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.
2019/12/21 16:22:26
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
The notion that adversarial games cannot convey compelling narratives and you require RPG-like approach baffles me. Wolsung Miniature Game was born as a utility to resolve skirmishes that arose as a part of Wolsung pen&paper RPG. Inq28/Inquisimunda exist solely for playing out narratives. The core of Oldmunda was 2nd ed 40k and made a great narrative system for nearly two decades - campaign layer of Necromunda is just an additional level of the story, not the sole narrative element... People, including names like John Blanche, have been using 40k as a narrative tool for three decades and what, should suddenly stop doing that and apologize for being dumb enough to hammer screws? Or is it more plausible to assume that some other people have a mindset too narrow to see how 40k can be used this way?
One more way to show why „tight vs loose” is not the crux here and that competitively focused system may not be universally beneficial. Imagine three core rule systems and assume for a moment, that probabilities resulting from resolution systems given below in a typical situation are the same, so overall math stays identical:
1. You roll a single modified dice to see if attack suceeded and target is removed from play
2. You roll flat to hit, flat to wound, opponent rolls flat save, either cover or armour
3. You roll modified to hit, formula to wound, separate modified cover, separate modified armour and finally an injury roll
There is nothing about tightness or balance above, but thise three systems differ greatly in how many possible story points emerge from the resolution system alone. In the first case you wont know which modifier made the roll a succes, so you must make up the missing part of the emergent narrative yourself. The second case gives you a bit more to hold on, but does not handle heroic duels or lone-hero-against-hordes-of-zombies types of situations all that impressive. The third is the most simulationist approach, and would be pain to resolve in mass battles, but gives you detailed information about what and when exactly happened during a fight.
Now those three examples can be discussed whether they are adequate to the scope of the game you wish to play, do they manage the time required to resolve well enough, are they an overkill or too dumbed down, but there is nothing inherently unbalanced or not tight about them. None.
THIS.
Also, this is exactly why I don't want a flat wound role in regular 40k. For Apocalypse, sure, that makes sense, but in 40k, I want there to be distinct differences between the question of whether you missed, whether you hit but the person was so hardcore they just shrugged it off, whether you hit but the person's armor or forcefield or whatever soaked it up, or whether you hit and actually managed to hurt or kill the enemy. Because that way we play out the story of a battle, with particular things happening in particular ways, as appropriate to the units and their lore and what weapon you used and so on.
Why all the sudden talk about tight vs loose rules?
Those have nothing to do with how competitive the battle is. You could have a system that is both simultaneously competitively balanced and also narratively simulationist.
I think that is the desired end-state.
Simulationism is at odds with casual playability, not competitive viability.
2019/12/21 16:47:14
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
The notion that adversarial games cannot convey compelling narratives and you require RPG-like approach baffles me
Which isn't what I was saying, was it? Suboptimal =/= cannot. Hit a scew with a hammer, screw still ends up embedded in the wood, there's just better ways of doing it.
One more way to show why „tight vs loose” is not the crux here and that competitively focused system may not be universally beneficial. Imagine three core rule systems and assume for a moment, that probabilities resulting from resolution systems given below in a typical situation are the same, so overall math stays identical:
1. You roll a single modified dice to see if attack suceeded and target is removed from play
2. You roll flat to hit, flat to wound, opponent rolls flat save, either cover or armour
3. You roll modified to hit, formula to wound, separate modified cover, separate modified armour and finally an injury roll
There is nothing about tightness or balance above, but thise three systems differ greatly in how many possible story points emerge from the resolution system alone. In the first case you wont know which modifier made the roll a succes, so you must make up the missing part of the emergent narrative yourself. The second case gives you a bit more to hold on, but does not handle heroic duels or lone-hero-against-hordes-of-zombies types of situations all that impressive. The third is the most simulationist approach, and would be pain to resolve in mass battles, but gives you detailed information about what and when exactly happened during a fight.
Now those three examples can be discussed whether they are adequate to the scope of the game you wish to play, do they manage the time required to resolve well enough, are they an overkill or too dumbed down, but there is nothing inherently unbalanced or not tight about them. None.
