Why is 40K 8th Edition a CCG/LCG?

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.

**auticus**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I never really understood that comparison to be honest.

I can understand it from auticus's point of view, but all of those criticisms are things that are easily addressed depending on large amounts of factors (e.g. table size and terrain)...

.... which are factors that don't exist in a card game.

Just to go down auticus's list of things he finds don't matter in his games:

1) Maneuver - I find board space is actually the largest problem here. 28mm on a 6x4 will tend towards immobility simply because of space. Playing on a 12x8 will dramatically increase the amount of maneuver that things have to do, especially if the terrain is scaled up accordingly with tons of LOS-blockers, etc. A Baneblade having to move around a GW ruin to get LOS (because it is automatically in range on a 6x4) is dramatically different to a Baneblade moving around a 3x2 foot warehouse that completely blocks LOS, while also having to pay attention to ranges, etc.

2) Terrain management: absolutely matters. Taking the 12x8 board with a reasonable amount of terrain on it, you'll end up with varied terrain. If you use GW's advanced terrain rules from the 8th edition rulebook, it's not even hard to illustrate the difference between e.g. a fortified Governor's Palace surrounded by barricades/bastions/ruins, and a forest with large impassable (to large things) ponds and tall hills.

3) Combo-chaining: most of these rely on abilities with ranges. 6" from your SM Captain-turned-Chapter-Master feels a lot tinier on a good sized board than it does on a 6x4.

40k can absolutely be a wargame, but you have to deviate somewhat from the "pickup game 6x4 using Matched Play" standard and actually try to make it a wargame. I understand that this may not be easy or whatever, but it's still, at its core, a wargame, and can be one if people want it to be. They just have to put in the effort with the right kind of terrain and board sizes.

I play several 28mm games on a 6x4 space and maneuver is still one of the most important aspects of the game. Look at classic WHFB and Hail Caesar as an example. Saga is another example. Kings of War is another example. AOS and 40k... you just deep strike as much of your crap in as you can, or the rules make it so you are engaged in combat in turn 1 wiping out swathes of the enemy. No flanks. No rears. No need to worry about anything other than move as fast as possible and get into contact for the alpha strike and hopefully end the game by turn 3.

Terrain management can be a thiing as you poiinted out, but the expectation in my local area and the region around it for 20+ years has always been to emulate tournament halls and if you load down the table with terrain you will get stink eye and accused of rigging the game in your favor. GW needs actual rules for placing terrain other than what exists today. Tournament halls are normally with the exception of a couple usually barren flat tables with four or five small pieces of terrain stretched across a 6x4 area. Thats what the player expectation is. I have many examples of players storming out of the store and then going on an explicit filled rant on facebook about me organizing a campaign event in a jungle or some harsh world where impassable terrain and line of sight blocking terrain was everywhere because it "wasn't real 40k". No one wants to deal with that in trying to set up a game but gamer culture is what it is today and I don't see it changing.

Combo chaining is simply deck building up a list that uses command traits and strategems to accomplish your goals. It doesn't feel like a real battle, it feels more like making a magic the gathering deck to me.

**the_scotsman**

auticus wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
I never really understood that comparison to be honest.

I can understand it from auticus's point of view, but all of those criticisms are things that are easily addressed depending on large amounts of factors (e.g. table size and terrain)...

.... which are factors that don't exist in a card game.

Just to go down auticus's list of things he finds don't matter in his games:

1) Maneuver - I find board space is actually the largest problem here. 28mm on a 6x4 will tend towards immobility simply because of space. Playing on a 12x8 will dramatically increase the amount of maneuver that things have to do, especially if the terrain is scaled up accordingly with tons of LOS-blockers, etc. A Baneblade having to move around a GW ruin to get LOS (because it is automatically in range on a 6x4) is dramatically different to a Baneblade moving around a 3x2 foot warehouse that completely blocks LOS, while also having to pay attention to ranges, etc.

