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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

So what is 40k?

a SciFi Universe and IP owned by GW and games within that Universe that have easy accessibility because of GW's store network

EviscerationPlague wrote:

It's not tactically deep.
It's strategically easy to figure out.
It's not good for role-playing.
The rules aren't immersing.

if you ever expect this to change, I have some bad news for you as the times in were GW focused in making good games (and not just good enough for not everyone to leave instantly) are long gone

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

kodos 803732 11342742 wrote:
If you love 40k, love it for what it is and not for something it will never be

So what is 40k then?

It's not tactically deep.
It's strategically easy to figure out.
It's not good for role-playing.
The rules aren't immersing.

So what is 40k?

I'm going to go with: "An entertaing enough way to spend Thur evening with some friends."
I don't think it's ever needed to be more than that.

For 100s to thousands more dollars than Mansions of Madness or Cards Against Humanity?

This defense is really mind boggling.

I can enjoy a Thursday evening with a couple of my buddies with some cigars and brandy on my porch with much less pre-effort, much less clean up, and much less fear of ruining someone's day.

For me, the game of 40k is a way to engage with and interface with the universe, to have "your dudes" exist as a participatory experience with the story GW is trying to tell, almost like DND with GW as the GM and other players telling their own story rather than NPCs.

The only issue is how un-immersive the game is.

EviscerationPlague wrote:


It's not tactically deep.
It's strategically easy to figure out.
It's not good for role-playing.
The rules aren't immersing.

We're all trafficking in opinion here- objective standards for these things do not exist, and therefore it cannot be otherwise.

My opinions differ somewhat, or at least contain more nuance than the strict all-good/ all-bad dichotomy.

Whether or not the game is tactically deep depends on how you define "Tactics." Folks who are strict wargame/ simulation enthusiasts are far less likely to see 40k as a tactical game because it doesn't make very effective use of the types of tactics that people expect from wargames and simulations. People who appreciate boardgames and CCGs and don't mind examining 40k through that lens have an easier time understanding that combining layered effects such as auras, traits and strats at the right time and place IS a tactic- it's just not the type of tactic that appeals to people who expect and prefer more conventional wargame tactics like using facings, suppression
fire, etc.

Whether or not it's strategically easy to figure out is a matter of scope. Game by game? Well, yeah, I certainly agree that's pretty strategically easy to figure out. But then I think of all the people who struggle with strats because they claim they need to memorize every strat of every possible enemy in order to play. Personally, I've never felt that way about the game, but my issue is that I only play Crusade campaign style, so I'm concerned with long term campaign and story-based strategy as much as the strategy of the individual games.

The role-playing question is an interesting one to me, because my Crusade experience is very much akin to role-playing games. Obviously any purpose-built RPG is going to be a better RPG than any table-top game that contains RPG elements. But 40k has never been a better RPG than it is now... Though I will say, there's a lot riding on how they handle Chaos, because they are the ultimate Warband faction, and their rules need to reflect that. But Crusade has been very good from the 25PL- 40PL range- provided you've been lucky enough to have your bespoke codex content yet. The Tau, GSC, Druhkari, and Sisters Crusade content is really off the charts; Armies of Faith and Torchbearer Fleets are very cool. The previews of the Nid Crusade content look promising too.

As for immersive, again I can't agree- but again, I'm a campaign player, so of course I find it immersive- I've got an entire penitent mission working toward redemption, a fledging cult that is infecting citizens with the genestealer curse and a Dark Eldar Archon who is sponsoring two Wych Cults who compete in the Arena for the right to realspace raid, feeding their dead to the mysterious Haemonculus who has taken up residence beneath the Arena.

What I will say, by way of agreement, is that I don't feel that anyone is likely to experience the game at its best if all they do with it is play unrelated 2k matches in stores. The game is made to do so much more than that- even matched play is meant to be more than that as Matched does include Incursion Missions in addition to Strike Force missions, and it does also have campaign content.

