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.

Wayniac wrote:

Karol wrote:
my dad told me his first army was space wolfs termintors 20 each one of them with twice as many hvy weapons as a whole squad of normal termintors could take.

Hi old veteran here They could. 2nd edition Wolf Guard terminators could take Assault Cannons AND Cyclone Missile Launchers on the same guy, and I think due to weird Wolf Guard rules each guy could do it rather than just 1 in 5 like the other termies. It was bonkers broken if you were a powergamer.

You also could build an army of nothing else except said terminators, at least at 800 pts. They were probably the first incarnation of static gunline in 40K meta. The guy at this tournament I mentioned earlier did not move any of his (IIRC five or six) minis throughout entire day and won the tournament.

nou wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Karol wrote:
my dad told me his first army was space wolfs termintors 20 each one of them with twice as many hvy weapons as a whole squad of normal termintors could take.

Hi old veteran here They could. 2nd edition Wolf Guard terminators could take Assault Cannons AND Cyclone Missile Launchers on the same guy, and I think due to weird Wolf Guard rules each guy could do it rather than just 1 in 5 like the other termies. It was bonkers broken if you were a powergamer.

You also could build an army of nothing else except said terminators, at least at 800 pts. They were probably the first incarnation of static gunline in 40K meta. The guy at this tournament I mentioned earlier did not move any of his (IIRC five or six) minis throughout entire day and won the tournament.

Disgusting. Although I did like how in the old days your "Troops" were basically anything not a walker or vehicle. Made for cool ways to theme armies.

Blastaar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:
I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."

Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.

I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.

But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

nou wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Karol wrote:
my dad told me his first army was space wolfs termintors 20 each one of them with twice as many hvy weapons as a whole squad of normal termintors could take.

Hi old veteran here They could. 2nd edition Wolf Guard terminators could take Assault Cannons AND Cyclone Missile Launchers on the same guy, and I think due to weird Wolf Guard rules each guy could do it rather than just 1 in 5 like the other termies. It was bonkers broken if you were a powergamer.

You also could build an army of nothing else except said terminators, at least at 800 pts. They were probably the first incarnation of static gunline in 40K meta. The guy at this tournament I mentioned earlier did not move any of his (IIRC five or six) minis throughout entire day and won the tournament.

Disgusting. Although I did like how in the old days your "Troops" were basically anything not a walker or vehicle. Made for cool ways to theme armies.

Agreed, running nothing but a bunch of aspect warriors with some (independent) exarch to lead them was very thematic.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior.

I'm not gonna pay an entry fee to play a game and do the same thing I can without paying an entry fee and playing outside of the tournament.

Of course, I'm saying this because very, very rarely does a completely new person I don't know show up for a tournament.

Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?

A tournament entry fee is to fund the shop.

There is a quid pro quo that if you play in a shop you should be a patron there. Stores collecting fees and handing out store credit is the perfect way to do this.

And hey, winning is nice too. I won over $100 last weekend for a bigger RTT tournament win. My list is not meta at all. Everyone says "No Ynnari??" like 2 or 3 times during deployment. Kind of funny.

nou wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:
I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."

Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.

I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.

But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

In what way is Warhammer 40,000 a sandbox game? How is it like Minecraft? Any game can be house ruled or modded, mind you. What tabletop miniatures games are not "sandboxes," and what criteria do we use to differentiate?

Or you could just plan to do well enough to make your money back!

Joking aside, I'm actually net-positive tourny fee : winnings for 40k, but I don't do many tournies.

"I want new people to play with."

"I won't support FLGS events."

"I can play for free."

FLGS events draw new players.
If the events do not bring in money, the store owner won't run them.
And, if you're playing in a shop for free, what are you doing to help out the shop? Hobby shops are a tough business and you're getting something and returning nothing. If all the shops around you go under, what good is your collection then?

Honestly, I think that the age of the FLGS needs to come to an end and go back to clubs. I'm tired of seeing the game store become the center of the universe such that any game not stocked/endorsed by the game store is impossible to get people to play, where people who frequent one store to the exclusion of others tend to become like gang members defending their turf and in general to where the gaming community becomes beholden and subservient to the whim of whatever game store they revolve around instead of the other way around. What you have instead of a unified community is a bunch of small fiefdoms based around game stores.

