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.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Uh, as a long time GM, D&D is not a tactical wargame. You are playing together with your friends cooperatively though challenges the GM creates for you as the protagonists of your own world, not playing against me in a stand up game where we're both supposedly using our understanding of the mechanics and tactical abilities to defeat the other. Even if we're not trying very hard, when I'm playing 40k against your my role isn't to create fun challenges of NPC's for you the protagonist to lead your army though. Our relationship when playing D&D is very different from our relationship when playing 40k.

While true by default, you may have noticed that the Book of Rust actually recommends someone take the role of GM to guide the campaign. This, I think, is what Crusaders are indicating; while by default, 40k is different than D&D, it has always possessed the potential to move in that direction; Kill Team, Necromunda... all of there games were experiments with campaign play and progression systems. Ninth Edition's Crusade system is the evolution of those experiments.

We can still have an emergent narrative from our Matched Play game. It comes from the moments when fun things happen. But as Katherine has already stated, it is not a role-playing game. Your opponent is not a monster in the dungeon for you to defeat. They are an evenly matched opponent striving against you on a field of battle with agreed upon parameters.

Can it be played as a role-playing game? Sure - but it takes two people where one is happy to be "the DM" and run the shooting gallery/ gunnery lane for your Baneblades. Might be fun for you, but probably not for the other person in any sustained way. I could see a dad running games like that for his kids, but any given Saturday at the FLGS? Nope.

Miniwargaming has a little campaign like that on right now and its kinda cool, but I wouldn't expect it to be common-place.

What about someone having a themed army, that's not Battleforged, so no dynasties/etc, that is looking for a pickup game at standard points levels (500, 1000, 2000)?

They're sacrificing a lot mechanically to run what they want.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Uh what? Our relationship as opponents in a wargame isn't the relationship between GM and player. As I said, I'm a whole another player playing off against you. Even if I'm not trying very hard and mostly here to roll dice and have fun, I'm not an NPC to the story of your protagonists; I'm playing the game and my own people are my own heroes.

Why do you assume that you're an NPC? Two players can roleplay and PVP at the same time. It happens in some of my DND sessions, and it happens in online RPGs. RPVP is a thing and 40k fits that niche well.

The fundamental core premise of your statement is incongruent with the nature of the game. Like, sure you can be opponents and have an emerging story, but the story is the consequence of the actions you take in opposition to each other, not the other way around. Then you'd just be following a script.

I agree completely with this statement and fail to see how what I said is different from it. I am not saying the game should be scripted. I'm saying "let the dice tell the story."

Also, casual players can have fun in victory. People casually play all kinds of games and find fun in winning. A casual player is just [i]casual/i] about the game; it's not a subject of life or death, and if they're not doing well they're still having fun because they're present and participating.

They can have fun in victory, sure, but they're more competitive than someone who isn't if so - which makes them "less casual." I agree it's a spectrum and not an even divide.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:We can still have an emergent narrative from our Matched Play game. It comes from the moments when fun things happen. But as Katherine has already stated, it is not a role-playing game. Your opponent is not a monster in the dungeon for you to defeat. They are an evenly matched opponent striving against you on a field of battle with agreed upon parameters.

Yes, I agree with all of this. I don't know why this disproves anything I said, other than that the agreement is assumed to be "what is official" in general, presumably in the interest of fairness - nevermind that it's neither more fair nor really filling any other niche that well except to exist.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Can it be played as a role-playing game? Sure - but it takes two people where one is happy to be "the DM" and run the shooting gallery/ gunnery lane for your Baneblades. Might be fun for you, but probably not for the other person in any sustained way. I could see a dad running games like that for his kids, but any given Saturday at the FLGS? Nope.

Miniwargaming has a little campaign like that on right now and its kinda cool, but I wouldn't expect it to be common-place.

