here my experience from about 50 tournaments and participations at German GTs (which are dead now).
Now it feels like very close to a board game.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
wuestenfux wrote: Well, truth has been spoken above by several discutants:
Terrain doesn't matter, range doesn't matter, movement doesn't matter, all that matters is how efficiently you optimized your dice and how well you identify your priority targets each turn.
The game used to be a battle in former editions. I can add here my experience from about 50 tournaments and participations at German GTs (which are dead now).
Now it feels like very close to a board game.
The biggest issue with 40k currently is it's incredibly outdated turn structure. You want more tactics and a more active game turn where choices matter? Get rid of IGOUGO. Start using alternating activation. Bring in terrain rules like these
Spoiler:
Line of Sight Rules
You can trace Line of Sight from any part of your model to any part of the target unit. For the purpose of targeting I recommend using 7ths targeting rules (I.E. wings, antennae, banners) do not count as a part of the model, meaning you cannot draw los from or too these bits. That is just my personal preference, do what you want.
Targeting Occupied Terrain Occupied Terrain is any terrain that has a unit within the terrain feature. Units that occupy a Terrain feature can see and be seen through it. Units that Occupy Terrain gain Cover from the terrain. A unit is considered to be occupying the terrain if all of it's models bases are at least partially within the terrain or meet it's other requirements. Models that do not have a base must be at least 50% within the terrain to be considered to Occupy it.
Intervening Terrain Intervening terrain is any terrain that sits between you and the target unit but is not occupied by the target unit. You can trace LoS over a single piece of Light terrain. A second piece of Light terrain and/or Dense terrain will block LoS normally. Targeting a unit over intervening Terrain confers a -1 to hit penalty.
High Ground If your unit is on a piece of raised terrain they may have high ground. A unit with high ground can ignore all terrain and los blocking terrain features when targetting units on a lower level so long as they can still actually trace line of sight to the unit. To repeat, you still need to be able to trace line of sight, but the target unit would gain no benefit from any intervening terrain. I personallyuse a lot of the Mantic Battlezones. So each layer up in my terrain is 3". So we use that 3" marker to determine height. Again, do what you want.
Intervening Units If you cannot trace LoS to your target unit without tracing a line through an enemy unit the intervening unit counts as Light Terrain. That means if your target unit is behind both an enemy unit and a piece of Light terrain that unit is untargettable because your LoS is blocked (just like 2 pieces of light terrain). For this you are counting the entire unit and the spaces between models as 1 object. You cannot trace LoS between models in the same unit to get around this. You would need to actually be able to trace LoS around the entire unit to not be effected by the unit.
Monsters, Vehicles, and Titanic When targeting any unit with the MONSTER or VEHICLE Keyword you ignore any intervening units when tracing Line of Sight treating them as Open Ground. When targeting any unit with the TITANIC keyword you ignore all intervening units and Light Terrain treating them as Open Ground. In addition treat all Dense Terrain as Light Terrain for the purpose of tracing LoS on TITANIC units.
Flier Units with the Flier battlefield role can be targeted freely treating all terrain and intervening units as Open Ground so long as you can still trace Line of Sight. Do the same for any LoW with the FLY Keyword.
Terrain
All terrain has 3 features.
1) Line of Sight
2) Cover
3) Difficulty
1] Line of Sight
There are 3 degrees of effect terrain has on LoS.
-Open Ground: No effect on LoS. This terrain piece can be shot over as though it was not there. Example: A water pool or river.
-Light: Blocks LoS to some extent. You can draw Line of Sight over a single piece of light terrain. A unit cannot draw LoS over 2 pieces of light terrain. Barricades, grassy hills, light copse of trees, smaller ruins/
-Dense: Dense Terrain blocks LoS entirely. Dense cops of trees, ruined whole buildings.
2) Cover
All terrain has a cover value that is a bonus to your Sv roll (Ex. +1). This bonus is granted to any unit entirely within or meets the requirements of the terrain feature.