Good oh, except none of that was all that pertinent to my point. An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." Your examples are still mathematical constructs and still rely exclusively on the player(s) to take random outcomes of probability and try and weave them into a story. A story which will only ever be a variation on "I ran towards him, decided to hit/shoot/lightning bolt him in the face and did/didn't do it, then I/he ran away." Or, for variety, "I hid near the important thing for an arbitrary amount of time and didn't die."
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/21 16:47:48
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." .
You are seriously underestimating how many of us don't mind losing the toy soldier game if we had a good time playing it.
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
And, what, it's optimized instead for competition? Is that what you're claiming? Cos at that point, I feel like you and I are just living in completely different realities.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/21 16:54:57
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/21 17:00:59
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Also, this is exactly why I don't want a flat wound role in regular 40k. For Apocalypse, sure, that makes sense, but in 40k, I want there to be distinct differences between the question of whether you missed, whether you hit but the person was so hardcore they just shrugged it off, whether you hit but the person's armor or forcefield or whatever soaked it up, or whether you hit and actually managed to hurt or kill the enemy. Because that way we play out the story of a battle, with particular things happening in particular ways, as appropriate to the units and their lore and what weapon you used and so on.
40k is already too big to have such rules working properly
There is no reason to have the detailed heroic story of each of your 100 grunts laid out by the dice on the table
current 40k at 2000 points is already Apocalypse size of the past, while still using rules for small a small 500 point Skirmish system.
this is also a reason why there is a balance issue, the size of the game is outside the sweetspot of the rules
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/21 17:01:09
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2019/12/21 17:05:08
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Azreal13 wrote: An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." .
You are seriously underestimating how many of us don't mind losing the toy soldier game if we had a good time playing it.
playing and losing is fine, getting leafblown by nu-army 2.0 with little to no retort not so much and whilst rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock will always exist in most games the apparent lack of joined up design in 40k makes in somewhat more prone to that
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
2019/12/21 17:12:45
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Azreal13 wrote: An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." .
You are seriously underestimating how many of us don't mind losing the toy soldier game if we had a good time playing it.
playing and losing is fine, getting leafblown by nu-army 2.0 with little to no retort not so much and whilst rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock will always exist in most games the apparent lack of joined up design in 40k makes in somewhat more prone to that
But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that two narrative players will always have too much conflict of interest for it to be a narratively focused game, because there's a winner and loser at all, of any kind.
There is no reason to have the detailed heroic story of each of your 100 grunts laid out by the dice on the table
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/12/21 17:20:29
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/21 17:20:24
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Azreal13 wrote: An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." .
You are seriously underestimating how many of us don't mind losing the toy soldier game if we had a good time playing it.
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
And, what, it's optimized instead for competition? Is that what you're claiming? Cos at that point, I feel like you and I are just living in completely different realities.
You're doing a very good job of strawmanning my posts and arguing points I didn't make. How do you know how many people I think don't mind losing? How do you know I'm not one of them? The reality is that in order not to compromise the narrative both players have to not mind losing by the same amount, which is effectively "totally not mind at all." That does not describe all players.
Frankly, I don't think 40K is optimised for anything, precisely because it seems to want to please everyone. But I honestly don't think it's all that fun of a game even if it were perfectly balanced. It's a modified version of a 40 odd year old rule set, and modern games do, for my taste, expose the limitations.
This doesn't mean I'm criticising people who enjoy playing it, but I do think it retains its popularity in part because there seem to be so many people who play it to exclusion, or inhabit GWs ecosystem exclusively and therefore don't gain a perspective outside that.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
How do you know how many people I think don't mind losing?
Resisting the urge to all caps here, but:
Because you literally just argued that absolutely everyone who plays the game is so worried about losing that they can't possibly collaborate in good faith on a narrative set-up.
Look, frankly, I think you either play in gaming circles that are wildly different than the ones I do, or you have a really inaccurate grasp on how other players actually think and feel. Either way, I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere debating this, because we're not even coming from the same agreed upon reality of what 40k games and the people who play them are actually like.