Why can't you tell a story and be opponents at the same time? As I told Katherine, RPVP is a thing. It's possible for NEITHER player to be an NPC and for them to still fight and tell a story as they do - even if one ends up defeated in the end. It can still be a beautiful story.

 catbarf wrote:
The strength of 3rd/4th Ed codices like Tyranids, CSM, Imperial Guard, and SM was that they let you define your army characteristics from a blank slate. You picked the traits you wanted, then had total freedom to build out your army accordingly. That afforded a lot more flexibility than a narrow set of formations with a predefined theme.

Whilst I adore the choice those Codices provided, I can't help but point out that the main mechanic behind them was "giving up" other things, often things you never planned on taking in the first place, and if the sacrifice or cost of your flexibility isn't really a cost at all, then that's not balanced in the slightest.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
The strength of 3rd/4th Ed codices like Tyranids, CSM, Imperial Guard, and SM was that they let you define your army characteristics from a blank slate. You picked the traits you wanted, then had total freedom to build out your army accordingly. That afforded a lot more flexibility than a narrow set of formations with a predefined theme.

Whilst I adore the choice those Codices provided, I can't help but point out that the main mechanic behind them was "giving up" other things, often things you never planned on taking in the first place, and if the sacrifice or cost of your flexibility isn't really a cost at all, then that's not balanced in the slightest.

Sometimes the downgrades or exclusions can provide as much character as the advantages.

More my point was that if I'm having to give up things I never intended to take in the first place, then I'm not really paying for or sacrificing anything.

I always think back to the Guard Doctrines.

"My army can Deep Strike and get +1 Initiative for free in every squad, and all I have to do is not take Preachers and Sanctioned Psykers, things I wasn't going to take anyway? Oh woe is me!"

Or Iron Warriors:

"I can get another Heavy Support slot and all I have to do is not take any of the useless Fast Attack options that no one ever took in a CSM army anyway? How will I cope?!?!?

Or Marines:

"I can get Tank Hunters and other bonuses on my Marines, and to do that I have to not take allies from the Daemonhunter or Witch Hunter Codices? I don't think I can manage such a choice!!!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
More my point was that if I'm having to give up things I never intended to take in the first place, then I'm not really paying for or sacrificing anything.

I always think back to the Guard Doctrines.

"My army can Deep Strike and get +1 Initiative for free in every squad, and all I have to do is not take Preachers and Sanctioned Psykers, things I wasn't going to take anyway? Oh woe is me!"

Or Iron Warriors:

"I can get another Heavy Support slot and all I have to do is not take any of the useless Fast Attack options that no one ever took in a CSM army anyway? How will I cope?!?!?

Or Marines:

"I can get Tank Hunters and other bonuses on my Marines, and to do that I have to not take allies from the Daemonhunter or Witch Hunter Codices? I don't think I can manage such a choice!!!"

That has to do with choice viability. If you weren't going to take those things anyways, then those things were probably pretty gak. If GW knew how to balance the game (and if we accept the thesis that they have improved on that front here in 9th) then giving up, say, the modern Attack Bike would actually be a sacrifice.

Like if giving up Sanctioned Psykers and Priests is not a drawback, then Sanctioned Psykers and Priests were too crap to show up in "normal" lists that didn't take doctrines anyways. This indicates they'd need a buff, not that the doctrine concept is inherently flawed.

 Gert wrote:
If one person knowingly brings a WAAC tourney list against someone who has little to no clue what is competitive, that's not a game problem that's a person problem. If two brand new players are buying armies and one happens to have more good choices than the other then thats just bad luck. If they are friends, which the likely will be, then you'd hope they have a discussion about how to make things fun for both of them. I'd like to think that most people on here are adults and can have a conversation with another person, GW isn't your mum it's not their job to fix your problems. This game is social by nature and if you can't have a discussion with friends or regular opponents about making the game fair and fun then that is very much a you problem.