That's a different topic, however.

Blastaar wrote:

nou wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:
I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."

Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.

I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.

But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

In what way is Warhammer 40,000 a sandbox game? How is it like Minecraft? Any game can be house ruled or modded, mind you. What tabletop miniatures games are not "sandboxes," and what criteria do we use to differentiate?

Are you really asking me how 40K is a sandbox game? Seriously?

nou wrote:
Are you really asking me how 40K is a sandbox game? Seriously?

Yeah, it's a pretty absurd thing to ask when the answer is so clearly "it isn't".

nou wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

nou wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:
I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."

Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.

I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.

But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

In what way is Warhammer 40,000 a sandbox game? How is it like Minecraft? Any game can be house ruled or modded, mind you. What tabletop miniatures games are not "sandboxes," and what criteria do we use to differentiate?

Are you really asking me how 40K is a sandbox game? Seriously?

Yes, I am. The claim that 40k is a "sandbox game" has been made several times in this thread. I am not being snarky here, I genuinely do not understand what it is about Warhammer 40,000 8th edition, mechanically speaking, that makes it a "sandbox" game.

Blastaar wrote:

Yes, I am. The claim that 40k is a "sandbox game" has been made several times in this thread. I am not being snarky here, I genuinely do not understand what it is about Warhammer 40,000 8th edition, mechanically speaking, that makes it a "sandbox" game.

Basically, the game is designed as a mechanism to move model sales, to allow people to play with their plastic army dudes however they want, as opposed to a deep tactical combat sim. We have everything and the kitchen sink thrown in, where what type of blade a random NCO has on their power weapon is something worth making distinct rules for, while also including superheavy walkers, aircraft, and strategic weapons that couldn't care less. When it comes to playing, the rules basically say "figure out what kind of game you want with your opponent".

GW basically tosses everything in the game universe into a single ruleset, and tells the players to figure it out from there. Even when it comes to background and factions, everything is kept vague, mutable, and malleable. You can make up any subfaction you want and play it against anything. Even among the factions, the factions available are odd and are chosen more by cool factor than how much they make sense. If 40k were a WW2 game, it'd have unique lists for the US Army, US Marines, 101st Airborne, the Tuskegee Airmen, the FBI, the OSI, Force Taffy, and the Secret Service, and trying to play them all in any combination on the same tabletop game engaging in pitched firefights at the platoon or company scale.

Contrast this with something like Flames of War or Infinity or Warmahordes where the scale of units and weapons are much narrower and more clearly defined, the background more limiting, missions are much more detailed, the rules are generally a bit tighter, and forces far more limited.

40k is not a total sandbox, but there are strong elements of it.

Blastaar wrote:

nou wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

nou wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:
I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."

Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.

I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.

But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

In what way is Warhammer 40,000 a sandbox game? How is it like Minecraft? Any game can be house ruled or modded, mind you. What tabletop miniatures games are not "sandboxes," and what criteria do we use to differentiate?

Are you really asking me how 40K is a sandbox game? Seriously?

Yes, I am. The claim that 40k is a "sandbox game" has been made several times in this thread. I am not being snarky here, I genuinely do not understand what it is about Warhammer 40,000 8th edition, mechanically speaking, that makes it a "sandbox" game.

No matter the edition, 40K has always been about piting freely selectable unit/collection of units against any other unit/collection of units on a freely constructible terrain layout - that is the basic level of 40K as a sandbox. Depending on edition amount of specific rules in your toolkit to represent various force types, terrain features, win conditions, etc. varied greatly, but was always present. In 7th you even had entire 2D version produced by FW for recreating battles inside of structures, including ships in outer space (with decompression and sealing sections mechanics included), that could apply only to a section of the table if you whished so. Moreover, detailed campaign rules with things like permanent injuries and skills also exists for 7th. And you had/have as ultimate sandbox tools as unbound in 7th or open in 8th. In 8th you have four publications to date which give you rules for specific terrain features, special and wildly differing battlezones, character/unit/vehicle development, attacker/defender specific missions and stratagems to utilize etc... Literal crap ton of material existed at any moment in time (except for brief moments after hard reboots of 3rd and 8th) to be freely used at whim, without any need for house ruling (but every iteration actually directly encourages you to houserule anything and everything you whish, whether or not an actual written rule exists). In 8th, just using BRB and CAs allow you to construct myriads of unique games while sticking striclty to written rules only, with Urban Conquest expanding on ways you can link those into an ongoing, open narrative. You can, if you whish, never play a single setup of 40K twice and literally never in your life run out of new options to include, even if you play several times a week. Only counting standard matched play 2000pts faction vs faction matchups you now have more than 400 unique games (this does not in any way include various lists that can be clashed against eachother within two factions selected for a given game). Even with two strict lists you'll get vastly differing games via manipulating terrain layout alone. The only limiting factor with any of the above is mutual consent of players involved. It has always been this way. If this is not an epitome of sandbox then I really don't know what in the gaming world is.