3) Difficulty
All terrain has a difficulty value. This value is a penalty to the Movement Value of any unit that enters or attempts to move through the terrain. It is possible the Difficulty of the terrain is a 0 meaning it does not impact movement at all. They may also have special considerations such as "Impassible to VEHICLES".
So for example, the baricades that make of a Aegis Defense Line and thus AGLs themselves would be
LoS: Light
Cover: +1 - The unit must be within 1" or within 1" of a model from their unit that is within 1" of the terrain to occupy the terrain. This unit only gains the benefit of cover from units targeting them from the opposite side of the terrain.
Difficulty: 1
Thus tracing LoS over these baracades would impose a -1 to hit to any unit that is not occupying it. Provides a +1 Sv bonus to any unit that is occupying it, and eat up 1" of Movement to cross over it.
Ruined Building could be.
LoS: Dense
Cover: +1
Difficulty: 1 non-INFANTRY
You could not target units on the other side of the building even if you could trace LoS. Units that occupy the terrain gain a +1 SV bonus and any noninfantry would loose 1" of movement by entering or trying to pass through the terrain. Driving some bikes over the rough surface of the ruins is hard on them and the ruins make navigating the landscape difficult for anything that is too big and/or lacking the dexterity that Infantry have.
In addition. I propose that Character Targeting is changed to make it so a character cannot be targeted with shooting if the character is not the closest visible unit and within 3" of another friendly unit. This way they need to maintain a semi unit coherency to keep their protection AND a closer unit behind some LoS blocking terrain won't save them.
Any unit with Sniper Weapon/rules will also ignore intervening units when tracing LoS.
Now positioning, terrain, who you activate, when, and for what purpose all have far more impact.
It's 40ks incredibly outdated turn structure that is causing the most damage. Update that and your most of the way to a far more enjoyable and far more interesting game where choices matter.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Amishprn86 wrote: Saying 40k Comp is ruining 40k is like saying the NFL is ruining local football leagues.
Dont want a comp game, talk to opponent. The game is a social game meant to talk to each other about how you want to play.
Exactly this.
The problem here is that some people want to play balanced TAC games, but it won't happen because it's simply not possible. Competitive 40k is already balanced as in less than a year we had tons of different lists that won at tournaments, and half the factions don't even have the codex yet.
On the flip side games among friends, in which both lists are toned down and tailored in order to enjoy a fair match, are usually quite balanced as well.
If you want to play a balanced game with TAC lists change hobby.
Nithaniel wrote: 40k is a competitive game, a game with objectives and win/loss conditions.
Not really. All wargames have win/loss conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be much fun, and last forever. That doesn't make them competitive - plenty of games involve a GM, for example, or rely on cooperation between the "opposing" players to determine the scenario, starting conditions, forces and terms of victory. 40k came from that sort of background, I think.
Nithaniel wrote: 40k is a competitive game, a game with objectives and win/loss conditions.
Not really. All wargames have win/loss conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be much fun, and last forever. That doesn't make them competitive - plenty of games involve a GM, for example, or rely on cooperation between the "opposing" players to determine the scenario, starting conditions, forces and terms of victory. 40k came from that sort of background, I think.
I think this is also part of a problem (not necessarily the 40k problem). People can't always understand that it doesn't have to be a win or lose game. I remember the best times I had in 40k before I moved were with scenarios that would always mean I would lose. (Like hold out against endless hordes of boyz pretending that I had to stave them of to evacuate civilians) or co-op games witha gm of sorts controlling an OP huge army. I even suggest co-op games at my local gw now (even just 2v2) and i get this look of confusion.
That's another thing. Usually with those "last stand" scenarios, winning doesn't necessarily mean destroying the enemy. For example, the 2nd edition Codex Tyranids had a few special missions. One of those was a six turn game, in which any destroyed Tyranid units could return, with no limit; if the Tyranids completely wiped out the enemy, they won. If even a single gretchin or Imperial Guardsman remained, it was a win for the other side.
scenarios for 1st edition would have things like secret victory conditions for each player on a team game (for example, if the 2nd in command gets the opportunity, killing the supreme commander unit is a win for that particular player, but not necessarily their side as a whole).
