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.

 Slayer6 wrote:
Imperial Guard are a great example of the Generic Datasheet gone wrong.

How?

Regiments. Take a look at your average Catachan versus your average Cadian. Usually the Cadian is wearing flak armor everywhere crucial - on his head, chest, shoulders, and sometimes his knees. The Catachan has a shirt (sometimes) and a bandana... Yet somehow his rock hard abs give him a 5+ just like the armored Cadian? Ork Boyz are wearing even more armor than Catachans and their armor is worse!

The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.

Because literally all Catachans are wearing tank tops for those over the top models? Thats really what you're basing it on?

 Lance845 wrote:


I disagree with you but thats fine. This isn't kill team or necromunda where something like that which is just aesthetic should matter.

It's a miniatures game.

Aesthetic of the miniatures is the whole point.

Rules, even the existence of a game or not, is secondary to that.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I disagree with you but thats fine. This isn't kill team or necromunda where something like that which is just aesthetic should matter.

It's a miniatures game.

Aesthetic of the miniatures is the whole point.

Rules, even the existence of a game or not, is secondary to that.

I am glad you feel that way but others feel different. The models only sell in meaningful numbers because of the game. Ergo I think the game takes precedent. If you want the miniatures above all else you are free to model, paint, and display them however you see fit.

Sunny Side Up 793401 10974191 wrote:

It's a miniatures game.

Aesthetic of the miniatures is the whole point.

Rules, even the existence of a game or not, is secondary to that.

That is a very big claim considering the legions of people that never paint their armies.

Plus it doesn't explain at all how chaplain dreads or centurions become a thing, or how castellan or eldar sells suddenly stop as soon as the rules get changed.

 Slayer6 wrote:

The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.

If there's really a need for slightly different guardsmen, that could easily be baked into existing unit data sheets, rather than simply replicating existing units but with t-shirts.

'Each platoon may be upgraded to Light Infantry for +X pts per unit.
Light Infantry have a 6+ armour save and gain the Move Through Cover and Stealth USRs.'

Or something. Repeat for Genadiers, Mechanised, etc.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Slayer6 wrote:

The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.

If there's really a need for slightly different guardsmen, that could easily be baked into existing unit data sheets, rather than simply replicating existing units but with t-shirts.

'Each platoon may be upgraded to Light Infantry for +X pts per unit.
Light Infantry have a 6+ armour save and gain the Move Through Cover and Stealth USRs.'

Or something. Repeat for Genadiers, Mechanised, etc.

Nostalgia..
Still a better system then the traits now, which just split up a faction into haves and havenots subfactions instead.

 Lance845 wrote:


I am glad you feel that way but others feel different. The models only sell in meaningful numbers because of the game. Ergo I think the game takes precedent. If you want the miniatures above all else you are free to model, paint, and display them however you see fit.

If you don't care about the miniatures and lore and their representation on the table (including through bespoke rules written evoke their "character" and "background", not necessarily game-balance as a first priority), feel free to play competitive chess or go or some such.

The price money is a lot better too.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I am glad you feel that way but others feel different. The models only sell in meaningful numbers because of the game. Ergo I think the game takes precedent. If you want the miniatures above all else you are free to model, paint, and display them however you see fit.

If you don't care about the miniatures and lore and their representation on the table (including through bespoke rules written evoke their "character" and "background", not necessarily game-balance as a first priority), feel free to play competitive chess or go or some such.

The price money is a lot better too.

The hobby is built on 3 pillars so to speak. The game, the modeling (which includes the paint), the lore. You can read the books and give no feths about the game or models. You can build the models and not care about the game or story. And you can play the game not care about the fluff or models. Each individuals investment into each of the pillars is different from everyone elses. BUT the pillars still stand on their own. The game doesn't exist for the sake of the lore and should focus on being a good game. Yes, the lore should be A factor in how the game is built but it shouldn't be the determining factor that says "it doesn't matter if this makes the game worse the lore says it so lets do it".

When I am discussing the game I am discussing that pillar. When I say this is a bad idea mechanically it doesn't have to do with the lore it has to do with the game. And if GW releases a neat model for the game thats great for 2 and maybe even 3 pillars (sometimes they get a book!).

I didn't say I don't care about the miniatures or the lore. I said the game doesn't need to go into that level of minutia to represent aesthetics.

There are no separate "pillars".

It's a wholistic experience where the various elements reinforce each other.

Again, if you want to keep things separate, you can play chess for gaming, read Harry Potter for lore, paint & build model train landscapes for the painting/crafting aspect.