2) Terrain management: absolutely matters. Taking the 12x8 board with a reasonable amount of terrain on it, you'll end up with varied terrain. If you use GW's advanced terrain rules from the 8th edition rulebook, it's not even hard to illustrate the difference between e.g. a fortified Governor's Palace surrounded by barricades/bastions/ruins, and a forest with large impassable (to large things) ponds and tall hills.

3) Combo-chaining: most of these rely on abilities with ranges. 6" from your SM Captain-turned-Chapter-Master feels a lot tinier on a good sized board than it does on a 6x4.

40k can absolutely be a wargame, but you have to deviate somewhat from the "pickup game 6x4 using Matched Play" standard and actually try to make it a wargame. I understand that this may not be easy or whatever, but it's still, at its core, a wargame, and can be one if people want it to be. They just have to put in the effort with the right kind of terrain and board sizes.

I play several 28mm games on a 6x4 space and maneuver is still one of the most important aspects of the game. Look at classic WHFB and Hail Caesar as an example. Saga is another example. Kings of War is another example. AOS and 40k... you just deep strike as much of your crap in as you can, or the rules make it so you are engaged in combat in turn 1 wiping out swathes of the enemy. No flanks. No rears. No need to worry about anything other than move as fast as possible and get into contact for the alpha strike and hopefully end the game by turn 3.

Terrain management can be a thiing as you poiinted out, but the expectation in my local area and the region around it for 20+ years has always been to emulate tournament halls and if you load down the table with terrain you will get stink eye and accused of rigging the game in your favor. GW needs actual rules for placing terrain other than what exists today. Tournament halls are normally with the exception of a couple usually barren flat tables with four or five small pieces of terrain stretched across a 6x4 area. Thats what the player expectation is. I have many examples of players storming out of the store and then going on an explicit filled rant on facebook about me organizing a campaign event in a jungle or some harsh world where impassable terrain and line of sight blocking terrain was everywhere because it "wasn't real 40k". No one wants to deal with that in trying to set up a game but gamer culture is what it is today and I don't see it changing.

Combo chaining is simply deck building up a list that uses command traits and strategems to accomplish your goals. It doesn't feel like a real battle, it feels more like making a magic the gathering deck to me.

Well, your problem there is that it is at that level.

40k has always been a game that's given you as an individual player a whole lot of leeway to set the game up as you like it - we currently have 3 different ways to organize our armies, 4 different standard mission sets (including the invitation and many examples to just make up your own), and we have and have always had explicit permission to play at any army size, table size, and game setup that we like as players.

If you choose to set up the scenario in such a way that nothing but alpha strike/combos/list building and matchups matters, because that's what tournaments do for the sake of making sure everyone gets to play several scenarios in a single day...then that's what you'll get. But that's a choice you're making, and its hardly unique to 8th edition 40k for games to be boiled down to that level in order to ensure everyone can play a bunch of different opponents in an event. I've been to guild ball, WMH, Malifaux and many other game tournaments where the setup was explicitly similar to what you describe.

"Well, my players where I am complain when I do things differently" means there's a problem with those players, not the game system inherently.

**auticus**

I don't really see it as a choice though.

Really its... I can play it like a tournament because thats how my community plays it.

Or I can play with myself in my garage.

The reality is I have gotten out of most miniature gaming entirely until I find a system that runs in a way that I enjoy.

Assuming that I can get people to play with a lot of terrain to make terrain matter, that still leaves us with the movement phase being relatively a secondary thing with their strong push for alpha striking and ending the game by turn 3.

**Unit1126PLL**

Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know you can make it exist, right?

Blah blah blah stuff that isn't rules and therefore is irrelevant when discussing rules.

I did mention in my post it may be impractical, but it's not impossible. As for "you can't reach the table" - I've played on a 12x8 before, and we managed. It's possible, trust me.

Peregrine wrote:
I know hardly anyone plays that way, but it's a catch-22: "The game is bad because of the way people play it, but we can't make it good because that's not how people play it."