I think there are a lot of people who want 2k matched to be the game at its best. They expect that, because it's the default mode. And it is certainly fair to say that the game should be fun in any format and at any size. But using a 2k roster to field 25PL games in a map-based campaign is just awesome- there's a whole other layer, because you can only use 25PL at a time, so you can have different parts of your roster specialize against specific opponents within the campaign; you can choose to grow veteran units at the opportunity cost of keeping other units green until their turn comes; you can grow your army fast or slow.

And make no mistake about it; the game IS specifically designed to facilitate and encourage this type of play. Your preferences, desires, gaming environments or other circumstances may make it improbable or even impossible for you to play it that way. But it is worth acknowledging that things some people feel are lacking from the game are merely lacking from their preferred format.

I appreciate the post above as it really dives into some specifics on the current game.

A game design/analysis tool I've found helpful over the years is to consider the "types of thinking" a given game require. You can break types down into three big buckets:

(1) Spatial modes of thinking: things having to do with positioning and maneuver across geographic space, where matters of proximity, distance, orientation, etc matter and being able predict or envision possible future physical board states. The domain of abstract strategy games but also many "tactical" or strategic warfare games.

(2) Psychological modes of thinking: relates to the psychology of opponents, ability to bluff and feint and deceive, okay mind games, leverage personal knowledge and insights of other players, understanding others risk tolerances, etc. Encompasses games from poker to modern social deduction and party games.

(3) Logistical modes of thinking: pertains to things that can be calculated, optimized, or deducted to correct solutions, risk management, logistics, resource management/conversion, etc.

What we've seen, especially in the last 10-15 years I feel, is a heavy shift it many games more towards logistical modes of thinking. We can see this in the evolution of 40K - changing from a game with lot of detail and rules geared around "spatial thinking" shifting and giving way to logistical thinking. Where once we were primarily concerned about leveraging cover and LoS, and individual model facing (ala 1st and 2nd Ed), and vehicle facing, and lines of retreat - we are now concerned with managing pools of CPs and optimizing stacking stratagems and other layered numerical advantages. Position and maneuver had been dramatically simplified and replaced with a system heavily geared around optimization and execution of a pre-programmed plan of action.

^Exalted

Furthermore I'd stress that a tabletop game with models, terrain, etc. is exactly the ideal type of game for spatial thinking. It plays to the strength of the medium. Whereas logistical gameplay is much condusive to board or card games.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

kodos 803732 11342742 wrote:
If you love 40k, love it for what it is and not for something it will never be

So what is 40k then?

It's not tactically deep.
It's strategically easy to figure out.
It's not good for role-playing.
The rules aren't immersing.

So what is 40k?

I'm going to go with: "An entertaing enough way to spend Thur evening with some friends."
I don't think it's ever needed to be more than that.

For 100s to thousands more dollars than Mansions of Madness or Cards Against Humanity?

This defense is really mind boggling.

You're back in your world of black and white opinions again. This isn't a "defense" its a subjective feeling of what something is to someone.

There isn't just your view that the game is dumb and weak which is an attack from your wording, nor a defensive argument of it's good and intellectual.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

For 100s to thousands more dollars than Mansions of Madness or Cards Against Humanity?

This defense is really mind boggling.

The cost of those "100s to thousand more dollars" shouldn't be referred to the game. It's the cost of the hobby, not (only) the game. Those dollars might be a worthy investment if you like to assemble, paint and collect/display the models, other than playing. If you're only interested in playing something, rather than specifically playing 40k, I have bad news for you.

I know this isn't the answer people want to hear but I think boycott is the only way forward at this point. The only metric GW seems to care about is sales. Give the game a break for a year, email them to tell them why. Stop buying their stuff at the very least and, again, tell them why.

40k is way overheated and until GW are willing to make some changes to the way they write and publish rules it won't change, can't change. They need universal rules to make opponents' armies legible. A dice overhaul to add granularity. Digital rules and list building. New staff with skills in design & stats in the 40k balance team.

I may be biased, having gotten out of the game about 18 months ago in favour of the Infinitely better game made by Corvus Belli. I won't be back until GW turn things around, and they won't turn things around until something makes their shockingly poor game design & management translate into a hit to their bottom line.