The point of 40K is to bring it together. It's a triathlon across all disciplines. You can't just skip out and say "I don't like the swimming part, I only wanna focus on the running". If you do that, you're kinda miss the point of a triathlon. Just go running.

Dismissing the "minutae" of the lore is just as dumb as someone being dismissive of "a few inches short" on a charge or so "just push the models in", because they don't care so much for the gaming side and/or feel the game-mechanics dont reflect other parts of the hobby in the way they feel they should.

All parts need to be respected.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
There are no separate "pillars".

It's a wholistic experience where the various elements reinforce each other.

Disagree entirely. I will never buy a 40k book. The extent of my lore delving is wiki articles and the codexes I own. I do however love kit bashing and making custom models. Even if they never see the table in the game.

Again, if you want to keep things separate, you can play chess for gaming, read Harry Potter for lore, paint & build model train landscapes for the painting/crafting aspect.

The point of 40K is to bring it together. It's a triathlon across all disciplines. You can't just skip out and say "I don't like the swimming part, I only wanna focus on the running". If you do that, you're kinda miss the point of a triathlon. Just go running.

I absolutely can and many do. Try and stop me. Further go kick down the doors of people who only read the books and tell them they need to start buying models and rules books ASAP! How many painted armies do you see versus unpainted? Guess whos skipping out on swimming.

Dismissing the "minutae" of the lore is just as dumb as someone being dismissive of "a few inches short" on a charge or so "just push the models in", because they don't care so much for the gaming side and/or feel the game-mechanics dont reflect other parts of the hobby in the way they feel they should.

All parts need to be respected.

I wasn't dismissing lore in the example I gave I was dismissing the aesthetic of the model. I can build a tau firewarrior with binoculars up against his face looking out at things. There is no rule to represent that. Should we make up rules for binoculars for everyone who has access to them because of the bit? Again, this isn't necromunda or killteam. The focus isn't on individuals. WYSIWYG is not a rule and paint is not required to play.

There are no separate "pillars".

It's a wholistic experience where the various elements reinforce each other.

There are pillars and although they can reinforce each other they can also stand alone. Dan Abnett discussed in one lecture how the Horus Heresy books managed to get a lot of people interested in the setting but didn't have any interest in the hobby or the gaming aspect of it. There are people who only the hobby aspect as they just want to paint miniatures just as there are people who only buy into the gaming experience and field grey plastic. Then there are people who weave these things together for a cohesive experience that they enjoy.

I mean, even the tourney scene technically eschews the lore pillar altogether as they are in it for the gaming mostly. The only reason to reinforce the painting for tourneys is that otherwise it would be a rather dull sport to watch, but that doesn't stop people from putting the bare minimum of 3 colors onto the plastic and call it done.

Dismissing the "minutae" of the lore is just as dumb as someone being dismissive of "a few inches short" on a charge or so "just push the models in", because they don't care so much for the gaming side and/or feel the game-mechanics dont reflect other parts of the hobby in the way they feel they should.

All parts need to be respected.

Nothing needs to be respected as this is a hobby and not organized religion.

Again, if you want to keep things separate, you can play chess for gaming, read Harry Potter for lore, paint & build model train landscapes for the painting/crafting aspect.

Why the gatekeeping? Why do you bother with what people do with the stuff they bought and enjoy? I mean, you can refuse to play a person who doesn't abide by your own personal rules, but that should in no way limit what they want out of the franchise.

We've been there. People have tried to "gamify" 40K. Both in fan-made rule-sets or GW itself, e.g. when 4th Edition only had "minor Daemons" and some such, leaving it purely an aesthetic choice whether you do your army in "Khorne" or in "Slaanesh".

It's failed and failed and failed and failed and failed again for 40K for 30 years, mainly because there're so many better alternatives out there to scratch that particular itch for a slightly more abstract-leaning, more-game-oriented gamer (or "light" hobbyist or whatever).

Funny you keep naming Kill Team as a game where aesthetic matter more. If anything Kill Team, Kill Team Arena and Underworlds are GW's products for people who prefer their gaming experience to be more streamlined, more competitive-focussed, less "put-all-your-toys-on-the-table-for-the-joy-of-it".

40K just isn't that game. Isn't trying to fill that niche. Both in the broader gaming market or even within GW's own product range.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
.
Funny you keep naming Kill Team as a game where aesthetic matter more. If anything Kill Team, Kill Team Arena and Underworlds are GW's products for people who prefer their gaming experience to be more streamlined, more competitive-focussed, less "put-all-your-toys-on-the-table-for-the-joy-of-it".