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/21 17:24:53
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that two narrative players will always have too much conflict of interest for it to be a narratively focused game, because there's a winner and loser at all, of any kind.
No it wasn't!!! It was that finding two players who equally prioritised the story over winning was hard, not that it was impossible, hence "all but the most sympatico" did you miss this or just misunderstand it?
Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
You started it.
ETA I just saw your second response, you need to read what I'm writing, and not argue what you think I'm saying in your head.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/21 17:29:04
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ah, ok, all pretence at discourse is abandoned as the cogent arguments evaporate.
All done here!
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azrael, you've been arguing for pages on end that the game inherently doesn't work for a type of play that has been constantly done by thousands and thousands of people over the course of 30 years, and that the game is not designed and optimized for the way it is played by the actual people who designed it. And you're now in straight up "you started it!!!" territory. So yeah, I think we're done. You know. Like I said several posts ago. We're not going to get anywhere debating this, because we apparently are not even arguing from the same base premises of reality.
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/21 17:38:03
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
The notion that adversarial games cannot convey compelling narratives and you require RPG-like approach baffles me
Which isn't what I was saying, was it? Suboptimal =/= cannot. Hit a scew with a hammer, screw still ends up embedded in the wood, there's just better ways of doing it.
One more way to show why „tight vs loose” is not the crux here and that competitively focused system may not be universally beneficial. Imagine three core rule systems and assume for a moment, that probabilities resulting from resolution systems given below in a typical situation are the same, so overall math stays identical:
1. You roll a single modified dice to see if attack suceeded and target is removed from play
2. You roll flat to hit, flat to wound, opponent rolls flat save, either cover or armour
3. You roll modified to hit, formula to wound, separate modified cover, separate modified armour and finally an injury roll
There is nothing about tightness or balance above, but thise three systems differ greatly in how many possible story points emerge from the resolution system alone. In the first case you wont know which modifier made the roll a succes, so you must make up the missing part of the emergent narrative yourself. The second case gives you a bit more to hold on, but does not handle heroic duels or lone-hero-against-hordes-of-zombies types of situations all that impressive. The third is the most simulationist approach, and would be pain to resolve in mass battles, but gives you detailed information about what and when exactly happened during a fight.
Now those three examples can be discussed whether they are adequate to the scope of the game you wish to play, do they manage the time required to resolve well enough, are they an overkill or too dumbed down, but there is nothing inherently unbalanced or not tight about them. None.
Good oh, except none of that was all that pertinent to my point. An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." Your examples are still mathematical constructs and still rely exclusively on the player(s) to take random outcomes of probability and try and weave them into a story. A story which will only ever be a variation on "I ran towards him, decided to hit/shoot/lightning bolt him in the face and did/didn't do it, then I/he ran away." Or, for variety, "I hid near the important thing for an arbitrary amount of time and didn't die."
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
I think the crux here lies in difference of "narrative" definition between you and me - what I and Natalie are talking about is emergent narrative - what points of the story that happens on the tabletop are "rendered" by the game engine with limited or no control from players agency. In this context narratives happen via simulation. The general, encompasing narrative is controled directly via mission choice/brew, terrain layout and army lists, but after the first roll you immerse yourself in the game and DISCOVER what narrative emerges from player decisions and the ruleset. What you seem to be talking about is intentional storytelling, which is completely different beast. And an optimal emergent narrative ruleset is fundamentally different from optimal competitive ruleset, if only because it does not have to have an absurd time limit for a proper game.
@thread:
Why I am discussing this? Because a fundamental misconception was expressed earler in this thread, that tight, balanced ruleset benefits all forms of play. It does not, because practicalities of increasing blind balance (the kind of balance that does not require any conscious balancing actions on the players side during preparation stage) are always at expense of diversity/detail/narrative capacity. It is worth to note here, that there are many different approaches to the narrative playing itself, some of which are completely immune to imbalance (collaborative listbuilding for one-off games can be performed in even the most broken systems) but there are also things like linked campaigns that are simply bolted on an otherwise matched play rules, like what Unit1126PLL has described. Those indeed benefit from balance, but it is enough to look at Oldmunda (a system with completely balanced start for all the players involved in a campaign) to see, that even with tight balance linked campaings must have their own layer of balancing mechanism built in, which is completely different can of worms.
