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.

 Flipsiders wrote:

Tyel wrote:

As I see it 40k isn't an RPG because while you can embody the spirit of your faction and make decisions for units based on how you think "they'd act in character" you are not in any sense compelled or even asked to do so. The amount of variation you have to make "your dudes" your dudes doesn't change that. I'm not trying to write a shared story - I just want to win the game. Or at least try to do so.

I think you really hit the nail on the head here. Every single game that people agree is an RPG rewards you for acting in character, whether with actual rewards such as XP or items or a more engaging story with special conversations and character moments and such. You don't get points in 40k if your Grey Knights shoot all your Guardsmen after they beat some Chaos in a game of apocalypse, even if that's an in-character action for them to take.

You get points if you're army is in costume (painted) though.

Tyel wrote:
I've never met or seen *anyone* play "D&D PVP", so I am left wondering if its wildly popular in the US and largely unknown elsewhere.

It was largely a Character Optimization message board thing. Often for purposes of 'sorting' classes into 'tiers' or 'proving' that one or another is OP or underpowered. Or that their CharOP skills are just soooo strong.
It wasn't a particularly US specific thing so much as an internet thing. The old Wizards of the Coast message board had it contained and quarantined in its own special section because those kind of discussions tended to annoy people.

Critical Role has done several (3? 4?) PvP 'special episodes' outside of their story continuity for viewer amusement, but they're fairly dull to watch.

---
Go way way back and TSR used to do competitive adventuring tournaments at conventions. Each party would be scored on how far they got and what objectives they completed. Several of the really famous adventure modules had their roots in this- Against the Slave Lords series, Ghost Tower of Inverness, others of that era.

---
the idea that 40k is somehow an RPG though... that just doesn't work.
Its a wargame. Just because its not to the taste of everyone, or some think the rules are bad... subjective disagreements don't change that.

 Flipsiders wrote:

Tyel wrote:

As I see it 40k isn't an RPG because while you can embody the spirit of your faction and make decisions for units based on how you think "they'd act in character" you are not in any sense compelled or even asked to do so. The amount of variation you have to make "your dudes" your dudes doesn't change that. I'm not trying to write a shared story - I just want to win the game. Or at least try to do so.

I think you really hit the nail on the head here. Every single game that people agree is an RPG rewards you for acting in character, whether with actual rewards such as XP or items or a more engaging story with special conversations and character moments and such. You don't get points in 40k if your Grey Knights shoot all your Guardsmen after they beat some Chaos in a game of apocalypse, even if that's an in-character action for them to take.

Go back to older editions and you do have rules requiring you to act in-character or rewarding you for doing so (ex. my Have Pride In Your Colours Space Marines get an Invulnerable save but get no benefit from cover (4e Codex), my Close Order Drill Guardsmen have stat buffs if they're all placed in base contact with each other (3.5e Codex), when all the Daemons die the Chaos player takes over my Grey Knights and uses them to try and wipe out everyone who witnessed the Warp Rift (4e Apocalypse)).

I must say the varying opinions of what does and does not constitute a proper RPG setting/game are refreshing to me. I'm far more familiar with C(omputer)RPG's, and quite a few folks in that corner define the is it an RPG yes/no based on mechanics/number crunching/Character progression rather than story elements. But in line with that mindset, playing a game of Risk and putting your own story over it is fun, I've done it myself plenty of times, but the actual game gives no framework for that just like 40K in most cases. As we would say, you are LARP'ing, not roleplaying. For there to be role play the mechanics of the game need to support it.
Edit: I must apologize, I tend to catch myself addressing things that interest me in a tread rather than the actual OP. Having only started playing myself in 8th, but having watched games in 5th., I'm not sure the extent to which 40k was a real tactical game at any point. Yes there were vehicle facings, pinning, more important morale than now, but it always seemed shallow to me compared to WHFB with it's facing bonuses for all (well most) units, block movement for squads and (In my memory at least, correct me if wrong) greater importance of positioning for your entire army.

40k is more tactical than it's ever been. It's just not the kind of tactical that necessarily appeals to older fans.

The modern ruleset has been increasingly tuned for what would have been considered the power gamer crowd in older editions. They're the kind of people that spend hours pouring over datasheets looking for the most powerful combos and the most cost efficient wargear. Knowing these combos has become a sort of prerequisite to playing 40k at a level where tactics matter.