Late to the talk but that isn't really true. When we started playing, me and my friends, we didn't try and dial down our lists. We tried to buff our own lists up, see if we could match the other guy at least. If we just couldn't and our forces were just bad or lacking in a fundamental way where we couldn't at least match the other player in some regard. If we found that out we thought, and I think rightly so, that the rules were broken or the armies were ill balanced.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That has to do with choice viability. If you weren't going to take those things anyways, then those things were probably pretty gak. If GW knew how to balance the game (and if we accept the thesis that they have improved on that front here in 9th) then giving up, say, the modern Attack Bike would actually be a sacrifice.

Like if giving up Sanctioned Psykers and Priests is not a drawback, then Sanctioned Psykers and Priests were too crap to show up in "normal" lists that didn't take doctrines anyways. This indicates they'd need a buff, not that the doctrine concept is inherently flawed.

Or, more simply, it indicates that things like Deep Strike ought to have a points cost. That's how most of the advantages were balanced.

I think HBMC is being unfair here. One of those examples isn't accurate to 4th Ed and another is misleading.

In the 4th Ed codex, Marines couldn't just get Tank Hunters for free. You had to pay 3pts per model, and pick a chapter flaw from the list. Yeah, so taking We Stand Alone and not being allowed to have Allies was an easy choice- but you weren't getting anything for free. And if you wanted your chapter to have more than one positive trait, you were required to take a major disadvantage (We Stand Alone was minor), which imposed heavy restrictions on your listbuilding. Even if you worked around those too, again, you still have to pay for your upgrades.

In the case of Guard, army-wide Deep Strike was free (although I should point out that this was in an era where DS was extremely risky, not a no-brainer like it is now), but most other traits were paid for. You paid 10pts per unit to get re-roll 1s, or 20pts per unit to upgrade to a 4+ save. A squad of Vostroyans with their innate accuracy and heavier armor were a full 50% more expensive than bare-bones Guardsmen. There was a tradeoff. The free upgrades were things like Close Order Drill, where if every single model in a squad is in base to base contact, you get +1I and +1Ld. And the Ld bonus didn't apply if you were using a nearby officer's Ld. Yeah, really swept the top tables with that one. And then on top of the innate cost for most of the upgrades, the Doctrines system locked you out from a bunch of the rarer units unless you bought them back.

So like, yeah, if you have to pay for upgrades and opting into the system locks you out from certain choices, I think that's completely fine and really not that hard to balance. The Iron Warriors example is the odd one out because if you were min-maxing there were no disadvantage. If it were something like having to pay points to unlock an extra HS slot and lose your FA slots, I think that would be fine.

It's really not a super complex idea- have upgrades both cost points and come with corresponding soft drawbacks that constrain listbuilding. You can stack upgrades on your units, and you can even listbuild around all the stuff that it locks you out of, but you still have to pay points to keep it fair.

Canadian 5th wrote:To quote DashofPepper:

"Playing is fun. Winning is more fun. So play to win."

Perhaps winning is more fun to some, but winning comes second to other factors for me, so I definitely don't play with "winning" as my primary goal.
Is that too hard to imagine?

AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Casual play sounds very involved.

Perhaps what the issue is is rather with what "casual play" is supposed to mean in context.

Here, I believe casual play is referring to "mechanical gameplay victory is not the primary goal of the participant".

That may be an overly-simplistic definition. If we're engaged in the fundamental basic activity of playing a game you are by definition trying to win; you can push minis around and make "pew pew" noises, sure, but I don't know that I'd define that as "playing 40k", and even if victory is not your primary goal I've never met anyone who had a game where they got tabled in two turns and came away from it saying they had fun rather than saying "what was the point of that, then?"

I have to disagree. The activity of playing the game isn't necessarily to meet a "win" condition - the win condition of the game could also be viewed as a thing to incentivise mechanics, and to perhaps theme an engagement, but playing to win isn't always true of everything. But this is coming from someone with a background in collaborative play, both on tabletop and off, and so for me, "play" is oftentimes detached from a win condition.