Remember, 6x4 is what GW recommends. It's entirely fair to point out that the game as GW published it is bad, even if you can make your own 40k-inspired game that works better. When discussing what the actual 40k rules are it's important to consider the standard rules, not some obscure house-ruled variant that your group invented to fix everything.

"Recommends" is not the same thing as "rules." GW recommends it precisely for the reasons you do, i.e. practicality. It's not a "rule" anymore than "3 detachments max in Matched Play" is a rule; it's a recommendation. The 40k rules (you know, the bits that aren't recommendations) actually function fine for a wargame, if players actually want to play a wargame and make the necessary spatial and temporal accommodations.

Peregrine wrote:
Well, except that ruins/barricades hide tanks way better than woods do, but are also impassable to tanks, unlike woods.

They really don't. Ruins/barricades don't hide anything most of the time because of how LOS works. If I can see 1mm of the tip of one antenna on your tank poking out from behind the terrain feature I can shoot it as if the terrain wasn't there at all. Meanwhile woods block movement just as much as ruins, as they don't grant vehicles any special exception to the general rule of not being allowed to move through terrain features. The difference between woods and ruins is almost entirely aesthetic.

That's not true at all. Vehicles are explicitly forbidden from moving through buildings/ruined walls, where no such restriction exists for woods in the rules. As for "ruins/barricades don't hide anything" - sure, whatever man. That's not rules though, that's shoddy terrain. They can hide things, and the rules handle situations for hiding things, and in fact mandate that things not be hidden in order to be shot at. So... make better terrain? You don't have to change the rules to make this work. You just have to try and put a bit of effort into your fun.

Peregrine wrote:
As for it not blocking LOS... then make terrain that blocks LOS. This is not a rules issue. It's not like the rules say "Terrain shall never block LOS."

The problem is that unless you make your terrain in the form of solid boxes it doesn't block LOS. 8th edition's LOS rules are so absurdly generous that it becomes nearly impossible to block LOS completely for anything but small infantry units. The common terrain, including the terrain that GW sells and recommends for standard games, does effectively nothing to block LOS.

(Now, you can fix this with house rules, of course, but that's not the standard 40k rules as GW published them.)

No, you don't need house rules to fix it. Go outside of your house and tell me if you could see a car parked on the other side. The answer? No, you can't.

As for whether or not what GW sells/what other companies sell and if it blocks LOS or not: that's not rules, man. I don't know why you keep conflating "the way people play 40k" with "the 40k rules" because they're not the same. The rules function fine as wargame rules, but factors unrelated to the rules turn it into the CCG-like experience you're having. Those factors can be easily changed without changing/violating the written rules (not that you, apparently, can distinguish, but that's okay, I don't expect you to actually put in the effort to understand my point).

**corpuschain**

Galef wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
Erm... He's talking about LCGs (Living Card Games), not CCGs. They're currently the in vogue method for most card games, since they're not randomly distributed.

That's good to know. I pretty much stopped playing CCGs because of how frustrating it was to want X card for your deck and not be able to get it (either because you couldn't find it or it was ludicrously expensive)
-

I actually have the opposite view. I love the rarity of certain powerful cards. It means you don't get fed up with seeing them all the time and having to find ways of beating them in order to be able to win a single game. It necessitates variety in deckbuilding and means that you can't just buy the best cards and automatically have the most powerful deck. I have long thought that it would be interesting to make 40k have something similar, so that models such as Guilliman, Mortarion, Grey Knight Grandmasters and Ynnead are quite rare and not everyone can field them. I have no idea how it would work in practice (and I probably wouldn't want it), but it's a nice thought experiment.

I have many examples of players storming out of the store and then going on an explicit filled rant on facebook about me organizing a campaign event in a jungle or some harsh world where impassable terrain and line of sight blocking terrain was everywhere because it "wasn't real 40k". No one wants to deal with that in trying to set up a game but gamer culture is what it is today and I don't see it changing.

