Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have the BRB and Codex Space Marines and might be playing Imperial Fists or even Black Templars. Those 2 books should be enough right? The Imperial Fists supplement and the Faith and Fury supplement are just 'extra' stuff for those armies right?

No, those two books give you specific rules for the factions you're looking at.

No you need the suppliment because they contain extremely important and powerful rules for those factions. You also need Chapter Approved 2019 and all the faq and errata for each book. That's 9 documents off the bat, with a tenth when the errata for the book of errata finally releases.

What you have is fine for casual games. The supplements give you more rules for your factions but aren't necessary if you don't want those just yet, though you definitely want them if you want to play competitively, aka in tournaments. Any errata is available free online from gw. Ca isn't needed for space marines as it doesn't change any of the points in your codex.

you don't need the Imperial fists supplement or faith and fury no, they have some great extra rules and obviously if you want to make your army as powerful as possiable you'll want it, but the only reason you'd NEED one of the supplements is if you wanted to run one of the special characters

Don't they also have a IF only psychic school, extra relics, stratagems etc? Playing without them, is like playing with half a codex. Same with the super doctrin.

Karol wrote:
Don't they also have a IF only psychic school, extra relics, stratagems etc? Playing without them, is like playing with half a codex. Same with the super doctrin.

they're "nice to haves" Karol, not "required" you can sit down and play a perfectly sastifactory game of 40k with just the space marine codex.

"Nesscary" does not mean "what do I need to compete at the highest level?"

that sounds borderline illogial to me. If someone wants to play IF, then for sure they want the best legal IF rules that exist. Otherwise why play IF at all?

I never played in a tournament and probably never will. But I would never say that to play GK you only need the GK codex and the PA4 is just for "competing at the highest level".

In fact the worse the core list is, and BT are really not the pinacle of SM power, especially if played with actual BT unit choices, the more you need the supplements. Sure playing an iron hand or RG successor can be pulled off with just the sm codex, although they do work better with the supplements. Same with playing something like white scar succesors chapter or DA succesor.

Karol wrote:
that sounds borderline illogial to me. If someone wants to play IF, then for sure they want the best legal IF rules that exist. Otherwise why play IF at all?

Colour scheme. Likes the lore. Already owns Imperial Fist models. Doesn't care about winning every game they play. Likes bananas. Insert any other reason here.


Maybe, it's because they want to *play* with their models first and foremost, not *win*.

playing implies wanting to win. just like living implies you want to breath or eat. If you don't want to win it is no longer playing. It is maybe training, maybe mock combat or pretending, but it is not playing.

Also the idea that buying the BT supplement or the IF one will garent you winning every game, in a world where not even IH garentee you that is a laughable argument.

The part about bananas I don't get it. Only thing that comes to mind is people throwing bananas at specific football players, but I have no idea what that could have to do with me, playing or not playing, or Imperial Fists or Black Templars.

Karol wrote:
playing implies wanting to win. just like living implies you want to breath or eat. If you don't want to win it is no longer playing. It is maybe training, maybe mock combat or pretending, but it is not playing.

Also the idea that buying the BT supplement or the IF one will garent you winning every game, in a world where not even IH garentee you that is a laughable argument.

The part about bananas I don't get it. Only thing that comes to mind is people throwing bananas at specific football players, but I have no idea what that could have to do with me, playing or not playing, or Imperial Fists or Black Templars.

Sure, everybody who plays a game wants to win - but that doesn't mean they want to win by using the most efficient force - many people play with an army that is handicapped by the theme of the force, or simply because that's what models they have.

But this is far off topic. The question has been answered.

People need to learn the difference between need and want.
People need to learn that not everyone wants to play only the most broken stuff all the time.

Karol wrote:playing implies wanting to win.

In your reality, not mine.

If I'm playing, I'm playing to enjoy myself, and, before you say it - no, I don't need to win to enjoy myself.

Please, stop pretending that the only way all people can enjoy themselves is by winning, and that people only care about winning, or that if you're not playing to win, you're somehow defective. If you feel that you can't enjoy yourself without winning, that's your preference, but not everyone is the same, and the concept of playing for social reasons is hardly new.