Slayer-Fan123 773029 10396202 wrote:
Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?

Why not just to a zoo, its is free as long as your under 16 and even over 16 it aint that pricy and cheaper in a group. No idea why anyone ever would pay for anime, but I guess people like different things.

The only limiting factor with any of the above is mutual consent of players involved. It has always been this way.

And because no one is going to agree to a terrain that makes them lose turn 1, both sides of the board are going to have 2-3 buildings, the middle is going to have some smaller terrain and 1-2 large LoS blockers. Terrain ain't even that important in the first place, when armies move 20" or more per turn, or have 24"+ ranges on guns, that sometimes ignore LoS, it just doesn't matter. Plus ton of models are impossible to hide unless someone models them crawling. The NDK for example is maybe not as tall as a knight, but he is tall enough so that no terrain blocks LoS fully to him . And if heed doesn't pop he is way less resilient then a knight. One can only thank God that he doesn't also cost like a knight.

 Melissia wrote:
Even when you do this, you have to set down some basics. Perhaps in some locales the basics are unquestioned and unstated, but you have to ask stuff like "Matched play? Two thousand points? Use the most up to date errata? Use Forgeworld and other supplements? How should we set up terrain?" and so on.

Unless you're talking beta datasheets (like the 30k Custodes stuff), that shouldn't need to be asked.

Wayniac wrote:
Also @Auticus, I don't think the 40k team is tournament players. The AOS team yes, but the 40k team is still the same bunch of "forge the narrative" guys from the Kirby era I'm pretty sure. Robin Cruddace, Simon Grant, I forget who else. All the, as our favorite bird might say, CAAC people. It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.

Ah, more reasons to dislike AOS, then - beyond the death of the Old World.

auticus wrote:

when people who played games were simply "gamers." None of this "you play the wrong way!" crap we focus on now

I can assure you that the first internet forums in the late 90s had the same thing in them. There were always constant fights on powergamers vs casual gamers.

Yeah, as far back as I can recall (late 90's - email distribution lists and the likes of Portent) this was a thing. It ain't a new phenomenon (do do do do do...)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior.

I'm not gonna pay an entry fee to play a game and do the same thing I can without paying an entry fee and playing outside of the tournament.

Of course, I'm saying this because very, very rarely does a completely new person I don't know show up for a tournament.

Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?

Sounds like a reasonable number of people don't want to deal with the reptiles playing in the tournament, though.

Karol wrote:

The only limiting factor with any of the above is mutual consent of players involved. It has always been this way.

And because no one is going to agree to a terrain that makes them lose turn 1, both sides of the board are going to have 2-3 buildings, the middle is going to have some smaller terrain and 1-2 large LoS blockers. Terrain ain't even that important in the first place, when armies move 20" or more per turn, or have 24"+ ranges on guns, that sometimes ignore LoS, it just doesn't matter. Plus ton of models are impossible to hide unless someone models them crawling. The NDK for example is maybe not as tall as a knight, but he is tall enough so that no terrain blocks LoS fully to him . And if heed doesn't pop he is way less resilient then a knight. One can only thank God that he doesn't also cost like a knight.

Karol, your gaming environment does not utilize most of the existing rules/units in this game and severly limits what happens on the table. I, for one, don't even remember the last time I've played on symmetrical terrain and I can easily hide a Dimacheron from at least half of the table at most times. Judging from all your posts, you could probably fit an abridged version of all the rules and stats used at your club in a thin notebook. 40K as supplied by GW is vastly bigger than that. It is sad, that your environment doesn't want to use that material, but it does exist and it does get used by people.

nou wrote:
If this is not an epitome of sandbox then I really don't know what in the gaming world is.