Even in ordinary scenarios, if it starts going against me, then I'll redefine my "success" criteria - from winning the game, to achieving any of the scenario objectives, to keeping particular units alive, to taking the enemy with me. I still "lose", but that doesn't matter.
Nithaniel wrote: 40k is a competitive game, a game with objectives and win/loss conditions.
Not really. All wargames have win/loss conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be much fun, and last forever. That doesn't make them competitive - plenty of games involve a GM, for example, or rely on cooperation between the "opposing" players to determine the scenario, starting conditions, forces and terms of victory. 40k came from that sort of background, I think.
In RT (maybe even 2nd) 40k suggested the use of a GM, but from 3rd on (the overwhelming vast majority of the game's life and most of its growth and popularity) this hasn't been even remotely the case.
For better or for worse, 40k is a competitive game, not a cooperative story telling experience with a GM. It is not an RPG or even RPG-ish, as some here would like to claim. You can work with your opponent to come up with whatever special scenario and conditions you want, but you're ultimately still competing where one person wins and the other loses. That is competition by definition, and therefore, makes the game competitive.
For it not to be competitive, it would have to be cooperative, in which both players work together to achieve the same goal. That is not 40k in the slightest. That's an RPG, of which there are several great 40k based options, which you can even use your minis with if you so desire.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
I think a bigger issue is that 40k is a company sized game that is played with increasingly larger scale, without rules that have scaled correctly. There's a big reason why most battalion/brigade sized wargames are like 15mm or even less as the baseline, not 28mm (although many support 28mm as a variant if you really have that room). That alone makes the game an unbalanced mess because you have minor details about individual squads alongside superheavies and flyers that can wipe out squads in a turn. Fundamental disconnect.
Yes, it's true that since at least midway through 2nd and 3rd, they removed the requirement for a GM, the game has always been closer to a shared experience than a truly competitive game. What I mean is, yes by definition it's a competitive game since it has two players trying to "defeat" the other, but unlike many competitive games 40k wants to encourage you to tell a story about the battle rather than just try to win. I think it really is its own genre because of that alone; it's not cooperative (although it can be, I guess). It's competitive, but not in the traditional sense (although it can be, see current competitive 40k, although whether it can be GOOD at that is up for debate), it's more like a "Shared Wargaming Experience" like the historical games Warhammer originally evolved from; those games were competitive too by virtue of having Player 1 versus Player 2, but were something more than just trying to bust out anything possible to win the game. In a historical game you'd basically never see somebody only pick the best options allowed to them, just because they could, even if doing a fictional or hypothetical scenario that wasn't simply a refight of Waterloo or Gettysburg or what have you (where often the battle dictated the units available). And those games had barely any restrictions at all due to being early in wargaming's history; it was 100% on the players who knew there was no enjoyment in just taking all artillery and cavalry simply because "the rules let me".
At some point in wargaming, we lost that mindset, and it became "well it's competitive so try to win" and "the rules let me take X, so I'll take X". 40k still wants to hearken back to those days of yore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 12:43:23
All wargames are competitive and have always been competitive by the definition that they are one person vs another.
All wargames have the potential to be the den of the professional player and breeding ground for WAAC.
However not all games have done so. Battletech, for instance, I've only run into a couple of WAAC players and thats going back thirty years this summer. Battletech is also strongly used to tell a story in a campaign despite being competitve in that its player vs player.
Historicals are the same. They are one side vs another. Identical to 40k! But the WAAC players there are definitely in a minority and the players work it like a story telling experience.
I've used 40k and WHFB and AOS for story telling experiences for twenty plus years now. So they definitely CAN be used for that and work just fine for that, the same as Battletech and other historicals.
It can be competitive and also adhere to a story wherein the players aren't trying to take their LVO lists all the time. In a sense that makes it also (in addition to) cooperative in that players understand the game is busted, the game rules are hot garbage, but they enjoy the story and want a fairly even non lopsided stomp fest because they don't want to chase the meta and have to constantly change out armies.