2019/12/21 17:43:18
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
But this is not what the game is doing at the moment or the rules are designed for
This is what players do as a workaround to get things going.
It is not only the competitive players that struggle with the rules to get what they want, but also the narrative people because straight out of the box (without adjustments made by the players) the game does not work that way.
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2019/12/21 18:01:15
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
But this is not what the game is doing at the moment or the rules are designed for
This is what players do as a workaround to get things going.
It is not only the competitive players that struggle with the rules to get what they want, but also the narrative people because straight out of the box (without adjustments made by the players) the game does not work that way.
What do you mean? I roll to hit, roll to wound, then defending player rolls their saves. How is that different from what I described?
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/21 18:12:24
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
But this is not what the game is doing at the moment or the rules are designed for
This is what players do as a workaround to get things going.
It is not only the competitive players that struggle with the rules to get what they want, but also the narrative people because straight out of the box (without adjustments made by the players) the game does not work that way.
What do you mean? I roll to hit, roll to wound, then defending player rolls their saves. How is that different from what I described?
You don't do it for a unit, you are supposed to do it for each single model, and each single model of the target need to check for cover, roll their saves and need to keep track of their wounds
So 40k, as it is now, is about the heroic story of each single model on the table, something you said that no one asked for.
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2019/12/21 18:13:48
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Crimson wrote:Azreal, I really don't even understand what you're babbling about.
How is winning or losing is incompatible with narrative? This is just a complete non sequitur. Narrative is not predetermined, it is emergent.
Not the first time you've had trouble understanding my arguments, if memory serves. So, given others seem to get it, even if they've misrepresented them a little, we'll chalk that up to a you problem.
nataliereed1984 wrote:Azrael, you've been arguing for pages on end that the game inherently doesn't work for a type of play that has been constantly done by thousands and thousands of people over the course of 30 years, and that the game is not designed and optimized for the way it is played by the actual people who designed it. And you're now in straight up "you started it!!!" territory. So yeah, I think we're done. You know. Like I said several posts ago. We're not going to get anywhere debating this, because we apparently are not even arguing from the same base premises of reality.
Weeell, this is what, my 7th post, so, once again, "arguing for pages" isn't really an accurate description, technically you're right if the page break has happened, but largely this just seems hyperbolic. Once again, I haven't said it doesn't work, I'm saying it is sub optimal, for like the fourth time now. "The actual people who designed it" don't work for GW any more, and there's countless anecdotes about how the game has been compromised for commercial reasons or miscommunication all the way back to the start. The game is now a frankenstein of the visions of multiple authors, not all of which had full say in how their vision was executed. That it has resulted in something that isn't optimised in any real way (except as a vehicle to sell models, it is excellent at that) shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
The irony of the fact that you strawmanned my argument in the very same post as you accused others of strawmen resulted in me joking that you started it appears to have gone over your head.
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
The notion that adversarial games cannot convey compelling narratives and you require RPG-like approach baffles me
Which isn't what I was saying, was it? Suboptimal =/= cannot. Hit a scew with a hammer, screw still ends up embedded in the wood, there's just better ways of doing it.
One more way to show why „tight vs loose” is not the crux here and that competitively focused system may not be universally beneficial. Imagine three core rule systems and assume for a moment, that probabilities resulting from resolution systems given below in a typical situation are the same, so overall math stays identical:
1. You roll a single modified dice to see if attack suceeded and target is removed from play
2. You roll flat to hit, flat to wound, opponent rolls flat save, either cover or armour
3. You roll modified to hit, formula to wound, separate modified cover, separate modified armour and finally an injury roll
There is nothing about tightness or balance above, but thise three systems differ greatly in how many possible story points emerge from the resolution system alone. In the first case you wont know which modifier made the roll a succes, so you must make up the missing part of the emergent narrative yourself. The second case gives you a bit more to hold on, but does not handle heroic duels or lone-hero-against-hordes-of-zombies types of situations all that impressive. The third is the most simulationist approach, and would be pain to resolve in mass battles, but gives you detailed information about what and when exactly happened during a fight.