Play is about enjoyment. You can get that through winning, or through social interaction, or through exploring a narrative, or just staving off boredom. All are equally valid.

just like living implies you want to breath or eat.

There's a difference between living and existing. Same as there's a difference between playing and trying to win.

The part about bananas I don't get it. Only thing that comes to mind is people throwing bananas at specific football players, but I have no idea what that could have to do with me, playing or not playing, or Imperial Fists or Black Templars.

Bananas are yellow. Imperial Fists are yellow.
The point is that they can like Imperial Fists for literally ANY reason other than "I want them to win".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In your reality, not mine.

In any reality. The entire concept of a game is to use the rules of the game to conclude the game in a winning state for you or your team. It doesn't matter if it's Tiddlywinks, 40k or the World Snooker Championship.

Honestly, if we were playing and you said you weren't trying to win the game, I'd be a little insulted. Wouldn't you if I said the same?

To play a game is to try and win the game. Anything else is, as the orks say, mukkin' abawt.

There's a lot of games out there that don't have win conditions, and people play them all the time. The goal of a game isn't to win (though that can certainly be something you'd like to have happen). The entire point of a game is to have an enjoyable time. If you can do that, then whether you win or lose, you've accomplished your mission.

Not that I can't relate to folks wanting to win, nor am I saying that winning isn't more enjoyable than losing. Just clarifying that games, by their nature, are tools for enjoyment, not for determining a victor.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In your reality, not mine.

In any reality. The entire concept of a game is to use the rules of the game to conclude the game in a winning state for you or your team. It doesn't matter if it's Tiddlywinks, 40k or the World Snooker Championship.

Honestly, if we were playing and you said you weren't trying to win the game, I'd be a little insulted. Wouldn't you if I said the same?

To play a game is to try and win the game. Anything else is, as the orks say, mukkin' abawt.

ok BCB, honest question, would you rather play a game where you where entertained and having fun? or one where it was painful just to play?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
There's a lot of games out there that don't have win conditions, and people play them all the time. The goal of a game isn't to win (though that can certainly be something you'd like to have happen). The entire point of a game is to have an enjoyable time. If you can do that, then whether you win or lose, you've accomplished your mission.

Not that I can't relate to folks wanting to win, nor am I saying that winning isn't more enjoyable than losing. Just clarifying that games, by their nature, are tools for enjoyment, not for determining a victor.

honestly, of the die hard "you gotta win no matter what" people who post here, I wonder how many people take that to the table top and have a local gaming group that enjoys playing with them? and I wonder how many can't get games in without going to tournies or seal clubbing some unsuspecting new comer in the local hobby store

BrianDavion wrote:
ok BCB, honest question, would you rather play a game where you where entertained and having fun? or one where it was painful just to play?

Obviously I'd play the entertaining game, but I can already see the trap you are trying to lay.

If you're asking would I rather try and win and have it be painful, or not try to win and be "entertained" (which is an oxymoron, but I digress), I'd prefer trying to win because that is the entire point of a competitive game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
ok BCB, honest question, would you rather play a game where you where entertained and having fun? or one where it was painful just to play?

Obviously I'd play the entertaining game, but I can already see the trap you are trying to lay.

If you're asking would I rather try and win and have it be painful, or not try to win and be "entertained" (which is an oxymoron, but I digress), I'd prefer trying to win because that is the entire point of a competitive game.

It's not though. It is the objective. The point is to have fun. If you're going to bandy about pedantry like you always do as you are drawn like a fly to a freshly laid clutch of dog eggs to these threads then at least get it correct.

On a related note, I've had games that I've lost that were more enjoyable than game I have won.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In your reality, not mine.

In any reality.

As I lay out in this post, no. Yours, not mine.

The entire concept of a game is to use the rules of the game to conclude the game in a winning state for you or your team. It doesn't matter if it's Tiddlywinks, 40k or the World Snooker Championship.

Alternatively, you could view the game as a mechanism for achieving real-world objective - namely entertainment. These objectives include:
Personal satisfaction upon completing the goals of the game (what you describe - beating the game)
Social interaction (ie. a vehicle to drive interpersonal relationships)
Creation and expression (ie. game like Minecraft or Lego bricks, or telling a narrative story with 40k)
The development of real world skills (ie. educational games)

Not all games can fulfil these criteria (Snooker, for example, isn't well suited for creation and expression, but can be used to teach angles and collision mechanics, and is a popular pub game, prompting social interaction, as well as the obvious 'play to win'.) but 40k can easily fulfil the first three objectives.