Its not a black or white one or the other thing at all. Battletech and historicals could also be cutthroat pro sports play, but those communities largely don't go there.
WM/H is another good example of a great world that I've never once seen a campaign played iin because its community is 99.9% pro sports tournament players.
WM/H could make for a great storytelling experience. But its community won't let that happen.
Its still a wargame just like Battletech and historicals and AOS and WHFB and 40k. Ultimately its a person making the choice that a competitive game should only be about powergaming and min/max play or a person actively deciding they understand that toning down the list with their opponent doing the same can make for just as much a competitive experience.
The same could be said for actual scenarios in which you can run 40k in where you have a scenario designer choosing forces for the entire battle for all sides. This is how historicals have always run. THis is also how battletech often runs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 12:49:50
Wayniac wrote: I think a bigger issue is that 40k is a company sized game that is played with increasingly larger scale, without rules that have scaled correctly. There's a big reason why most battalion/brigade sized wargames are like 15mm or even less as the baseline, not 28mm (although many support 28mm as a variant if you really have that room). That alone makes the game an unbalanced mess because you have minor details about individual squads alongside superheavies and flyers that can wipe out squads in a turn. Fundamental disconnect.
100% agree. The scale of the game is just bonkers at this point. Flyers and superheavies have no reason being in the average 40k game.
Yes, it's true that since at least midway through 2nd and 3rd, they removed the requirement for a GM, the game has always been closer to a shared experience than a truly competitive game. What I mean is, yes by definition it's a competitive game since it has two players trying to "defeat" the other, but unlike many competitive games 40k wants to encourage you to tell a story about the battle rather than just try to win. I think it really is its own genre because of that alone; it's not cooperative (although it can be, I guess). It's competitive, but not in the traditional sense (although it can be, see current competitive 40k, although whether it can be GOOD at that is up for debate), it's more like a "Shared Wargaming Experience" like the historical games Warhammer originally evolved from; those games were competitive too by virtue of having Player 1 versus Player 2, but were something more than just trying to bust out anything possible to win the game. In a historical game you'd basically never see somebody only pick the best options allowed to them, just because they could, even if doing a fictional or hypothetical scenario that wasn't simply a refight of Waterloo or Gettysburg or what have you. And those games had barely any restrictions at all due to being early in wargaming's history; it was 100% on the players who knew there was no enjoyment in just taking all artillery and cavalry simply because "the rules let me".
By this argument, every wargame is a Shared Wargaming Experience. There's nothing special about 40k compared to any other sci-fi/fantasy game in the basic experience. Every other wargame is fundamentally as competitive or as cooperative as 40k, no more or no less. GW writing in a blurb or two about 'Forging the Narrative' does not make the game some special snowflake of story telling perfection that no other wargame manages to achieve. Of course any wargame of any stripe benefits from establishing even a quick story/reason the forces are battling and coming up with a satisfying conclusion, but again, this is not unique or special to 40k. Firestorm Armada had the exact capability and desire to be a Shared Wargaming Experience as 40k. So has every single other wargame I've played.
What you're talking about is simply the mindset of two players playing any game. 40k is a competitive game, full stop, and is as cooperative as the players want it to be, which is true of every wargame. A true cooperative, story telling experience is called an RPG.
At some point in wargaming, we lost that mindset, and it became "well it's competitive so try to win" and "the rules let me take X, so I'll take X". 40k still wants to hearken back to those days of yore.
If 40k is truly trying to hearken back to anything (I don't think they are) they're doing a terrible job.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Nithaniel wrote: 40k is a competitive game, a game with objectives and win/loss conditions.
Not really. All wargames have win/loss conditions, otherwise they wouldn't be much fun, and last forever. That doesn't make them competitive - plenty of games involve a GM, for example, or rely on cooperation between the "opposing" players to determine the scenario, starting conditions, forces and terms of victory. 40k came from that sort of background, I think.