Pushing minis around and going pew pew without a care in the world about any sort of objective is definitely "playing 40k" in my eyes.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I genuinely don’t know if this is agreement, rebuttal, Rule 1 violation or what! Help me out and explain?

Karol lives in a country with roughly half the purchasing power of the US, Canada, UK, and Germany. That doesn't mean that 40k costs him only twice as much relative to the members of this forum though as often the average wage of a nation is higher than its median wage. So 40k could easily cost Karol, a young student in a relatively poor nation, 4x more than it costs most members of this forum.

Thus dismissing his view on how the cost of a game changes how somebody interacts with it because 40k costs you relatively less of your total budget is the same as dismissing the views of a minority or person of a different class from your nation because you've never faced the same challenges and barriers as they have. It's very classist to think that 40ks level of budgetary investment isn't a significant issue for some people who've purchased an army that they can't reasonably update with any sort of regularity.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:To quote DashofPepper:

"Playing is fun. Winning is more fun. So play to win."

Perhaps winning is more fun to some, but winning comes second to other factors for me, so I definitely don't play with "winning" as my primary goal.
Is that too hard to imagine?

As a sports fan, yes. I don't cheer for my team to go out and try their best, I cheer for them to win. When I was younger and played sports I sure as hell wanted to do what I could to help my team win. Even now when I play a game like League I'm trying to emulate what the best players in the world due to the best of my own limited ability. I get frustrated when I play well and lose and even more frustrated when I play poorly and win.

Even multiplayer games like MtG's Commander format are more fun when there's no clear strongest and weakest deck or player at the table. You can be in the best position to win but you don't want to be the pity deck that nobody attacks because they feel sorry for you or the top deck where everybody groans when you start shuffling up your cards. I avoid shop play because I find this balance too elusive and because I proxy 90% of the cards I use.

For 40k which requires even more investment than my group's current eternal format MtG I'd want to aim for at least an 8 out of 10 in terms of optimization for my list. This gives me a chance against the tip-top tournament lists and lets me play a skewed but ultimately fun game against lists that are closer to a 6. I can't help you if you brought anything lower in power than that and didn't set your expectations beforehand. If you play me with such a list, likely due to shop table space constraints, I will play to table you as swiftly as possible so I can move on and find a more enjoyable game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...Pushing minis around and going pew pew without a care in the world about any sort of objective is definitely "playing 40k" in my eyes.

Do you find "we just push minis around and make pew pew noises with no regard for any rules" requires much discussion?

I'm going to advance support for the hypothesis that no one really talks about casual play here because the forum is a remarkably bad format for talking about casual play in a manner that's useful.

Because what you'd want in that sort of situation is a blog, or video channel, where you get a lot of content coming from one end (the person talking about what's going on in their game) and commentary from the audience. Even if it ends up that people start swapping stories, it's more likely that they'd end up swapping links to their blog entries or video posts.

Forums are wonderful and great, but they're terrible at handling the sort of content.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Uh what? Our relationship as opponents in a wargame isn't the relationship between GM and player. As I said, I'm a whole another player playing off against you. Even if I'm not trying very hard and mostly here to roll dice and have fun, I'm not an NPC to the story of your protagonists; I'm playing the game and my own people are my own heroes.

Loser's the other guys NPC.

 catbarf wrote:
Like if giving up Sanctioned Psykers and Priests is not a drawback, then Sanctioned Psykers and Priests were too crap to show up in "normal" lists that didn't take doctrines anyways. This indicates they'd need a buff, not that the doctrine concept is inherently flawed.

I agree and disagree.

Yes, you're right, you didn't lose anything by giving up Sanctioned Psykers and Priests because they were so crap you never took them even in a non-Doctrine army. That is an indication that they needed to be fixed.