Sheesh, that's awful! Perhaps a solution might be to have people set up the terrain for tables on which they're not playing - i.e. move to the next table to do their terrain? That way you can't game the terrain in your own favour.
I can't believe people prefer games with hardly any terrain. Terrain is part of the spectacle, and changing it up from one game to the next keeps it interesting. Frankly, to play 40k on an almost bare table sounds terrible to me. I would hate it. It becomes a game of 'my list versus your list,' rather than a cinematic interaction between different models and their environment. Terrain makes the game interesting. The people you describe would freak out if they came to my house and I told them their mission was to assault the massive fortress I'm building, while I defend it!

**auticus**

Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.

Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.

Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.

**Unit1126PLL**

auticus wrote:
Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.

Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.

Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.

This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).

**Farseer_V2**

corpuschain wrote:
I actually have the opposite view. I love the rarity of certain powerful cards. It means you don't get fed up with seeing them all the time and having to find ways of beating them in order to be able to win a single game. It necessitates variety in deckbuilding and means that you can't just buy the best cards and automatically have the most powerful deck. I have long thought that it would be interesting to make 40k have something similar, so that models such as Guilliman, Mortarion, Grey Knight Grandmasters and Ynnead are quite rare and not everyone can field them. I have no idea how it would work in practice (and I probably wouldn't want it), but it's a nice thought experiment.

The issue though is at high level play you do always see those rare cards. They are effectively a barrier to entry to play at the higher level (i.e. you must purchase the card) but with a singles market rarity isn't a balancing tool. Card accessibility only has an impact on new players or players who specifically play in a group who don't purchase singles.

**auticus**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
auticus wrote:
Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.

Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.

Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.

This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).

I would counter that the rules allowing the player community to turn the game into feeling like a CCG *is* part of the rules fault. If there were rules for placing terrain, rules to mitigate alpha striking, rules to put back the importance of movement, these things would be lessened.

**Unit1126PLL**

auticus wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
auticus wrote:
Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.

Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.

Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.

This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).

I would counter that the rules allowing the player community to turn the game into feeling like a CCG *is* part of the rules fault. If there were rules for placing terrain, rules to mitigate alpha striking, rules to put back the importance of movement, these things would be lessened.

Well, yes, but you must understand that GW is a game company, and panders to what people want. The ridiculous boom of popularity and sales in 8th Edition is giving GW a demand signal that "simpler is better, we want CCGs". I consider it unlikely GW will reverse this huge financial success in the interest of ... what exactly? Preventing the people who enjoy the CCGness from playing the game, because it's not "realistic" enough? How is having rules for terrain placement somehow more realistic/simulationist than not? "Putting back the importance of movement" is subjective; if you play the way I suggested earlier, movement is the most important phase. People just don't, because they don't want to.

**Stormonu**

Using a reference card for your units and their abilities does not turn it into a CCG.

“But you have to buy this mini to get that upgrade” - Or you know, just print a copy of the card and pay nothing. Done it a hundred times with X-wing.

**thecountrygoblin**

Farseer_V2 wrote:
corpuschain wrote:
I actually have the opposite view. I love the rarity of certain powerful cards. It means you don't get fed up with seeing them all the time and having to find ways of beating them in order to be able to win a single game. It necessitates variety in deckbuilding and means that you can't just buy the best cards and automatically have the most powerful deck. I have long thought that it would be interesting to make 40k have something similar, so that models such as Guilliman, Mortarion, Grey Knight Grandmasters and Ynnead are quite rare and not everyone can field them. I have no idea how it would work in practice (and I probably wouldn't want it), but it's a nice thought experiment.

The issue though is at high level play you do always see those rare cards. They are effectively a barrier to entry to play at the higher level (i.e. you must purchase the card) but with a singles market rarity isn't a balancing tool. Card accessibility only has an impact on new players or players who specifically play in a group who don't purchase singles.

I think if that deckbuilding culture of powerful rare cards/models crept into 40k most players would not be affected. But they would affect competitive play for sure. It would cause alot of controversy nonetheless which is great for lively forums!