In RT (maybe even 2nd) 40k suggested the use of a GM, but from 3rd on (the overwhelming vast majority of the game's life and most of its growth and popularity) this hasn't been even remotely the case.
For better or for worse, 40k is a competitive game, not a cooperative story telling experience with a GM. It is not an RPG or even RPG-ish, as some here would like to claim. You can work with your opponent to come up with whatever special scenario and conditions you want, but you're ultimately still competing where one person wins and the other loses. That is competition by definition, and therefore, makes the game competitive.
For it not to be competitive, it would have to be cooperative, in which both players work together to achieve the same goal. That is not 40k in the slightest. That's an RPG, of which there are several great 40k based options, which you can even use your minis with if you so desire.
Just bootstraping here as this is most relevant post to what I have to add:
I've pointed this out in some previous discussions on this topic, but a large part of disagreement about whether 40K is or isn't competetive boils down to english dictionary... In Polish, words usable for describing games have completely different scope of meaning and we don't really have this part of discussion. Meaning of "competetive" that is used here to describe "the very essence of having winning conditions and two opposing sides that each try to win" have two major translations in polish - one is "rywalizacja", wchich simply means rivalry/confrontation, but the second one is "współzawodnictwo" and translates vaguealy as "taking part in cooperative effort to have a contest" which encompass various degrees of direct rivalry between players but have much larger cooperative part in it. To say "comptetive" as in "made for tournaments and organised competition" we use precise word "turniejowy". Basic word to describe tabletop wargames is "bitewny" which translates to "battle game".
A huge different between many 40K players seems to boil down to understanding 40K rivalry either directly, as "any man for himself" or "organising details of a game together but then trying to outsmart eachother within mutually agreed conditions". Former tend to blame GW for any and all failures to provide a coherent platform of contest, as they want to have rules and conditions as independent from players themselves as possible, the latter seem to have much larger margin for self-governing restrictions/interpretations/houserules/managing rules flaws etc... And this difference does not translate directly to "competetive vs casual" but comes across it as there are both attitudes present in both of those groups.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 12:58:17
And besides, where does this idea that 40k is a good narrative game come from? Aside from an occasional side box about "FORGE THE NARRATIVE" GW's support for narrative-based games is virtually nonexistent. You get what, a few pages at the back of the rulebook, and an alternate set of malestrom objectives? Where are the rules for creating and advancing characters? Where are the guidelines for how to create a scenario game that is balanced well enough to be interesting (something that is not easy to do)? Where are the "historical" scenarios with suggested force lists for each side? It seems like most of the time when people say 40k is a narrative game what they really mean is that it's a bad competitive game, so therefore it must be narrative by default.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: And besides, where does this idea that 40k is a good narrative game come from? Aside from an occasional side box about "FORGE THE NARRATIVE" GW's support for narrative-based games is virtually nonexistent. You get what, a few pages at the back of the rulebook, and an alternate set of malestrom objectives? Where are the rules for creating and advancing characters? Where are the guidelines for how to create a scenario game that is balanced well enough to be interesting (something that is not easy to do)? Where are the "historical" scenarios with suggested force lists for each side? It seems like most of the time when people say 40k is a narrative game what they really mean is that it's a bad competitive game, so therefore it must be narrative by default.
Well, 40k isn't actually a good game for anything other than very laid back, light-hearted "Hey let's throw down some models and roll some dice and not take it seriously" kind of things. But we know this already. I'm honestly surprised you didn't throw in a few "GW designers are incompetent and need to all be fired" jabs like usual.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 13:08:26
Peregrine wrote: And besides, where does this idea that 40k is a good narrative game come from? Aside from an occasional side box about "FORGE THE NARRATIVE" GW's support for narrative-based games is virtually nonexistent. You get what, a few pages at the back of the rulebook, and an alternate set of malestrom objectives? Where are the rules for creating and advancing characters? Where are the guidelines for how to create a scenario game that is balanced well enough to be interesting (something that is not easy to do)? Where are the "historical" scenarios with suggested force lists for each side? It seems like most of the time when people say 40k is a narrative game what they really mean is that it's a bad competitive game, so therefore it must be narrative by default.