But, the overall point still stands: If it's not something you intended to take in the first place (regardless of why you weren't going to take that choice), then you're not actually giving anything up. The balance for the rule isn't being used.

 catbarf wrote:
I think HBMC is being unfair here. One of those examples isn't accurate to 4th Ed and another is misleading.

I don't think I am, and I'm certainly not being misleading.

Please remember, I loved using these rules. Doctrine Guard and the 3.5 Chaos Codices were my fav books that GW produced at the time (maybe even ever, alongside 2nd Ed Tyranids and maybe the Anphelion Project). But the core concept of "giving something up to get something good" remains flawed, and has never been better exemplified than within those amazing books.

 catbarf wrote:
In the 4th Ed codex, Marines couldn't just get Tank Hunters for free.

I never said they could. I know it had a cost. That cost was appropriate for the benefits you gained. But taking in the first place required you to give something up... except it didn't, because "not bringing allies" isn't an actual disadvantage if you weren't taking them anyway.

 catbarf wrote:
In the case of Guard, army-wide Deep Strike was free (although I should point out that this was in an era where DS was extremely risky, not a no-brainer like it is now), but most other traits were paid for. You paid 10pts per unit to get re-roll 1s, or 20pts per unit to upgrade to a 4+ save. A squad of Vostroyans with their innate accuracy and heavier armor were a full 50% more expensive than bare-bones Guardsmen. There was a tradeoff. The free upgrades were things like Close Order Drill, where if every single model in a squad is in base to base contact, you get +1I and +1Ld. And the Ld bonus didn't apply if you were using a nearby officer's Ld. Yeah, really swept the top tables with that one. And then on top of the innate cost for most of the upgrades, the Doctrines system locked you out from a bunch of the rarer units unless you bought them back.

I specifically chose Close Order Drill and Drop Troops as they were the two best examples of not really giving anything up to gain something for free. As for the specifics on Close Order Drill, you didn't take it for the Ld boost. You took it for the I4. But the specifics of COD don't actually matter, because it doesn't change the core point:

Gaining benefits through the process of giving up other things is inherently flawed if you never intended to take those things in the first place. Obfuscating that point by going into the nitty gritty of how COD worked, or how 3rd-7th Deep Strike wasn't as reliable as it is now does not change that.

 catbarf wrote:
It's really not a super complex idea- have upgrades both cost points and come with corresponding soft drawbacks that constrain listbuilding. You can stack upgrades on your units, and you can even listbuild around all the stuff that it locks you out of, but you still have to pay points to keep it fair.

The problem is the 'soft' drawbacks are not drawbacks at all. Trade offs need to be paid for, which is why points systems work in the first place.

If you want to give out extra bonuses or rules, even if those new abilities have to be paid for with additional points, the method of gaining access to those new bonuses/rules can't be through the sacrifice of things that were never going to be taken in the first place. That's not a sacrifice.

 solkan wrote:
I'm going to advance support for the hypothesis that no one really talks about casual play here because the forum is a remarkably bad format for talking about casual play in a manner that's useful.

I completely agree here. Discussion of casual play is the realm of battle reports and videos and blogs, not forum posts.

The only thing that would enter the realm of Dakka would be proposed narrative rules based upon play.

The proper way of making custom regimental/chapter/etc... doctrines is with the opportunity cost.

Yeah, if you weren't gonna take any tank and you don't take any rule that buffs them, are you really losing anything? Not really. But thats the point, another tank heavy army would take other options. If both armies have the same number of special rules, then thats good and fine.

In general, the rules that exclude you for taking X units aren't really good for this kind of system. In a balanced enviroment were most units have a role and a place, you should take the rules that help you make work the list you want to play.


Using MESBG as an example. You have the black rider legendary legion. Thats a army to play basically the 9 black riders (The nazgul). You could arguee "You could play a 9 nazgul list using Mordor. If you won't take any other option, you are basically gaining a ton of buffs without really giving anything in return". And you would be half right. Is true that having that legendary legion theres no point in running 9 nazguls in mordor. But thats because the opportunity cost of using the Black Riders legendary legion makes you play a complete different army that needs his owns rules to properly function.