Now those three examples can be discussed whether they are adequate to the scope of the game you wish to play, do they manage the time required to resolve well enough, are they an overkill or too dumbed down, but there is nothing inherently unbalanced or not tight about them. None.
Good oh, except none of that was all that pertinent to my point. An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." Your examples are still mathematical constructs and still rely exclusively on the player(s) to take random outcomes of probability and try and weave them into a story. A story which will only ever be a variation on "I ran towards him, decided to hit/shoot/lightning bolt him in the face and did/didn't do it, then I/he ran away." Or, for variety, "I hid near the important thing for an arbitrary amount of time and didn't die."
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
I think the crux here lies in difference of "narrative" definition between you and me - what I and Natalie are talking about is emergent narrative - what points of the story that happens on the tabletop are "rendered" by the game engine with limited or no control from players agency. In this context narratives happen via simulation. The general, encompasing narrative is controled directly via mission choice/brew, terrain layout and army lists, but after the first roll you immerse yourself in the game and DISCOVER what narrative emerges from player decisions and the ruleset. What you seem to be talking about is intentional storytelling, which is completely different beast. And an optimal emergent narrative ruleset is fundamentally different from optimal competitive ruleset, if only because it does not have to have an absurd time limit for a proper game.
No, I get it, I just don't agree with it. Allowing the events in game to unfold and tell a story is precisely what I think of when narrative is discussed in this context. I just don't think that the rules engine for 40K does a particularly good job in comparison to some other games I've played. Given sufficient prompting I'm sure theres all sorts of war stories I can dredge up from the last 30 ish years of playing, like the time the opposing Chaos Lord dropped his own vortex grenade at his feet and disappeared, or the time the opposing Farseer's head exploded on the "ch" of charge at the top of turn 1. What I'm saying is that other games I've played latterly appear to generate those sorts of moments with more regularity, hence I believe those games to be better for narrative gaming than 40K. This belief largely stems from the fact that these games tend to offer the player more to do and more ways to interact with their opponent, hence you get more of those story points.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Not the first time you've had trouble understanding my arguments, if memory serves.
That is probably true!
So, given others seem to get it, even if they've misrepresented them a little, we'll chalk that up to a you problem.
Several people here are arguing against your incoherent nonsense, and seem to think you do not even understand what 'narrative' means. Now given your clarification this seems not to be entirely the case, but then it is even more perplexing why you dragged winning or losing into this as it has nothing to do with the issue.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/21 18:25:32
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
But this is not what the game is doing at the moment or the rules are designed for
This is what players do as a workaround to get things going.
It is not only the competitive players that struggle with the rules to get what they want, but also the narrative people because straight out of the box (without adjustments made by the players) the game does not work that way.
What do you mean? I roll to hit, roll to wound, then defending player rolls their saves. How is that different from what I described?
You don't do it for a unit, you are supposed to do it for each single model, and each single model of the target need to check for cover, roll their saves and need to keep track of their wounds
So 40k, as it is now, is about the heroic story of each single model on the table, something you said that no one asked for.
Wow… I mean, I guess the fact that I've only played a few games since returning to the hobby this year is impacting my perceptions here, but… wow, I would really not wanna play a game wherein my opponent was taking things so seriously as to insist we hunker down to check LOS / cover and roll separately for each and every model in the unit rather than just rolling a bunch of dice at once for all the models that are in a position to shoot / fight clear targets, then another bunch of dice for any attacks that are dealing with modifiers like cover. And yeah, if the rules are indeed specifying it's required to always check every single model independently and players aren't allowed to treat the unit as a whole, I agree they really need to get cleaned up in that regard.