I mention it because of the scale in which those games are emulating. 40k is closer to apoc in that it is emulating the movement of units with an army, not soldiers within a unit. As such there is a focus on certain aspects of the game. Yeah, catachan wear tank tops. And Cadias wear actual body armor, and steel legion wear a big leather coat. So do DKoK btw. So Shouldn't DKoK and Steel Legion ALSO be sv 7+? I cannot possibly imagine that a leather coat is going to stop the explosive mini rockets fired from bolters any better then a tank top would. And hey, we should be emulating all the minutia on the models apparently.

The demand is certainly there.

There's a new discussion thread here probably every two weeks demanding that 40K moves from a D6 system to a D10 or D20 or something to provide more granularity in the stats to model exactly these kind of differences.

For the moment, GW has chosen to model these differences with added special rules. E.g. the "unique" rule of the Imperial Guard used to be "Orders" compared to the "unique" rule of Space Marines being "Chapter Tactics", but because people loved the "Chapter Tactics" idea to give random differently-coloured sub-factions a unique "flavour/personality", they ported that concept over to Imperial Guard (and every other faction).

If anything, the differentiation is going to continue (even if it is potentially to the detriment of a more stream-lined gameplay), because that's what 40K does best. For a less minutia-focused, more "game-oriented" game, GW has other products.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
The demand is certainly there.

There's a new discussion thread here probably every two weeks demanding that 40K moves from a D6 system to a D10 or D20 or something to provide more granularity in the stats to model exactly these kind of differences.

For the moment, GW has chosen to model these differences with added special rules. E.g. the "unique" rule of the Imperial Guard used to be "Orders" compared to the "unique" rule of Space Marines being "Chapter Tactics", but because people loved the "Chapter Tactics" idea to give random differently-coloured sub-factions a unique "flavour/personality", they ported that concept over to Imperial Guard (and every other faction).

If anything, the differentiation is going to continue (even if it is potentially to the detriment of a more stream-lined gameplay), because that's what 40K does best. For a less minutia-focused, more "game-oriented" game, GW has other products.

I feel like And They Shall Know No Fear is actually closer to the equivalent for orders since orders were given to every IG army just like ATSKNF. Chapter tactics certainly were a thing and maybe it was a combination of the 2, but nobody elses army wide rule adjusted depending on which sub faction you wanted to represent.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
There are no separate "pillars".

It's a wholistic experience where the various elements reinforce each other.

That's demonstrably untrue.

One only has to look at the people who enjoy the lore and the game but don't want to paint their models because that aspect is of no interest to them.

Or the people who enjoy the lore and collect, build and paint models but don't actually play the game.

Not everyone is interested in every aspect of a hobby.


Regardless, as far as lore goes, IMO it should be used to determine the overall theme, flavour and playstyle for each army. However, it should still stand within the framework of the game and so the attributes and general power of a given unit should be somewhat flexible, and appropriate for the other units. It should should probably also take into account that the lore tends to be Marine-centric and this will likely exaggerate their overall power.

As an example, I believe the lore suggest that a single SM is worth something in the region of 1000 Imperial Guardsmen. It seems very likely that this was a blatant exaggeration to begin with, but even if we take it as gospel, 1 space marine per 1000 guardsmen is obviously completely impractical for a wargame, so SMs would need to be toned down accordingly.

Does that make sense?

Like, lore should definitely inform a race's playstyle (e.g. Marines should be tough, elite, fearless, tactical, and focus on force-concentration and precision attacks; Dark Eldar also focus on precision attacks, but are individually less durable and so instead focus much more on speed and evasion, using various dirty tricks and dark pseudo-magical devices to get the edge, Imperial Guard should embody the mantra 'quantity has a quality all of its own', being worse individually than any other army and instead focusing on sheer manpower and attrition).

But for most units, power level should tend towards what's better for the game, rather than what's closer to the lore.

::Thumbs up:: @vipoid

I too approve of this message.

I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.

The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.

The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).

To get to this point GW would need to pull a Disney Starwars, turn every piece of lore that came before into Legends and start a new official canon where each release going forward is carefully curated to build that story with all aspects of the hobby working in conjunction.

It should be. It never will be.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.

The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).

To get to this point GW would need to pull a Disney Starwars, turn every piece of lore that came before into Legends and start a new official canon where each release going forward is carefully curated to build that story with all aspects of the hobby working in conjunction.