**Ordana**

I seem to remember complains back in 4th or 5th about 'Moneyhammer', mostly involving OP FW models.

That's probably as close to the 'rare' equivalent of CCG's as you can get.

**Spoletta**

auticus wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
auticus wrote:
Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.

Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.

Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.

This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).

I would counter that the rules allowing the player community to turn the game into feeling like a CCG *is* part of the rules fault. If there were rules for placing terrain, rules to mitigate alpha striking, rules to put back the importance of movement, these things would be lessened.

If your community is so fixated on "Standard 40K games" then they should open the rulebook. They would see that a "Standard 40K game" at 2000 points uses on average 12 terrain elements, but 18 too is a legit quantity.

**auticus**

We would be getting into pedantry at that point. Standard 40k to most people is what the default is at public events and tournaments. That is the expectation that they use.

If its something that they feel they'd run into at Adepticon or LVO then they are all for it. Otherwise you'll get flak, sometimes severe flak, for introducing it into your games.

I ran a mission straight out of warhammer world and got lit up by someone screaming at me for wasting their time with house rules (well they used all caps in the facebook post which to me is screaming), because it was something they wouldn't experience in a real tournament.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
auticus wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
auticus wrote:
Setting up the terrain isn't the problem. The problem is that I set the games on different locations that aren't always planet bowling ball.

Cityfight battles generate the same level of rage because that isn't standard 40k.

Let me express that not all players do this, maybe not even the majority, but it only takes a couple tantrums to make people shy away from deviating from standard in a store group.

This isn't 40k rules's fault though, this is the players. That's the point: 40k's rules are actually fairly good for a wargame but the players reduce it to a CCG because they're not looking for a real wargame. You could easily, even without house rules, make 40k a fairly good "simulation of war", if you went into effort on the not-rules part (e.g. terrain building and placement, table size, scenario development, etc. etc.).

I would counter that the rules allowing the player community to turn the game into feeling like a CCG *is* part of the rules fault. If there were rules for placing terrain, rules to mitigate alpha striking, rules to put back the importance of movement, these things would be lessened.

Well, yes, but you must understand that GW is a game company, and panders to what people want. The ridiculous boom of popularity and sales in 8th Edition is giving GW a demand signal that "simpler is better, we want CCGs". I consider it unlikely GW will reverse this huge financial success in the interest of ... what exactly? Preventing the people who enjoy the CCGness from playing the game, because it's not "realistic" enough? How is having rules for terrain placement somehow more realistic/simulationist than not? "Putting back the importance of movement" is subjective; if you play the way I suggested earlier, movement is the most important phase. People just don't, because they don't want to.

I agree with you. This is why I stopped really arguing or worrying about the future of GW games. The current gamer culture demands the simpler, CCG style gameplay. Its the equivalent of me screaming into a hurricane trying to change anything. Suffice to say if someone had introduced me to 40k today instead of in 1998 I wouldn't have invested a dime in the game right now because it offers me nothing that I am interested in. Sadly I have a sizable collection sitting around in cases that I've spent too much time on, that I may be able to get 1/20th of the cost back from if I bothered trying to sell it.

**Unit1126PLL**

auticus wrote:
I agree with you. This is why I stopped really arguing or worrying about the future of GW games. The current gamer culture demands the simpler, CCG style gameplay. Its the equivalent of me screaming into a hurricane trying to change anything. Suffice to say if someone had introduced me to 40k today instead of in 1998 I wouldn't have invested a dime in the game right now because it offers me nothing that I am interested in. Sadly I have a sizable collection sitting around in cases that I've spent too much time on, that I may be able to get 1/20th of the cost back from if I bothered trying to sell it.