For small units, like five assault terminators or whatever, I can totally understand wanting a separate roll for the terminator standing partly behind a shattered wall or whatever, but for big squads of ork boyz or guardsmen or gaunts, doing separate rolls for everyone just because a couple around the edges might *hypothetically* be blocked by their compatriots or whatever is definitely too much detail for any scale bigger than 750 points.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/21 18:29:46
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/21 18:27:42
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Not the first time you've had trouble understanding my arguments, if memory serves.
That is probably true!
So, given others seem to get it, even if they've misrepresented them a little, we'll chalk that up to a you problem.
Several people here are arguing against your incoherent nonsense, and seem to think you do not even understand what 'narrative' means. Now given your clarification this seems not to be entirely the case, but then it is even more perplexing why you dragged winning or losing into this as it has nothing to do with the issue.
How about dialling down the rhetoric? Your choice of language seems to be a deliberate attempt to bait, keep at it and you'll get rule 1 for Christmas.
Disagreeing with me surely means they understand me, otherwise they'd be asking for clarification?
That you don't, but are happy to use quite abrasive language in expressing that isn't a good look.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/21 18:28:23
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Disagreeing with me surely means they understand me, otherwise they'd be asking for clarification?
No! You yourself keep repeatedly saying we're not understanding you and that what you really meant was X instead of Y!
C'mon. Azrael. Please. Can you at least admit that there have been issues of miscommunication with you? Or, alternatively, that I therefore wasn't misunderstanding you earlier? You can't have it both ways!
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/21 18:32:55
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
How about dialling down the rhetoric? Your choice of language seems to be a deliberate attempt to bait, keep at it and you'll get rule 1 for Christmas.
Disagreeing with me surely means they understand me, otherwise they'd be asking for clarification?
That you don't, but are happy to use quite abrasive language in expressing that isn't a good look.
How about responding to the content rather than the tone? How does winning or losing or caring about it conflict with enjoying the emergent narrative? Was this clear and polite enough or will you evade the third time?
nataliereed1984 wrote: Wow… I mean, I guess the fact that I've only played a few games since returning to the hobby this year is impacting my perceptions here, but… wow, I would really not wanna play a game wherein my opponent was taking things so seriously as to insist we hunker down to check LOS / cover and roll separately for each and every model in the unit rather than just rolling a bunch of dice at once for all the models that are in a position to shoot / fight clear targets, then another bunch of dice for any attacks that are dealing with modifiers like cover. And yeah, if the rules are indeed specifying it's required to always check every single model independently and players aren't allowed to treat the unit as a whole, I agree they really need to get cleaned up in that regard.
I have no problem with using house-rules and optional stuff to work around to get the game working.
I also have no problem to play the game as it is out of the box
It is just if someone would play with me, insist on not using house-rules at all as the game is fine and don't need them, I also won't use them with all the consequences
Anyhow, 40k 8th edition as it is written and sold now, does not work for what the players (all of them) want it to be.
Neither competitive guys, nor casual or narrative players use the rules without some workarounds, so the game is far away from being fine for anyone if even the narrative people are not able to use the rules without adjustments for the supposed game size (1750 points)
one reason for this is, as Azreal13 said, that this is not a "game" as a whole but a composition of different kind of rules from different authors for different editions that does not work for well for anything as the last time GW really made 40k as complete rule-set, with a basic idea what each faction is going to be while writing the core, was with 3rd. Everything after was just adding patches over time.
definitely too much detail for any scale bigger than 750 points.
which is one basic problems 8th edition has and one reason (upon many) why people are not able to get past turn 2 in 3 hours
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/21 18:47:01
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2019/12/21 18:55:38
Subject: Re:GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
It might be that GW rules-writers are sort of *expecting* players to do certain common sense house-rule stuff, like letting big units fire against the targetable parts of other big units all at once with a flat assumption about LOS / cover / etc, and so are sort of deliberately skewing the rules towards the more ambiguous or conflicted situations, and thereby creating detail overload… like if they're writing them in a "this is just a tool to be interpreted" mentality like the way RPG rulebooks are usually written. But… it's a reasonable point that that's probably not the best way to go about things writing a PvP game, wherein even in friendly and narrative there will always be games or situations where, for one reason or another, one or more players will want everything to be 100% by-the-book.