The idea that "there's only one way to enjoy a game" or "the only reason this game exists is to beat it" is incredibly reductive of games as an art form and medium of entertainment both.

Honestly, if we were playing and you said you weren't trying to win the game, I'd be a little insulted. Wouldn't you if I said the same?

No, I wouldn't be insulted at all, because as long as I, and by extension, you, am enjoying the game, I don't care who wins or loses.
If I tell you upfront that I'm not playing to win, and that winning is a secondary condition for me, I'm assuming you wouldn't play me? That's absolutely fine if so, as long as we both respect the preferences of the other and the validity of their feelings. If, midway through a game, I tell you I'm not trying to win or anything, and that upsets you - you have every right to be upset if your enjoyment comes from a struggle to win against an opponent also trying to win - as a result, calling the game off would be completely up to you, and understandable if so.

To play a game is to try and win the game.

To play a game is to achieve something. That can be winning, or it can be social interaction, or exercise, or any other reason.

When I sit down and play Cards Against Humanity, for example, I don't care who wins. I care about the funniest cards people play, and the laugh we collectively have about it.
When I play D&D, either as a GM or player, my primary goal isn't to care about beating every encounter or achieving the objectives - it's about role-playing, goofy character interactions, and having a fun social event.
When I play football in the park, I couldn't care less which team actually wins, because getting the chance to stretch my legs and blow off steam is enjoyable.

So no, that's very much not true.

Anything else is, as the orks say, mukkin' abawt.

What's wrong with mukkin' abawt though?

BaconCatBug wrote:I'd prefer trying to win because that is the entire point of a competitive game.

Are all games of Warhammer competitive? Absolutely not.

 flandarz wrote:
On a related note, I've had games that I've lost that were more enjoyable than game I have won.

Which is not the point I am arguing. Did you intentionally lose those games, or were you trying to win and lost?

Poor OP... Must be horrified reading this lol.
OP, most people in the wild are pretty chill..

Codex space marines will be sufficient to play a game.
Supplements are an add on that give you more options and arguably more power.

 Argive wrote:
Poor OP... Must be horrified reading this lol.
OP, most people in the wild are pretty chill..

Codex space marines will be sufficient to play a game.
Supplements are an add on that give you more options and arguably more power.

Agreed with all of this. (Seriously, what the hell is all the off-topic stuff above? Sad.)

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
On a related note, I've had games that I've lost that were more enjoyable than game I have won.

Which is not the point I am arguing. Did you intentionally lose those games, or were you trying to win and lost?

Did I throw the game? No. Did I go into the game scraping up every advantage and utilizing every rule interaction in order to secure victory at all costs? Also no.

Edit: in other words, I wasn't playing to win. Or to lose. I was playing to have a good time with my friends.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Poor OP... Must be horrified reading this lol.
OP, most people in the wild are pretty chill..

Codex space marines will be sufficient to play a game.
Supplements are an add on that give you more options and arguably more power.

Agreed with all of this. (Seriously, what the hell is all the off-topic stuff above? Sad.)

You ask a question about 40k documentation without BCB storming in and declaring that everyone needs full access to every rule even vaguely related to the army at hand. If you saod you wanted to play Tyranids he'd be telling you to buy the GSC book as well, and because you have GSC you NEED the AM book and then every Imperial codex as well because you want to soup to be competitive etc etc

 messhallcook wrote:
I have the BRB and Codex Space Marines and might be playing Imperial Fists or even Black Templars. Those 2 books should be enough right? The Imperial Fists supplement and the Faith and Fury supplement are just 'extra' stuff for those armies right?

That would be correct, though you're going to want them because they're where the real power lies.

In general, you only actually need to have your codex, so long as somebody in your playgroup has the BRB and Chapter Approved.

Don't forget to check your FAQ's [they're free on WH Community here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/?orderby=post_created&order=desc#warhammer-40000 ]

Think that covers this so I will lock it up.