A game, probably in the RPG genre, that is actually a sandbox? 40k has the same level of customization as a typical RTS. You get to pick your units and you can buy upgrades for them, but you're still building a conventional army within fairly narrow constraints of what units and upgrades you can take. You can choose which "map" to play on, but you're still playing a battle between conventional forces. You can't decide to give your space marine HQ a lascannon and jump pack, you can't play a smuggler trying to sneak xenos artifacts past Imperial security, you can't go off and hijack an enemy warship and fly around looking for trouble, etc. In fact, aside from the inherent differences between a tabletop game and a video game (real-time vs. IGOUGO, etc), the only meaningful difference between Starcraft and 40k is that 40k removes the base-building and tech tree research nonsense in favor of having your whole army start on the battlefield.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Even when you do this, you have to set down some basics. Perhaps in some locales the basics are unquestioned and unstated, but you have to ask stuff like "Matched play? Two thousand points? Use the most up to date errata? Use Forgeworld and other supplements? How should we set up terrain?" and so on.

Unless you're talking beta datasheets (like the 30k Custodes stuff), that shouldn't need to be asked.

Wayniac wrote:
Also @Auticus, I don't think the 40k team is tournament players. The AOS team yes, but the 40k team is still the same bunch of "forge the narrative" guys from the Kirby era I'm pretty sure. Robin Cruddace, Simon Grant, I forget who else. All the, as our favorite bird might say, CAAC people. It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.

Ah, more reasons to dislike AOS, then - beyond the death of the Old World.

auticus wrote:

when people who played games were simply "gamers." None of this "you play the wrong way!" crap we focus on now

I can assure you that the first internet forums in the late 90s had the same thing in them. There were always constant fights on powergamers vs casual gamers.

Yeah, as far back as I can recall (late 90's - email distribution lists and the likes of Portent) this was a thing. It ain't a new phenomenon (do do do do do...)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior.

I'm not gonna pay an entry fee to play a game and do the same thing I can without paying an entry fee and playing outside of the tournament.

Of course, I'm saying this because very, very rarely does a completely new person I don't know show up for a tournament.

Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?

Sounds like a reasonable number of people don't want to deal with the reptiles playing in the tournament, though.

Uh there's no reptiles typically at a tournament.

 Peregrine wrote:
...you can't play a smuggler trying to sneak xenos artifacts past Imperial security, you can't go off and hijack an enemy warship and fly around looking for trouble, etc...

Don't really know why you equate "sandbox" with "RPG", but whatever:

During 2nd: core ruleset, perhaps with some Necromunda elements like injury roll and ammo roll added in are well enough suited for the smuggler part, especially hiding core mechanic
During 3rd: indeed a strong limiting of immersion expectatios are needed to attempt this, but you get BFG for warship part
During 7th: FW Zone Mortalis ruleset with Anphelion campaign elements is enough for that, but you could combine it with BFG for spaceship combat if you fancy.
During 8th: Probably best done with Kill Team ruleset and Rouge Trader expansion but could be approximated enough with BRB+CA18 battlezones and some creative use of "counts as" terrain easily (many, many exaples of rules for interacting with scenery already exist in CAs).

And those are editions I know, probably as easy to do in 5th and 6th as in 7th and in 4th factions like Tyranids had so vast customization options, that bolting on development was trivially easy to do - I'm not familiar with 4th material enough to provide a solution. Of course you won't get as great results for such scenario as using a dedicated pen&paper or dungeon crawler tabletop style RPG engine, but 40K can accomodate such bizarre uses with relative ease and quite entertaining results.

nou wrote:
Don't really know why you equate "sandbox" with "RPG", but whatever:

That's just an example, because RPGs are the most obvious instance of sandbox games. A sandbox game is best defined as one where you're free to diverge from the "main quest" and go do your own thing, whatever that may be. So:

Skyrim is a sandbox game. Sure, it has a main quest, but it also has a whole bunch of other stories and many players will create characters that completely ignore the main quest in favor of doing something else. Maybe it's a guild quest line, maybe it's exploration, who knows. And even when doing those things you're free to do them in any order, use alternate methods to accomplish your goals, etc.