Well, 40k isn't actually a good game for anything other than very laid back, light-hearted "Hey let's throw down some models and roll some dice and not take it seriously" kind of things. But we know this already. I'm honestly surprised you didn't throw in a few "GW designers are incompetent and need to all be fired" jabs like usual.
He did on the very top of a previous page of this thread
Peregrine wrote: And besides, where does this idea that 40k is a good narrative game come from? Aside from an occasional side box about "FORGE THE NARRATIVE" GW's support for narrative-based games is virtually nonexistent. You get what, a few pages at the back of the rulebook, and an alternate set of malestrom objectives? Where are the rules for creating and advancing characters? Where are the guidelines for how to create a scenario game that is balanced well enough to be interesting (something that is not easy to do)? Where are the "historical" scenarios with suggested force lists for each side? It seems like most of the time when people say 40k is a narrative game what they really mean is that it's a bad competitive game, so therefore it must be narrative by default.
Well, 40k isn't actually a good game for anything other than very laid back, light-hearted "Hey let's throw down some models and roll some dice and not take it seriously" kind of things. But we know this already. I'm honestly surprised you didn't throw in a few "GW designers are incompetent and need to all be fired" jabs like usual.
He did on the very top of a previous page of this thread
Yeah but he normally does it every chance he gets.
Anyways... I absolutely think a big issue is that 40k is not meant to be played as a "serious business" game. Yet people seem to want to force it to be that sort of cutthroat, quasi e-sport mindset game. So right out of the gate there is a fundamental disconnect over the style of the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 13:25:56
Blacksails wrote: For better or for worse, 40k is a competitive game, not a cooperative story telling experience with a GM. It is not an RPG or even RPG-ish, as some here would like to claim. You can work with your opponent to come up with whatever special scenario and conditions you want, but you're ultimately still competing where one person wins and the other loses. That is competition by definition, and therefore, makes the game competitive.
True, but not in the way a lot of people seem to think - The game has never been designed such that winning a game is the only point of playing. It's true of something like Chess - no-one plays Chess, Go, Draughts, etc, because they're interested in the look of the pieces, or because they want to recreate a "historical" event. It's true to an extent of Warmachine - there, you play to defeat your opponent; there's no other reason to bother turning up. With the majority of historical wargames, that need not be the case, and I think GW's games (apart from Shadespire) aren't like that either. When I play a game of 40k, I play to win. However, I don't choose my army to win; I choose an army based on the background, which may or may not be the "best" army list. I do my best to win the game, because that provides the challenge for both sides, but I honestly don't care who wins, as long as we all had fun doing it. I've seen people discussing the best way of achieving a 1- or 2-turn victory and I think "what's the point? Why would I want to play a shorter game?" It is a story telling experience, in that when we talk about 40k it's about what cool things a unit or hero did on the battlefield, not about what I did.
So yes, 40k is competitive in that one player wins and the other loses (unlike Warhammer Quest Silver Tower), but it's not competitive in the sense that I'd want to take it seriously to the point of awarding any sort of recognition for being better than someone else at it.
Blacksails wrote: For better or for worse, 40k is a competitive game, not a cooperative story telling experience with a GM. It is not an RPG or even RPG-ish, as some here would like to claim. You can work with your opponent to come up with whatever special scenario and conditions you want, but you're ultimately still competing where one person wins and the other loses. That is competition by definition, and therefore, makes the game competitive.
True, but not in the way a lot of people seem to think - The game has never been designed such that winning a game is the only point of playing. It's true of something like Chess - no-one plays Chess, Go, Draughts, etc, because they're interested in the look of the pieces, or because they want to recreate a "historical" event. It's true to an extent of Warmachine - there, you play to defeat your opponent; there's no other reason to bother turning up. With the majority of historical wargames, that need not be the case, and I think GW's games (apart from Shadespire) aren't like that either. When I play a game of 40k, I play to win. However, I don't choose my army to win; I choose an army based on the background, which may or may not be the "best" army list. I do my best to win the game, because that provides the challenge for both sides, but I honestly don't care who wins, as long as we all had fun doing it. I've seen people discussing the best way of achieving a 1- or 2-turn victory and I think "what's the point? Why would I want to play a shorter game?" It is a story telling experience, in that when we talk about 40k it's about what cool things a unit or hero did on the battlefield, not about what I did.