Essentially GW is putting more emphasis on rewarding those who put in the pre-game legwork in list optimization and pre-battle strategy. That legwork is certainly a huge barrier to entry for more casual or narrative-focused wargamers, but for the crowd that enjoys that kind of thing, 9th edition is likely the most tactical version of the game in its entire history.

 Jidmah wrote:


<Stuff..>... to how long an ork warrior lasts when having intercourse with an elf courtesan (yes, I'm serious).

You cant just leave it at that my man.. How long is it !!!??? I feel like we need to know this.

artific3r wrote:


The modern ruleset has been increasingly tuned for what would have been considered the power gamer crowd in older editions.

Hated those kinds of players the most, even when that was the current edition. simply not fun to play against them. the attitude and behavior of players like that is the reason i avoided the tournament scene.

Even back then i would always be up for a casual pickup game against a new player at the FLGS. if my first experience with you ended up being that kind of game we would never play another.

Had that exact experience with my deathwing back in late 3rd/early 4th. i got asked for a game, he found out i was playing deathwing, tailored a power list to fight terminators..and the game was basically over when my models hit the table. never played him again.

artific3r wrote:
40k is more tactical than it's ever been. It's just not the kind of tactical that necessarily appeals to older fans.

The modern ruleset has been increasingly tuned for what would have been considered the power gamer crowd in older editions. They're the kind of people that spend hours pouring over datasheets looking for the most powerful combos and the most cost efficient wargear. Knowing these combos has become a sort of prerequisite to playing 40k at a level where tactics matter.

Now I haven't played in editions before 8th, but from the stories people tell or write about those times, it doesn't look as if GW changed their balance in rules writing at all. Maybe some of the power builds changed, but hearing about str 6 multi shot weapon spam, units getting out right deleted without any saves of any kind , eldar heroes soloing whole 2000pts sm armies or SW having 20 assault cannons and 20 cylcon launchers on 20 models, doesn't make it feel very much casual or play-what-you-want friendly.

 Argive wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


<Stuff..>... to how long an ork warrior lasts when having intercourse with an elf courtesan (yes, I'm serious).

You cant just leave it at that my man.. How long is it !!!??? I feel like we need to know this.

Well, the answer isn't simple.

I haven't actually read or bought the corresponding rule books, so my knowledge of that particular ruleset is limited to what can be seen in the official rules references. I'm more a fan of the fades-to-black-style than rolling for initiative between the sheets.
Essentially you have multiple turns of intercourse, where you can perform different actions which are affected by feats, abilities and racial features, for example the courtesan class can use high-level skills easier and orcs get a bonus when determining the length of a certain physical feature relevant to these rules
It also has jewels like being able to take the feat "virgin" which provides a minor bonus to your mana pool and prayers to some gods, which are lost when the character is affected by certain sub-type of skills from that book.

And yes, it's exactly as dumb as it sounds - you can't make that up. Here is the store link:
*WARNING NSFW*

*WARNING NSFW*

 Castozor wrote:
I must say the varying opinions of what does and does not constitute a proper RPG setting/game are refreshing to me. I'm far more familiar with C(omputer)RPG's, and quite a few folks in that corner define the is it an RPG yes/no based on mechanics/number crunching/Character progression rather than story elements. But in line with that mindset, playing a game of Risk and putting your own story over it is fun, I've done it myself plenty of times, but the actual game gives no framework for that just like 40K in most cases. As we would say, you are LARP'ing, not roleplaying. For there to be role play the mechanics of the game need to support it.
Edit: I must apologize, I tend to catch myself addressing things that interest me in a tread rather than the actual OP. Having only started playing myself in 8th, but having watched games in 5th., I'm not sure the extent to which 40k was a real tactical game at any point. Yes there were vehicle facings, pinning, more important morale than now, but it always seemed shallow to me compared to WHFB with it's facing bonuses for all (well most) units, block movement for squads and (In my memory at least, correct me if wrong) greater importance of positioning for your entire army.

Larping is roleplaying, though, whereas it is more debatable whether there can even be a proper digital RPG without the infinite possibilites of shared imagined space occupied by the people contributing. Number crunching is a feature of CRPG's more often than not, but not in any way, shape or form a requirement for an RPG in general. It is overtly reductionist and frankly dull to go with such definitions, when there are plenty of games that require none such.