It should be. It never will be.

They've already shifted from satire to playing it straight, so they've already done this in a way. The old satirical lore doesn't fit with the new stuff at all.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.

The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).

To get to this point GW would need to pull a Disney Starwars, turn every piece of lore that came before into Legends and start a new official canon where each release going forward is carefully curated to build that story with all aspects of the hobby working in conjunction.

It should be. It never will be.

Well, a lot of stuff "should be" but "never will be." If we're talking design philosophy, this is how the design should be prosecuted imo.

SecondTime wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.

The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).

To get to this point GW would need to pull a Disney Starwars, turn every piece of lore that came before into Legends and start a new official canon where each release going forward is carefully curated to build that story with all aspects of the hobby working in conjunction.

It should be. It never will be.

They've already shifted from satire to playing it straight, so they've already done this in a way. The old satirical lore doesn't fit with the new stuff at all.

Yeah but they haven't wiped it. There is nothing that tells us this story happened and this story didn't or whatever. An old story has a group of space marines break into a tyranid bioship and run into a norn queen. And while that story is SOMETIMES eluded to in a very vague way in the codexes over the last couple editions the only reference to a norn queen that has existed since 6th ed is the bio artifact a norn crown that makes your synapse range 6" larger. So do Norn queens exist or don't they? We don't know!

And the game just makes up new gak to justify new models all the time. And the novels are sometimes written to adjust to that new gak and they ignore or don't the old stuff as needed. Nobody knows whats canon and so it's impossible to use any of it as a basis for anything. GW isn't organized enough to take control.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.

The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).

Why?

If they want a more balanced game, they could simply make a new game to go with the new, more balanced fluff (hello Underworlds?).

No need to crash the old 40K-lady for something the game was never meant to be in the first place.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, a lot of stuff "should be" but "never will be." If we're talking design philosophy, this is how the design should be prosecuted imo.

In that respect I agree with you. It would be nice.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.

The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).

Why?

If they want a more balanced game, they could simply make a new game to go with the new, more balanced fluff (hello Underworlds?).

No need to crash the old 40K-lady for something the game was never meant to be in the first place.

Because there are much better games out there for gamers; the primary draw of 40k is the lore. Plus, why shouldn't the play of a game match the lore?
It's like asking why a WWII game should be based in WWII...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.

The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).

Why?

If they want a more balanced game, they could simply make a new game to go with the new, more balanced fluff (hello Underworlds?).

No need to crash the old 40K-lady for something the game was never meant to be in the first place.

Because there are much better games out there for gamers; the primary draw of 40k is the lore. Plus, why shouldn't the play of a game match the lore?
It's like asking why a WWII game should be based in WWII...

Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.

The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).

Why?

If they want a more balanced game, they could simply make a new game to go with the new, more balanced fluff (hello Underworlds?).

No need to crash the old 40K-lady for something the game was never meant to be in the first place.

40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.

I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
There are no separate "pillars".



Dismissing the "minutae" of the lore is just as dumb as someone being dismissive of "a few inches short" on a charge or so "just push the models in", because they don't care so much for the gaming side and/or feel the game-mechanics dont reflect other parts of the hobby in the way they feel they should.

All parts need to be respected.

I have played against people that never read the lore, because they don't understand english and against people that never painted their armies. I have also seen people buy models just to paint and sell them, and never play the game once in a span of over 2 years. There very much are separate things, and one does not require the other, nor does it somehow stop you from enjoying one of the three. I bought a second hand army, it was already painted. I have not painted a single model in my life, it didn't stop me from not ejoying 8th ed and enjoying 9th ed.

So no the parts don't have to be respected, what ever that is suppose to mean, not when enjoying one of the "pillars" doesn't require to enjoy the other.
At the same time telling people that the thing they do care about isn't as bad, because they just have to learn to enjoy something they don't care about is stupid. It is like telling someone dieing from hunger, that they can enjoy the beauty of nature not tainted by civilisation.

SecondTime wrote:
Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.

But this is a deliberate choice on the part of the person (people) writing the facts, and my argument is they should've chosen differently. You can't play a wargame set in lala land where there are no rules and everything is just five year olds on a playground. Only, in this case, the five year olds are the game designers.

"I can shoot you to death with my shuriken weapons!"
"NUH UH, I have two wounds because I'm a SPACE MARINE!"
"Oh yeah? Well every army's weapons are D2 now!"
"Nooo! You can't - oh, my Dreadnoughts reduce all damage by 1, because they're SO LOYAL!!"