***Bring back Battlefleet Gothic***
Nurgle may own my soul, but Slaanesh has my heart <3
2019/12/21 19:01:11
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
How about dialling down the rhetoric? Your choice of language seems to be a deliberate attempt to bait, keep at it and you'll get rule 1 for Christmas.
Disagreeing with me surely means they understand me, otherwise they'd be asking for clarification?
That you don't, but are happy to use quite abrasive language in expressing that isn't a good look.
How about responding to the content rather than the tone? How does winning or losing or caring about it conflict with enjoying the emergent narrative? Was this clear and polite enough or will you evade the third time?
You could just not use a tone in the first instance?
Ok, I'll indulge you.
Final turn, the final few members of a tactical squad are camped on an objective which will score enough VPs to win the game. There's a squad of Chaos Terminators in charge range. The better narrative, or certainly the narrative the 40K fluff would suggest is the correct one, would be a Butch and Sundance style last charge against the hated enemy. So, does the player play to win, shuffling the Marines about in cover, or play the better story?
Doesn't have to be in-game either, what happens when one player brings a list that's fluff above all, and the other doesn't? Even if it isn't an optimised tourney list it can still be a total road block. Or accidental hard counters when both players are so unconcerned with balance they have no idea what they've done? Sure, "total rout by turn 2" is a narrative you can apply to the game, but it isn't fun to play.
As is so often the case when it comes to balance in 40K, it all boils down to a group of like minded players to make it work, no matter what that mind may be, and if there's disparity in the player's personal objectives then the rules simply are not robust enough to correct it.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
nataliereed1984 wrote: It might be that GW rules-writers are sort of *expecting* players to do certain common sense house-rule stuff, like letting big units fire against the targetable parts of other big units all at once with a flat assumption about LOS / cover / etc, and so are sort of deliberately skewing the rules towards the more ambiguous or conflicted situations, and thereby creating detail overload… like if they're writing them in a "this is just a tool to be interpreted" mentality like the way RPG rulebooks are usually written. But… it's a reasonable point that that's probably not the best way to go about things writing a PvP game, wherein even in friendly and narrative there will always be games or situations where, for one reason or another, one or more players will want everything to be 100% by-the-book.
this is the point
the one advantage of 40k, compared to all other games, was the easy to find pick up game and that everyone plays the same game (a reason why the "only use the official rules" attitude is so strong).
but that is not there any more if rules are written with the expectation that people will house-rule stuff that does not work (next thing is on how far house rules should go)
this is less a problem for competitive play (as the TO will say which house-rules are used)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/21 19:14:33
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2019/12/21 19:38:34
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/12/21 19:54:29
Subject: GW does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, i repeat
Final turn, the final few members of a tactical squad are camped on an objective which will score enough VPs to win the game. There's a squad of Chaos Terminators in charge range. The better narrative, or certainly the narrative the 40K fluff would suggest is the correct one, would be a Butch and Sundance style last charge against the hated enemy. So, does the player play to win, shuffling the Marines about in cover, or play the better story?
In such a situation the narrative emerging from the rules obviouly is that remaining on the objective is absolutely vital. Perhaps the marines need to access a datacore so that the information can be uploaded to the strike cruiser on the orbit or something like that. A narrative of desperate last charge would emerge in a situation where the victory would hinge on the chaos terminators being destroyed.
Doesn't have to be in-game either, what happens when one player brings a list that's fluff above all, and the other doesn't? Even if it isn't an optimised tourney list it can still be a total road block. Or accidental hard counters when both players are so unconcerned with balance they have no idea what they've done? Sure, "total rout by turn 2" is a narrative you can apply to the game, but it isn't fun to play.
It probably isn't fun to play, at least if it happens often. But as you noted, that is not a problem with the narrative. I recently read a short story by Abnett where tyranids completely butcher the Imperial Guard stationed on a planet and even Space Marines who arrive to help get annihilated.