In video games, often played alone for the most part, the interplay of numbers is an interesting subject of exploration for many players and suits the medium well. The system is still limited to what is put in there (which is good for the system exploration and provides feelings of success upon accumulation of knowledge and system mastery) while at the same time you could have a tabletop RPG like Microcosm that's limited by what the players' desires for that particular session are. You can have a decade-spanning RPG campaign that oscillates in scope between singular commando adventures and domain level power struggles at court or requires new rulings and mechanisation systems created for it on the fly depending on the interests of those participating. Depending on your desired framework, similar games can focus on very different aspects of play: modern D&D with Hollywood action setpieces and character optimization is nothing like more Kriegspiel-y, challenge-oriented old school exploration campaigns with full sandbox procedures even though both, at the fundamental level, are mechanised in recognisably alike fashion. You can have RPGs that do not use gamemasters or random factors at all, you can have numerical advancements or not, you might not even necessarily require characters as usually understood or you might control several, games could be one-shots or longer campaigns etc. You can have games that are about player choices just as well as you can have games that are about enjoying a prepared ride, or reacting to something decided by formal mechanics in a thespian fashion.

How much one values different schools of though of game design is up to them, but almost every cut and dry definition people usually put for "oh but that's not a reeeeal RPG" arguments fails at nuance beyond their tastes. The nature of the beast is quite malleable.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


<Stuff..>... to how long an ork warrior lasts when having intercourse with an elf courtesan (yes, I'm serious).

You cant just leave it at that my man.. How long is it !!!??? I feel like we need to know this.

Well, the answer isn't simple.

I haven't actually read or bought the corresponding rule books, so my knowledge of that particular ruleset is limited to what can be seen in the official rules references. I'm more a fan of the fades-to-black-style than rolling for initiative between the sheets.
Essentially you have multiple turns of intercourse, where you can perform different actions which are affected by feats, abilities and racial features, for example the courtesan class can use high-level skills easier and orcs get a bonus when determining the length of a certain physical feature relevant to these rules
It also has jewels like being able to take the feat "virgin" which provides a minor bonus to your mana pool and prayers to some gods, which are lost when the character is affected by certain sub-type of skills from that book.

And yes, it's exactly as dumb as it sounds - you can't make that up. Here is the store link:
*WARNING NSFW*

Spoiler:

https://www.ulisses-ebooks.de/product/243459/DSA5--Wege-der-Vereinigungen-PDF-als-Download-kaufen

*WARNING NSFW*

I mean, kudos to whomever wrote such an extensive ammount of material including such an indepth manual but i think it also earns a "but-why-cat"

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean, kudos to whomever wrote such an extensive ammount of material including such an indepth manual but i think it also earns a "but-why-cat"

Spoiler:

Here are the rules for playing a group of cats. Not cat people, but actual cats solving cat adventures in a human city:
https://www.ulisses-ebooks.de/product/275139/Die-Schwarze-Katze--Regelwerk-PDF-als-Download-kaufen

I wasn't kidding when I said that they have rules for absolutely everything

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean, kudos to whomever wrote such an extensive ammount of material including such an indepth manual but i think it also earns a "but-why-cat"

Spoiler:

Here are the rules for playing a group of cats. Not cat people, but actual cats solving cat adventures in a human city:
https://www.ulisses-ebooks.de/product/275139/Die-Schwarze-Katze--Regelwerk-PDF-als-Download-kaufen

I wasn't kidding when I said that they have rules for absolutely everything

okay, i am done
Edit: the pitch doesn't even sound half bad , either . god i have tears in my eyes now.

Not to drag this on much longer, but this just popped into mind:

 Jidmah wrote:


Basically when preparing for my P&P groups I have tons of support from official material that I can use if I want. When creating a narrative game or campaign for 40k, there is no such option.

But it's much easier to leave stuff out than to cook up everything yourself. When using an pre-created setting or story I keep the things I like and drop the things I don't.
If I wanted to re-create the battle for hive hades as a campaign, there is nothing in any books that would help me setting up narrative games outside of a few character names.

TL;DR: Being able to forge a narrative around a game out of thin air is not the same as the game supporting narrative gaming.