Maybe other better example is the Balrog moria legion, were you gain some buffs and lose a ton of options. "You are not giving anything if you were gonna take the balrog and those exact units aniway" Technically yes. But you are giving the opportunity cost of all those other options and the tactical play they allow.
Of course this works in LOTR because there most options are balanced and when you give away some unit or hero options, normally, thats a drawback on itself, and even if you were gonna take exactly the units in the thematic, limited list, you gain normally different rules, not just pure bonuses.

This applies to the example of Priest and Psykers. If they were worthwile, is true that you aren't technically losing anything if you were not gonna take them in the first place. But if not taking them in the first place puts you at a tactical disadvantage, gaining different buffs or options in exchange is a worthwile exchange, and a good oportunity cost that allows other kind of lists to work in different ways.

Other example would be for example a no-transport Dark Eldar army. Yeah, if you weren't taking transports in the first place you are gaining "free buffs". But thats the point. You receive those buffs to allow for another, different playstile to arose from a different set of unit options in the same army list.

 Blndmage wrote:
What about someone having a themed army, that's not Battleforged, so no dynasties/etc, that is looking for a pickup game at standard points levels (500, 1000, 2000)?

They're sacrificing a lot mechanically to run what they want.

I think Matched Play requires Battle Forged armies. Trying to visualize a themed army that is not organized into Detachments?

I am not saying I would refuse the game, but for pickup games Matched Play with Battle Forge is the standard I prefer. Variety is good, though, so I suppose if the list was intriguing I’d give it a go? There is always Open Play.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
What about someone having a themed army, that's not Battleforged, so no dynasties/etc, that is looking for a pickup game at standard points levels (500, 1000, 2000)?

They're sacrificing a lot mechanically to run what they want.

I think Matched Play requires Battle Forged armies. Trying to visualize a themed army that is not organized into Detachments?

I am not saying I would refuse the game, but for pickup games Matched Play with Battle Forge is the standard I prefer. Variety is good, though, so I suppose if the list was intriguing I’d give it a go? There is always Open Play.

I've actually got a theme throughout my collection, which I had to shift as I couldn't run it back in 4th.

My Necrons are built around the earliest stages of an awakening tomb: Scarabs, Tomb Spyders, Tomb Stalkers and Sentinels, maybe some Sentry Pylons.

There's no HQ that fits. Since then, with the reboot, and more so the recent Codex, there's options that will work, but still mean I can't run a slumbering Tomb. I have to, at the minimum have 1 awake Necron, and can never run all 54 bases of Scarabs.

Honestly, with the current edition not being Battleforged means no CP, no Strats, let alone losing some special rules, I can't think of a list I can make, that's wouldn't struggle without those.

 Blndmage wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
What about someone having a themed army, that's not Battleforged, so no dynasties/etc, that is looking for a pickup game at standard points levels (500, 1000, 2000)?

They're sacrificing a lot mechanically to run what they want.

I think Matched Play requires Battle Forged armies. Trying to visualize a themed army that is not organized into Detachments?

I am not saying I would refuse the game, but for pickup games Matched Play with Battle Forge is the standard I prefer. Variety is good, though, so I suppose if the list was intriguing I’d give it a go? There is always Open Play.

I've actually got a theme throughout my collection, which I had to shift as I couldn't run it back in 4th.

My Necrons are built around the earliest stages of an awakening tomb: Scarabs, Tomb Spyders, Tomb Stalkers and Sentinels, maybe some Sentry Pylons.

There's no HQ that fits. Since then, with the reboot, and more so the recent Codex, there's options that will work, but still mean I can't run a slumbering Tomb. I have to, at the minimum have 1 awake Necron, and can never run all 54 bases of Scarabs.