This seems very doom-and-gloom. You can still change the way you and your friends play, even if you cannot change the demand signal GW is receiving. Just as an example, my local club introduced my Slaanesh daemons into the club's fluff by adopting a "ritual" mission from Age of Sigmar where a ritual had to be stopped by an attacking force. I played Slaaneshi cultists with undivided allies against Inquisitor Greyfax and a bunch of Storm Troopers allied with Ultramarines. We used the AOS scenario (with some modifications), but instead of the game ending when the ritual succeeded, we allowed me to deep-strike Zarakynel, the Bringer of Torments, near the ritual altar, and then the Imperial players got 666 points of Grey Knights.

We didn't houserule anything, because as Marmatag has so eloquently convinced me of, "missions" are not "rules" so inventing your own missions are not inventing house-rules. We used the normal 40k rules in the book, with a mission of our own devising.

**Tyel**

As has been said the card gaminess is in how pre-packaged combos dominate anything else. My alpha strike of X units with Y synergy plus Z stratagem should, on normal dice, kill 800 points of your army. This will be decisive unless you have a solid beta strike or I fluff the dice.

To some extent this has always been there, but the fact it was delayed to turn 3 in past editions hid it. You could also arguably do more about it in game (since you had two turns to move around) rather than counter listing.

**auticus**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
auticus wrote:
I agree with you. This is why I stopped really arguing or worrying about the future of GW games. The current gamer culture demands the simpler, CCG style gameplay. Its the equivalent of me screaming into a hurricane trying to change anything. Suffice to say if someone had introduced me to 40k today instead of in 1998 I wouldn't have invested a dime in the game right now because it offers me nothing that I am interested in. Sadly I have a sizable collection sitting around in cases that I've spent too much time on, that I may be able to get 1/20th of the cost back from if I bothered trying to sell it.

This seems very doom-and-gloom. You can still change the way you and your friends play, even if you cannot change the demand signal GW is receiving. Just as an example, my local club introduced my Slaanesh daemons into the club's fluff by adopting a "ritual" mission from Age of Sigmar where a ritual had to be stopped by an attacking force. I played Slaaneshi cultists with undivided allies against Inquisitor Greyfax and a bunch of Storm Troopers allied with Ultramarines. We used the AOS scenario (with some modifications), but instead of the game ending when the ritual succeeded, we allowed me to deep-strike Zarakynel, the Bringer of Torments, near the ritual altar, and then the Imperial players got 666 points of Grey Knights.

We didn't houserule anything, because as Marmatag has so eloquently convinced me of, "missions" are not "rules" so inventing your own missions are not inventing house-rules. We used the normal 40k rules in the book, with a mission of our own devising.

I've been doing this for over twenty years. Your area will dictate a lot. You can go in and try to change how they play, and in some groups that will work, and in other groups you'll be shown the door and cursed at for wasting peoples' time. It depends on how much time you want to put into trying to whizz into the wind and have to heavily politic your way to get in games that aren't tournament standard.

Let me reemphasize again how the attempt to insert non standard *missions* (to include WARHAMMER WORLD missions) resulted often in tantrums, rants, and facebook screaming (all caps rants) about how the non standard missions were ruining the game and ruining the community. (that doesn't even go into the house rule aspect, which takes that and turns it up a few notches)

**Unit1126PLL**

auticus wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
auticus wrote:
I agree with you. This is why I stopped really arguing or worrying about the future of GW games. The current gamer culture demands the simpler, CCG style gameplay. Its the equivalent of me screaming into a hurricane trying to change anything. Suffice to say if someone had introduced me to 40k today instead of in 1998 I wouldn't have invested a dime in the game right now because it offers me nothing that I am interested in. Sadly I have a sizable collection sitting around in cases that I've spent too much time on, that I may be able to get 1/20th of the cost back from if I bothered trying to sell it.

This seems very doom-and-gloom. You can still change the way you and your friends play, even if you cannot change the demand signal GW is receiving. Just as an example, my local club introduced my Slaanesh daemons into the club's fluff by adopting a "ritual" mission from Age of Sigmar where a ritual had to be stopped by an attacking force. I played Slaaneshi cultists with undivided allies against Inquisitor Greyfax and a bunch of Storm Troopers allied with Ultramarines. We used the AOS scenario (with some modifications), but instead of the game ending when the ritual succeeded, we allowed me to deep-strike Zarakynel, the Bringer of Torments, near the ritual altar, and then the Imperial players got 666 points of Grey Knights.