So yes, 40k is competitive in that one player wins and the other loses (unlike Warhammer Quest Silver Tower), but it's not competitive in the sense that I'd want to take it seriously to the point of awarding any sort of recognition for being better than someone else at it.
You are a great example of competetive translated as "współzawodnictwo" player I described above.
One note, it is possible do to that in Warmachine; the background is rich enough and PP does try to put out narrative scenarios. But the game itself encourages so many gamey maneuvers and preciseness that it's incredibly difficult to do because the game rules and playstyles are so focused on that sort of competitive, "gaming the system" "ah ha gotcha" type of approaches that narrative play is incredibly hard to do.
Wayniac wrote: Well, 40k isn't actually a good game for anything other than very laid back, light-hearted "Hey let's throw down some models and roll some dice and not take it seriously" kind of things.
It isn't good at that either. In fact, "light-hearted not-take-it-seriously" gaming is arguably the thing 40k is worst at. A silly game to laugh at and not take seriously does not cost thousands of dollars, hundreds of painting hours, and 3+ hours per game to play.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Blacksails wrote: For better or for worse, 40k is a competitive game, not a cooperative story telling experience with a GM. It is not an RPG or even RPG-ish, as some here would like to claim. You can work with your opponent to come up with whatever special scenario and conditions you want, but you're ultimately still competing where one person wins and the other loses. That is competition by definition, and therefore, makes the game competitive.
True, but not in the way a lot of people seem to think - The game has never been designed such that winning a game is the only point of playing. It's true of something like Chess - no-one plays Chess, Go, Draughts, etc, because they're interested in the look of the pieces, or because they want to recreate a "historical" event. It's true to an extent of Warmachine - there, you play to defeat your opponent; there's no other reason to bother turning up. With the majority of historical wargames, that need not be the case, and I think GW's games (apart from Shadespire) aren't like that either. When I play a game of 40k, I play to win. However, I don't choose my army to win; I choose an army based on the background, which may or may not be the "best" army list. I do my best to win the game, because that provides the challenge for both sides, but I honestly don't care who wins, as long as we all had fun doing it. I've seen people discussing the best way of achieving a 1- or 2-turn victory and I think "what's the point? Why would I want to play a shorter game?" It is a story telling experience, in that when we talk about 40k it's about what cool things a unit or hero did on the battlefield, not about what I did.
So yes, 40k is competitive in that one player wins and the other loses (unlike Warhammer Quest Silver Tower), but it's not competitive in the sense that I'd want to take it seriously to the point of awarding any sort of recognition for being better than someone else at it.
Right, 40k is as competitive as the two players want it to be, but its nevertheless a competitive game. You can use it to tell a story in a campaign, where that story is inevitably one player defeating the other, or you can play it to determine simply who is the better player without any story telling, and every range in between. My point was simply that 40k is a competitive experience at its core even if you dress it up by adding in cooperatively decided narrative elements. If I'm playing a last stand scenario because my opponent has pushed my forces back to my final port and I need to hold off the enemy for 5 turns for 95% of my forces to be evacutated, ultimately I'm still competing against my opponent to survive and see if I don't lose completely, or maybe live to fight another day.
I'm fundamentally a narrative player by most standards, having learned wargaming with a great group who constantly ran campaigns or at least came up with plausible scenarios for the forces, and I always play with the army I want to use (optimizing within the theme I want), but I always play with the aim to win the battle, and I expect my opponents to do the same.
When I RPG, I expect myself and my group to work together at all times to achieve the goals we all want, which is a true cooperative experience.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
AndrewGPaul wrote: It's true to an extent of Warmachine - there, you play to defeat your opponent; there's no other reason to bother turning up.