Honestly, with the current edition not being Battleforged means no CP, no Strats, let alone losing some special rules, I can't think of a list I can make, that's wouldn't struggle without those.

Which is utterly stupid, an army should function on its own with out the "help" of strats/wombo combo.

I'd play you no problem, the whole battleforged bs is matched play, so we can play narrative/open or whatever.

If you were not going to take an option anyways, then you were already on theme for whatever that option was excluded from and you deserve to be rewarded for being on-theme.

Like a tank company with restricted access to infantry. Sure you might not have taken many infantry, but at least this way you are compensated somewhat instead of just shooting yourself in the foot (since you wouldn't take them anyways).

 solkan wrote:
I'm going to advance support for the hypothesis that no one really talks about casual play here because the forum is a remarkably bad format for talking about casual play in a manner that's useful.

Because what you'd want in that sort of situation is a blog, or video channel, where you get a lot of content coming from one end (the person talking about what's going on in their game) and commentary from the audience. Even if it ends up that people start swapping stories, it's more likely that they'd end up swapping links to their blog entries or video posts.

Forums are wonderful and great, but they're terrible at handling the sort of content.

This, this 1000%. on here I rarely ever post, and when I do it's typically something regarding competitive content or something along those lines. But in my local gang, it's all about the crusade right now, and we have been having run with multiple different crusades from the start of 9th.

the point is, casual and narrative play is centered around the experience and the nuance of the situation surrounding them, and a forum just doesn't provide the context behind it without presenting a wall of text that no one is going to read.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you were not going to take an option anyways, then you were already on theme for whatever that option was excluded from and you deserve to be rewarded for being on-theme.

Like a tank company with restricted access to infantry. Sure you might not have taken many infantry, but at least this way you are compensated somewhat instead of just shooting yourself in the foot (since you wouldn't take them anyways).

Ehhh, i think opportunity cost indeed and the rebalancing of that, is very important in regards to making such systems for customizability work.

And yes Chaos 3.5, had some serious issues on that front as had most dexes of the same calibre.
Otoh, conceptually 3.5 was an highpoint design and theme wise. and a shitshow otherwise.

FW did it better some time later with R&H in IA13. But that design also used 2-3 generic unit types that got modified via points cost in most cases. (nowadays if i think about it GW would need about 10 differing datasheets to represent it but 8 and 9th are just from a streamlining perspective the worst case scenario that made it worse for all involved...). It however also tied access to some god specific units to mark/ equivalents (with pts cost associated) to the warlord and in limited number aswell. So it also unlocked units which you may or may not needed / wanted. Wanted to have snipers / better Vets? Yeah you don't give your arch demagogue a mark to get access to 3 squads of marauders. Wanted plague zombies to lean into attrition more? Nurgle it is for 1 unit. Wanted to be able to recycle your militia? Yeah you need a master of the horde specialisation for 20 pts and are forced to field atleast 2 renegade militia platoons . also only squads of 15 + members can get recycled and only on a 5+. Etc.

Basically it worked more with modification and gaining acess interchangeably for what you wanted rather than just outright rewarding you for skewing, which is in essence what IW did.


The shame there though was, that it was 6th and 7th edition and GW just broke the game then.

Otoh, if you have a bit of fantasy indeed adapting those old rulesets into a more modern form of 40k is working fine and dandy, indeed i dare say you can use them somewhat easily even with 8th/9th without much fuss and get an actually interesting chaos army, unlike CSM / CD without needing to pledge yourself to DG or TS.


TL : DR:
GW had people that could design customizable and interesting unit types ruleswise for players to kitbash and make their dudes out off, even somewhat competently.
It's just that kitbashing and other such things potentially invite 3rd parties into the hobby and remove the insularity of GW as the HOBBY tm.

As a reminder the OP asked why there was little discussion of casual play.