We didn't houserule anything, because as Marmatag has so eloquently convinced me of, "missions" are not "rules" so inventing your own missions are not inventing house-rules. We used the normal 40k rules in the book, with a mission of our own devising.

I've been doing this for over twenty years. Your area will dictate a lot. You can go in and try to change how they play, and in some groups that will work, and in other groups you'll be shown the door and cursed at for wasting peoples' time. It depends on how much time you want to put into trying to whizz into the wind and have to heavily politic your way to get in games that aren't tournament standard.

Let me reemphasize again how the attempt to insert non standard *missions* (to include WARHAMMER WORLD missions) resulted often in tantrums, rants, and facebook screaming (all caps rants) about how the non standard missions were ruining the game and ruining the community. (that doesn't even go into the house rule aspect, which takes that and turns it up a few notches)

Yes... and as I've mentioned, those are the players, not the game. 40k is as much as CCG as it is a simulation wargame or a cooperative RPG or a boardgame or whathaveyou. It depends on how you build the parameters not covered in the rules. Many people would consider this flexibility a strength, though it's clear that the community isn't interested in leveraging the game to its fullest.

**auticus**

I struggle to equate 40k with a hail caesar or a kings of war as a CCG style game though.

The rules themselves lend a certain behavior credence. If hail caesar or kings (for example) was as CCG as 40k I would expect to see the same issues over there, and you don't.

**Tokhuah**

Peregrine wrote:
Tokhuah wrote:
Without a doubt both X-Wing and Shadespire are LCGs with miniatures, right down to the card distribution method.

Not at all. X-Wing is nothing like a CCG, its cards have no gameplay function whatsoever. FFG just cut the rulebook up into sections and sold each piece with a different ship to force you to buy everything if you want to play in FFG's official events. If you aren't attending a FFG event where you are required to bring the cards as a proof of purchase there is little reason to even take the cards out of your box. You can just keep them nearby as a rules reference, like you would do with a 40k rulebook.

X-Wing cards are required for game play just like GW models are required for 40K play. The cards and models in their totality are what make X-Wing/Shadespire a LCG and your argument against it just reinforces what I was saying. You could print and play an LCG as easily as the X-Wings cards with Star Wars Toys and PDF of the rules so stop being stuck on stupid.

**koooaei**

Tyel wrote:
As has been said the card gaminess is in how pre-packaged combos dominate anything else. My alpha strike of X units with Y synergy plus Z stratagem should, on normal dice, kill 800 points of your army. This will be decisive unless you have a solid beta strike or I fluff the dice.

To some extent this has always been there, but the fact it was delayed to turn 3 in past editions hid it. You could also arguably do more about it in game (since you had two turns to move around) rather than counter listing.

That's exactly the point.

**stonehorse**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
As for "ruins/barricades don't hide anything" - sure, whatever man. That's not rules though, that's shoddy terrain. They can hide things, and the rules handle situations for hiding things, and in fact mandate that things not be hidden in order to be shot at. So... make better terrain? You don't have to change the rules to make this work. You just have to try and put a bit of effort into your fun.

Actually, it is the rules. Back in 4th edition. Everything had a height value. If a model was behind a model or a piece of terrain with a higher height it couldn't be seen. Simple and it was a good abstraction to show that even though the models are static, what they represented isn't. While also giving players the creative freedom to convert.

Back on topic.
I think what we are seeing is a response in game design based on trends. Warmachines/Hordes took the combo element from CCG'S and made it into a miniature game. It proved to be very popular, almost to the point of being a worthy contender for GW's monopoly of the fantasy/sci-fi market. Their game was aimed at a very competitive player base, there must have been a spill over into the 40k community. It made sense for GW to emulate that trend, 40k had grown stale over the years as it was stuck into a cycle of regurgitation.