Diablo is a linear dungeon crawl. You have a ton of skill tree and item choices for determining how exactly you slaughter monsters by the millions (and how good at it you are), but in the end you're still playing the same monster-slaughtering game and there's no room for doing anything else.

40k is a Diablo-type game. You can pick choices from a list of units and upgrades, for whatever reasons you have, but you aren't doing anything to really leave the "main quest" of battlefield combat between armies. Hell, even a lot of Diablo-style games have more customization than 40k because you're free to use any skill/item you can find while 40k units have very limited lists of upgrades to choose from.

During 2nd: core ruleset, perhaps with some Necromunda elements like injury roll and ammo roll added in are well enough suited for the smuggler part, especially hiding core mechanic
During 3rd: indeed a strong limiting of immersion expectatios are needed to attempt this, but you get BFG for warship part

Ancient history, none of this has anything to do with the modern game. Possibly also wrong, but I don't know enough about ancient history to say for sure.

During 7th: FW Zone Mortalis ruleset with Anphelion campaign elements is enough for that, but you could combine it with BFG for spaceship combat if you fancy.

Zone Mortalis/Anphelion have nothing to do with stealth/persuasion gameplay involving 1-2 characters and 1-10 opponents, where any shots being fired is an absolute last resort. And BFG, while great for spaceship combat, is not 40k.

During 8th: Probably best done with Kill Team ruleset and Rouge Trader expansion but could be approximated enough with BRB+CA18 battlezones and some creative use of "counts as" terrain easily (many, many exaples of rules for interacting with scenery already exist in CAs).

Oh really? Where in any of those rules will you find a way to handle a conversation with a suspicious customs official without firing any shots (because shooting brings attention and you die)? Or how good a character is at using a battleship's control systems?

I read the original statement from the Warhammer Community folks as simple expectation management for the upcoming FAQ. Based on the language I don't expect changes on the order of the Big FAQ last spring with the Rule of Three and Deep Strike changes, nor the fall one.

I am fairly certain that they tracked the top finishers at LVO, but perhaps they understand that different competitive formats may indeed have victory conditions that also skew lists. Perhaps they feel that its not necessarily GW's job to account for those, especially if the format is thriving?

Regarding "sandbox games", if you design a definition that excludes 40K then I guess you will exclude 40K. The term is indeed used for video games, but as a military fellow we used sand tables for years to teach tactics. You molded the damp sand to make a terrain set that you manoeuvred models or markers on. Old miniatures gamers also referred to "sand tables" where you could create new terrain every time. 40K is absolutely flexible - each table is a sandbox that the players mold to their tastes. Its not a role playing game, but there are many ways to play and the players have complete control over the table set up, opponents and missions while staying within the baseline rules mechanics.

Apologies, but my current work doesn't allow me to follow threads that move quickly, so some of this will be 'old'.

Karol wrote:

Sportsmanship is one reason that works rather well. A lot depends on the interactions they have, and some people recognize that ULTIMATE POWAH is not always the reason to play an army. Orks fill this role quite well, in fact.

See I go to a sports school, so I learned to ask this question from expiriance. By sportsman ship you mean acting like a sportsman or acting nice. Because those two are kind of a exclusive. Real sportsman only do nice stuff for show. while nice people do nice stuff, because they seem to be generally nice.

So, apparently it doesn't translate well. Oxford says sportsmanship is, "Fair and generous behaviour or treatment of others, especially in a sporting contest." Telling another player to, "git gud nub," would be considered NOT sportsmanlike behavior. Going back over the game and discussing decisions and possible improvements, including possible list modification for future consideration, would be considered good sportsmanship.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh there's no reptiles typically at a tournament.

Depends on the tournament. Age of Sigmar/Warhammer Fantasy have armies of them. One of the best support pieces in Skorne is a reptile, along with my favorite Gargantuan. Admittedly, 40K is falling short in that department. They need to bring the War in Heaven up to speed so we can get our armies of the Old Ones and get some good reptile fun in 40K.

---

Slipspace wrote:...the comment I was responding to was implying it was impossible to create a situation where no pre-game negotiation was required...

No. My comment asked,

How would that even be possible without standardizing both the number of points required for each game and reducing the number of available missions to one?

and your response went on to mention

Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules,

You ignored the question I asked & answered one I didn't.