Just got the latest White Dwarf (457) in my hands here which states, right on the cover, "Flashpoint: Argovon system. New campaign rules and background." The editorial then speaks on how they will for the foreseeable future offer these little packets of monthly rules for this explicit purpose. Heck, before going in on the campaign historic with maps and force orgs detailing who were present, the article flat out states the following:

"Flashpoints are collections of articles that explore a particular region or war zone at a specific point in time. Flashpoints contain new rules for you to try out on the battlefield, plus new stories and background about the setting, giving you plenty of opportunities to theme your games. You could recreate some of the battles mentioned in the background section, convert characters based on the heroes in the stories or build a new battlefield to represent one of the theatres of war. Flashpoints span multiple issues and articles are always marked with the Flashpoint's symbol, making them easy to find in your copy of White Dwarf."

Doesn't get much clearer than that in an official product. Even the rules themselves, while pretty light compared to something you'd see in the Heresy books' rivet counting campaigns, are useful. Recommendations on how to split the player group into alliances, suggestions for a three-act monthly structure with overall victory determined by victory points that scale per the size of battle, three sets of thematic terrain rules (volcanic / marshland / snowy mountains), campaign-specific Crusade agendas for the factions involved...

And though the article itself is new, this approach is nothing new by any stretch. This is the way the people at GW itself have always approached the game, which then filters in one form or another in the products: make stuff up and inspire others to do the same.

Thanks for pointing that out, I might get a digital copy of that.

 aphyon wrote:

artific3r wrote:


The modern ruleset has been increasingly tuned for what would have been considered the power gamer crowd in older editions.

Hated those kinds of players the most, even when that was the current edition. simply not fun to play against them. the attitude and behavior of players like that is the reason i avoided the tournament scene.

Even back then i would always be up for a casual pickup game against a new player at the FLGS. if my first experience with you ended up being that kind of game we would never play another.

Had that exact experience with my deathwing back in late 3rd/early 4th. i got asked for a game, he found out i was playing deathwing, tailored a power list to fight terminators..and the game was basically over when my models hit the table. never played him again.

Yeah, it's a completely different mentality. The age of competitive online video games means that there are more power gamers entering the hobby than ever before. That doesn't mean the game is less tactical. It is actually more tactical, just in a different way from what older fans are used to.

Times change, for better or worse.

artific3r wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

artific3r wrote:


The modern ruleset has been increasingly tuned for what would have been considered the power gamer crowd in older editions.

Hated those kinds of players the most, even when that was the current edition. simply not fun to play against them. the attitude and behavior of players like that is the reason i avoided the tournament scene.

Even back then i would always be up for a casual pickup game against a new player at the FLGS. if my first experience with you ended up being that kind of game we would never play another.

Had that exact experience with my deathwing back in late 3rd/early 4th. i got asked for a game, he found out i was playing deathwing, tailored a power list to fight terminators..and the game was basically over when my models hit the table. never played him again.

Yeah, it's a completely different mentality. The age of competitive online video games means that there are more power gamers entering the hobby than ever before. That doesn't mean the game is less tactical. It is actually more tactical, just in a different way from what older fans are used to.

Times change, for better or worse.

What Aphyon described is list tailoring. There is nothing "tactical" about list tailoring.

I'm talking about the power gamer crowd, not the list tailoring. List tailoring is not exclusive to power gamers.

artific3r wrote:
I'm talking about the power gamer crowd, not the list tailoring. List tailoring is not exclusive to power gamers.

One can power game without list tailoring. If marines ever get fixed to where I'm willing to play them again, I won't tell foes if I'm using BA or Necrons until we're ready to play.

SecondTime wrote:

artific3r wrote:
I'm talking about the power gamer crowd, not the list tailoring. List tailoring is not exclusive to power gamers.

One can power game without list tailoring. If marines ever get fixed to where I'm willing to play them again, I won't tell foes if I'm using BA or Necrons until we're ready to play.

Oh, back in 5th I loved telling people that I was going to run orks against them and then crushed an army full of flamers with my battlewagons with not a single-anti-tank weapons in sight. They next time I played the same player all those lances and meltas who they brought this time around suddenly were struggling against my kan wall. I've healed so many people from list tailoring back then.

artific3r wrote:
I'm talking about the power gamer crowd, not the list tailoring. List tailoring is not exclusive to power gamers.