We may not all like what GW are doing, but it is easy to see the influence of the CCG, and it is refreshing to see them breaking their cycles.

**auticus**

If only the combo element of CCGs had come about when I was getting into the hobby I would have saved myself about $20,000 in investment and time lmao.

**Farseer_V2**

auticus wrote:
If only the combo element of CCGs had come about when I was getting into the hobby I would have saved myself about $20,000 in investment and time lmao.

But you wouldn't have something to endlessly complain about on the internet and isn't that what's really important?

**auticus**

Yes it truly is.

**CrownAxe**

auticus wrote:
If only the combo element of CCGs had come about when I was getting into the hobby I would have saved myself about $20,000 in investment and time lmao.

this one the stupidest posts I’ve seen on here in a while

You yourself have said you’ve been playing for 20+ years. Did you hate playing 40k the entire time? Heck just imagine applying this statement to anything else like a car.

“I bought a car for 20k. I spent 20 years driving it and maintaining it. Then it died on me. What a waste of of 20000 dollars”.

Yes 40k is not an amazing game and there is plenty wrong with it. But all I see in threads complaining about how bad 40k has become is overstated hyperbole and and buzzwords like WAAC and calling 40k a CCG.

And this is coming from someone who quit 40K a few months ago

**Zid**

CrownAxe wrote:
auticus wrote:
If only the combo element of CCGs had come about when I was getting into the hobby I would have saved myself about $20,000 in investment and time lmao.
this one the stupidest posts I’ve seen on here in a while

You yourself have said you’ve been playing for 20+ years. Did you hate playing 40k the entire time? Heck just imagine applying this statement to anything else like a car.

“I bought a car for 20k. I spent 20 years driving it and maintaining it. Then it died on me. What a waste of of 20000 dollars”.

Yes 40k is not an amazing game and there is plenty wrong with it. But all I see in threads complaining about how bad 40k has become is overstated hyperbole and and buzzwords like WAAC and calling 40k a CCG.

And this is coming from someone who quit 40K a few months ago

I came back to 8th after quitting at the beginning of 6th.

Yes, spam was a thing in 5th (and 4th... and 3rd), but things like "comp scores" * awaits all the hissing a booing* really did a lot to curb this mentality. Sure, it artificially forced people to take worse units, but it made the game much more interesting.

8th really isn't that bad. Sure, games go a little quickly, and man do things wreck house, but its a great baseline to build a great game. GW's mentality of patching the game is great too, they are fixing stuff slowly and surely, and while some kneejerking has been a bit overboard (conscript nerf, malefic lords nerf), I think they'll get the hang of it

**auticus**

this one the stupidest posts I’ve seen on here in a while

(y)

I'm stuck with a mountain of models I have no use for right now that aren't really worth anything. Had I known that when I picked up the game that it would have turned into...this... I would have invested in something else.

Complaining about how bad 40k is is not overstated hyperbole. Its peoples' opinions about the game not being what they got into in the first place.

For a cheap $50 video game thats fine. WHen you invest years and thousands of dollars, you're going to get people who have a lot invested in it who are going to complain.

Thems the breaks!

**admironheart**

I miss the days of 4x8 standard tables.

I really think the 4x6 was so that tournament play could fit enough tables in....not to mention transporting the terrain.

My garage sets up within 2 hours for a 12 x 6 table.

We used to play on 8x8 but that is difficult to move items.

Then we played on my modular 22"x22" boards for 3 boards x6 boards....that was good...but pre built boards limit what the theme is.

So I use 4x6 boards set up side by side.

I can go a mx of 16 x 6 in my garage for 6 vs 6 play.

At our LFS we do 2 vs 2 on 4x8 tables.

But the depth of play on a 6 foot deep deployment zone is so much tied to the terrain and the layers of troop deployment.

Not to mention ....it is easy for any adult to reach 3 feet in from the edge to move pieces around. Anything more is difficult for some if not most...but 3 feet is very doable.