We have pages and pages of demonstration why now. Some folk just won’t let people discuss the very concept without telling them it’s wrong, doesn’t exist, is more work than competitive, only competitive has value, detours into relative worth, just reams of Stop Enjoying Somethinv I Don’t. Step back and take a breath folks, the whole thing is a pretty sad spectacle.

Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).

Depends, doesn't it?

F.e. someone shows up with cultist detachment for a WB army? Sure, why not, maybee the only way to get some working cultists.
Someone shows up with the daemonkin detachment 20 possessed a MoP, Sorcer, marks them slaanesh and little else. ...
Why do you bring a former now ilegalised tournament list to a casual match?

Vice versa someone shows up with fallen ? Yeah sure, also drop Ro3 because how else do you intend to play them?

One can understand intention of a list and question asked.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).

100% would, I even am fine letting people play legends b.c why not? Heck I play legends for casual games lol and they are terrible too but I have them and want to play them.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
As a reminder the OP asked why there was little discussion of casual play.

We have pages and pages of demonstration why now. Some folk just won’t let people discuss the very concept without telling them it’s wrong, doesn’t exist, is more work than competitive, only competitive has value, detours into relative worth, just reams of Stop Enjoying Somethinv I Don’t. Step back and take a breath folks, the whole thing is a pretty sad spectacle.

I think that Unit, Katherine and I are having a dialogue about pick up games. I don't think we are making value judgements. Just because I prefer Matched Play for my pick up games doesn’t mean I am saying people playing narrative are having fun the wrong way. I hope that people play the way they enjoy. I do think that people often use Casual when they really mean “narrative” or as a way to separate themselves from tournament players. Makes it hard to discuss Casual play when there is no working definition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).

Of course. Nobody in my group has the GT book (cause nobody cared about it... We do have the crusade book, though) and we play with legends just fine, why would we restrict Vigilus? Our Nightlords player used the Raptor detachment several times and it didn't break the game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...Pushing minis around and going pew pew without a care in the world about any sort of objective is definitely "playing 40k" in my eyes.

Do you find "we just push minis around and make pew pew noises with no regard for any rules" requires much discussion?

I like that these are the two options, in your head.

Give you an example, real quick: This past weekend I was in a hurry, but still wanted to get a game in. I asked "hey, don't have as much time this week, how 'bout a 1500pt game." and my opponent said "sure, want to play against 7 dreadnoughts?"

At this point, if my primary objective is winning, boy howdy do I have a pretty easy time of that, huh? I've got the minis fully painted to put down a list that's just positively bristling with dark lances and blaster kabalites with that new sweet 75% winrate drukhari.

The thing was though, my primary goal was to go play a game of 40k for about 2.5 hours, to take a break from the yardwork I'd been doing the day before and still had scheduled the next day. Tabling my opponent in 1.5 to 2 turns over the course of an hour and going back home to get right back to hauling dirt and planting isn't exactly the break I had in mind.

The main objective of 'lets have as many walker fights as possible' seemed to be a more entertaining possibility, so I show up with an avatar of khaine, a wraithlord, a cronos, 3 talos, and a wraithseer with minimal support elements. Midway through trying to set up the mission via the GT pack, we decided that the space wolves 'issue a challenge' secondary sounded more fun than the mission as a whole, so we just went with

"1 point if you kill an opposing unit in melee, 1 point if your unit kills the enemy unit they've called out for a challenge, 1 point if you kill your challenge target in melee. Characters can only challenge Characters, other units can't challenge Characters." took about 1 minute to come up with.

I wound up losing the game (too many dreadnoughts surviving on 1-2 wounds) and had more fun than if I'd taken the info I had about my opponent's list and just showed up with a list that could easily win the game.

It's really weird to have to sort of explain this kind of play, because it's honestly pretty bizarre how it seems like there are lots of people online who fundamentally don't get where the enjoyment comes from if you're not using any available information you have to make sure you win the game as hard as possible. It's like trying to explain why a good joke is funny.