True, but the mentality is the key. the powergamers (with or without list tailoring) are not the kind of people i enjoy playing my games of 40K with. i had a guy at my FLGS for probably a decade who was a great guy. we could sit around and talk about tactics and ideas for the many games we played and even current events...but i absolutely hated to play games with him because the game play itself wasn't fun. he approached every game as if he were in a pro chess tournament (probably why he won so many WM/H events back in MK1).

The resource management and gotcha combos with the current game mechanics (terrain, facings etc..) really take away from the immersion/enjoyment of the game experience to me. it was more enjoyable to see my guys doing X because that's what they would do in the lore based rules/restricitons rather or not it was the best thing they should be doing to win the game. the latter was my job to work around the lore on the table to make it work even if the 2 forces were not "competitively balanced".

A good example of that is a fantastic eldar army one of our former regulars used to run(he moved out of the area, still miss having him in the group)
it was most definately a power list as he most often he ran a corsair list (when he wasn't running his wraith lists)with

HQ
X2 corsair princes
Troops
X2 dire avenger (or guardians cannot remember) squads w/falcon dedicated transports

Heavy support
X3 warp hunters

Fast attack
.squadron of 3 pulse laser hornets
the other 2 slots were the 2 different planes(one with psychic attacks..because eldar)

It was a super powerful list with lots of speed, high strength guns, AP2, and d cannons everywhere.

Believe it or not i used my salamanders to take him to a tie game more than i lost because of how i played. and they were usually epic battles. because even though it was technically a FW "power list" both the mechanics of 5th edition and his attitude while playing the game made it great fun.

I understand completely. Luckily there are still plenty of players who prefer the immersive aspects of the game, myself included.

 Jidmah wrote:


Oh, back in 5th I loved telling people that I was going to run orks against them and then crushed an army full of flamers with my battlewagons with not a single-anti-tank weapons in sight. They next time I played the same player all those lances and meltas who they brought this time around suddenly were struggling against my kan wall. I've healed so many people from list tailoring back then.

This is kind of why I had high hopes for the cards/objectives. Done right that could have fixed a lot. If you were stuck with what you drew - unless your opponent's army didn't/couldn't provide a valid objective target - and those cards were so varied you literally needed some of everything to keep from getting stuck with a handful you couldn't do because of your army...

That had potential.

 Jidmah wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

artific3r wrote:
I'm talking about the power gamer crowd, not the list tailoring. List tailoring is not exclusive to power gamers.

One can power game without list tailoring. If marines ever get fixed to where I'm willing to play them again, I won't tell foes if I'm using BA or Necrons until we're ready to play.

Oh, back in 5th I loved telling people that I was going to run orks against them and then crushed an army full of flamers with my battlewagons with not a single-anti-tank weapons in sight. They next time I played the same player all those lances and meltas who they brought this time around suddenly were struggling against my kan wall. I've healed so many people from list tailoring back then.

Not going to lie, I still do this to this day LOL!

I played against an Eldar player recently, told him I was going to roll Orkz. he showed up with every anti-infantry gun in the game he could, and I rolled up with Triple Bone breakers/Scrapjets and a morkanaut

Turn 1 I was in his lines with a Bonebreaker including my favorite sneaky git. Warboss in Rezmekka's redder armor. I really want that armor to get a buff because its just about the funniest thing in the world when you inform your opponent that because he couldn't kill your battlewagon in CC hes going to lose D3 Mortals from every unit nearby.

artific3r wrote:
The modern ruleset has been increasingly tuned for what would have been considered the power gamer crowd in older editions. They're the kind of people that spend hours pouring over datasheets looking for the most powerful combos and the most cost efficient wargear. Knowing these combos has become a sort of prerequisite to playing 40k at a level where tactics matter.

But by definition that is not tactics, that's strategy.

Tactics are decisions like "do I move this squad to this place on the map, or that place on the map? Do I shoot at this squad, or that squad?"

The actual turn-by-turn execution of your army is tactical. It's important in casual play but at high-level play it isn't nearly as important as list building, which is what wins games.

You might want to re-read my post more carefully. No one is equating listbuilding with tactics.

The point was, tactics don't matter if your strategy is not in place. That's what I mean when I say knowing the most powerful combos and cost efficient units available to both factions (and having a strategy based on that info) is a prerequisite to making tactics matter in 40k.

If you don't have a strategy or if your strategy is based on incomplete information (eg. you don't know how powerful your enemy's combos can get), then tactics won't matter. The outcome of your game will be largely decided by who chose the better list, deliberately or not.