---

Peregrine wrote:You persistently ignore the difference between selecting options within the game (point level, mission, etc) and negotiating over how to approach the game. Providing 10 missions to choose from is fine game design. Having such poor balance that the players have to negotiate over how many powerful list options they're allowed to take before it is "too WAAC" and "not fun" is not.

No.

Wayniac wrote:You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking.

and your comment asked

...why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW?

The comment to which I responded to had no mention of "selecting options."

See?

It would be a lot clearer if you said what you meant.

Blastaar wrote:
I think the Skyrim comparison is apt, and my general understanding of what "sandbox" means: a game that gives the player a high degree of freedom to play as they wish, including creating your own content. With 40k, regardless of which options players choose on a given day, they're still moving their minis around, rolling to hit, rolling to wound, etc. There is only a main quest. The game's problems are still there, too.

If creating your own content becomes valid, then any of Peregrine's hypotheticals become achievable - have a pre-game discussion or two (depending on the complexity of the scenario you want to play), and figure out how to get the game you want. For really complex scenarios, you may need to take the game back to its Rogue Trader roots, and actually bring in a third party to manage neutral elements of the game - and that wouldn't be a sign of failure either.

nou did his best to figure out how to play the hypothetical scenarios presented to him (before they were changed in the reply) using the existing frameworks of rules from various editions. Allow them to expand upon those frameworks with their own material, and I imagine you'd get some damn fine games out of it.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
It would be a lot clearer if you said what you meant.

But then the remote-controlled goalposts wouldn't get as much use...

Expecting a wargame to handle conversations is of course a perfectly valid and reasonable way to dismiss 40K flexibility...[facepalm]

FW Zone Mortalis rules cover such stealth mechanics like total darkness/fog of war including scanner blips to limit range of fire, operating light in terrain sections and isolating game areas via door control. You can setup a hitman/thief/smuggler scenario without any homebrew with those. And for what it is worth, Zone Mortalis intended scale is close to 2nd ed, with model size capped at dreadnaught, so 1-2 operatives vs 10 sentries is spot on.

If a system primarily intended for mass battles can reasonably handle single operative scenario then I say it’s a damn fine sandbox...

And 2nd ed rules are not ancient history if I’m allowed to use two years old Shadow War: Armageddon rulebook...

On the flip side - RPG systems usually don’t scale up to mass battles all that well either.

 Charistoph wrote:


See I go to a sports school, so I learned to ask this question from expiriance. By sportsman ship you mean acting like a sportsman or acting nice. Because those two are kind of a exclusive. Real sportsman only do nice stuff for show. while nice people do nice stuff, because they seem to be generally nice.

So, apparently it doesn't translate well. Oxford says sportsmanship is, "Fair and generous behaviour or treatment of others, especially in a sporting contest." Telling another player to, "git gud nub," would be considered NOT sportsmanlike behavior. Going back over the game and discussing decisions and possible improvements, including possible list modification for future consideration, would be considered good sportsmanship.

somebody wrote:So, apparently it doesn't translate well. Oxford says sportsmanship is, "Fair and generous behaviour or treatment of others, especially in a sporting contest." Telling another player to, "git gud nub," would be considered NOT sportsmanlike behavior. Going back over the game and discussing decisions and possible improvements, including possible list modification for future consideration, would be considered good sportsmanship.

Or otherwise known as, I would like people to continue being willing to play against me, the behavior.

Last game I played I introduced an unsuspecting opponent to the idea of multicharges and and artifact that prevents overwatch. So I explained what I was doing and how I was getting away with it, and he multi-charges me right back a few turns later to try and turn the tide himself.

It's about improving the game environment and helping others refine their skills as you play with them so even if they lose they feel they got something out of it. That way they remain engaged in the community.

Of course the scenarios I gave are bad. That's the point! 40k can't handle them because 40k is not a sandbox game. Even the suggestions involving significant house rules (IOW, not playing 40k because you admit that the game is inadequate for the job) would result in a experience. The real question here is why people are so determined to prove that 40k is a sandbox game, as if "sandbox" means "good", when it's really just a Starcraft-like game with more factions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps: Zone Mortalis is meant to be played in the 500+ point range, it is not a game of 1-2 models vs 10. And BFG/SW:A/etc are not 40k.