That is not true at all. WM/H has just as much of a narrative element as 40k. It has tons of fluff, models representing that fluff, a separate RPG line set in the same world, even a Black Library equivalent publishing fiction outside of the game entirely. Sure, it isn't always represented in the tabletop mechanics, but it's not like 40k does a great job of representing its fluff or supporting story-based gaming.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
So what is when you don't consider who won and lost but where story and thus next game's scenarios and forces go?
Win or lose irrelevant. Story is what matters. As it is we are often talking about what to do mid-game so practically both players giving inputs on both armies. Almost like 2 players on both armies.
tneva82 wrote: So what is when you don't consider who won and lost but where story and thus next game's scenarios and forces go?
Win or lose irrelevant. Story is what matters. As it is we are often talking about what to do mid-game so practically both players giving inputs on both armies. Almost like 2 players on both armies.
It sounds like you're just playing with fancy painted army men and at that point, the rules don't really matter to that type of 'playing'.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
tneva82 wrote: So what is when you don't consider who won and lost but where story and thus next game's scenarios and forces go?
Win or lose irrelevant. Story is what matters. As it is we are often talking about what to do mid-game so practically both players giving inputs on both armies. Almost like 2 players on both armies.
So why even "play" a "game" at that point if you're going to barely care about the rules and ignore the win/loss result? Just write a story together and maybe paint some models to go with it, you don't need game rules.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
What tneva82 describes is style of play that is more "discovering the world of simulated possibilities" embedded within ruleset than "playing a competetive game" but rules do matter exactly the same as in "competetive setting of rivalry". Players do not have full freedom of "making up everything", and debates help keeping the result of the encounter as close to optimal "solution" of a scenario. It is very close to what I like about 40K the most and there is pretty much no other game that is suited to this as well as 2nd, 6th or 7th ed 40K is. It is a very niche usage of 40K however and it is very hard to find players with such attitude. The results of such games are more about "what particular models/units/characters in the game setting" can achieve than what players can achieve (largely because cunning and deceit are out and games are played in a largely cooperative way).
Playing this way can give a very deep insight of how entire rules system works, which parts of scenario/terrain/army selection were most influential to the result. They are in fact very educative. You can think of such games as cooperatively solved "40K solitaires" and can be deeply analytical.
Edit: just to add to this - this style of play is pretty much impervious to min/maxing and other list abuses, as too obviously broken matchups simply generate boring/disfunctional games - "easy mode solitaires". Llist building have entirely different goal of building as interesting encounter as possible and lists variation becomes key. But this is completely unsuited for pick-up environment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 14:35:38
I don't think competitiveness ruins 40k. People being childish about winning or losing ruins games. You can be very competitive without being a poor sport. Competitiveness can hurt unit diversity if units are poorly balanced, but I'm not sure if you can blame poor balance or people optimizing. Now being salty about not being able to play some units because another army is too strong for you is a balance issue. Your opponent rules lawyering you or slowplaying in a timed match are competitive problems.
Tournaments will be what they are, the strongest, tightest lists played in the most aggressive and "abusive" ways possible to win. And to a degree this is the social contract in agreeing to play in a tournament (Or prove certain nurgle units are op apparently)
Competing by dictionary.com "to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize, supremacy, profit, etc.; engage in a contest"
But truly competitive play is being a competitor, or being able to make an army or unit work from a non-optimal or even disadvantageous position. Making the best use of any or every unit, regardless of what it is. You are becoming supremely able with the entirety of models available to you, and increasing your attractiveness as an opponent to new players and potentially new strategies.
I would propose if you are a "competitive player" but you consistently win, especially if you smash, that you should intentionally play down with weaker and non-optimized units, and have the match be a contest, leave a viable outcome for your loss. If your into seal clubbing you opponent, its time to buy a barrel, some fish, and a shotgun.
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
That doesn't make them competitive - plenty of games involve a 
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