@Blackie
yes and no
to play the game, you just need the rules
the models are optional so the game looks better (although marketing tells you, that you need the best looking models to play the game of course)

but the rules itself are not very special, and the 40k experience comes with the models and the background story of those, not with the rules


other games, were the rules are written in a way to simulate the specific kind of warfare from that time (which can be very simple and streamlined, or very detailed) hence why we see so many different rules in historical wargaming and some cover only a brief period of time

for those games you don't need any models to make it a game for that specific setting because the immersion comes from the rules/gameplay
while those that cover a broader time frame need the models to make the difference


that said, does 40k the game, cover the different aspects of the factions?
could you tell by the rules alone that this is Ultras against White Scars or Tau VS Guard without models on the table?
if yes, the 100s of Dollars are for the hobby, and optional, if no well, 40k the game is not about the rules

 kodos wrote:


but the rules itself are not very special, and the 40k experience comes with the models and the background story of those, not with the rules

Exactly this. If those models, background, IP, etc.. are not enough for someone, 40k is not the kind of entertainment (or even challenge) that that player is seeking.

 grouchoben wrote:
I know this isn't the answer people want to hear but I think boycott is the only way forward at this point. The only metric GW seems to care about is sales. Give the game a break for a year, email them to tell them why. Stop buying their stuff at the very least and, again, tell them why.

40k is way overheated and until GW are willing to make some changes to the way they write and publish rules it won't change, can't change. They need universal rules to make opponents' armies legible. A dice overhaul to add granularity. Digital rules and list building. New staff with skills in design & stats in the 40k balance team.

I may be biased, having gotten out of the game about 18 months ago in favour of the Infinitely better game made by Corvus Belli. I won't be back until GW turn things around, and they won't turn things around until something makes their shockingly poor game design & management translate into a hit to their bottom line.

That will never work because GW is too big. Last time there was an organised boycott I seem to remember a lot of people making fun of those supporting it and it quickly got forgotten because GW released something new and shiny, the plastic Krieg models if I recall? The best you/we can hope for is a repeat of 6th/7th where GW screws itself and the game up so badly that even the die-hard fanboys can't ignore it. Luckily we seem to be heading that way of late.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
I know this isn't the answer people want to hear but I think boycott is the only way forward at this point. The only metric GW seems to care about is sales. Give the game a break for a year, email them to tell them why. Stop buying their stuff at the very least and, again, tell them why.

40k is way overheated and until GW are willing to make some changes to the way they write and publish rules it won't change, can't change. They need universal rules to make opponents' armies legible. A dice overhaul to add granularity. Digital rules and list building. New staff with skills in design & stats in the 40k balance team.

I may be biased, having gotten out of the game about 18 months ago in favour of the Infinitely better game made by Corvus Belli. I won't be back until GW turn things around, and they won't turn things around until something makes their shockingly poor game design & management translate into a hit to their bottom line.

That will never work because GW is too big. Last time there was an organised boycott I seem to remember a lot of people making fun of those supporting it and it quickly got forgotten because GW released something new and shiny, the plastic Krieg models if I recall? The best you/we can hope for is a repeat of 6th/7th where GW screws itself and the game up so badly that even the die-hard fanboys can't ignore it. Luckily we seem to be heading that way of late.

The last time there was an "organised boycott" it did nothing because it was a tiny minority of people mostly complaining online. The areas where people did try to boycott 40k, there were posts from flg owners telling people they were being put out of business. All it did was hurt little independent shops.

The only people boycotting who won't hurt others by collateral are the people who either bought from GW direct or were willing to spend the same amount on other products at their local.

GW/40k has 2 advantages over everything else

content from a lot of people on social media, direct or indirect advertising them and keep things alive

a lot of people playing the game despite all negativity

for a boycott to work, it is not stopping to buy GW models it is about stopping to play the game and stop talking about it
not buying won't hurt GW much (the little amount a veteran buys does not matter anyway to GW hence they don't have much support for those in the first place), same as bad news are better than no news

but if people walk into the shop/club and have a hard time finding a game because people are playing something different (with or without GW models), this hurts as it interrupts the steady flow of new players coming in that GW needs to big numbers

the same if all the hobby channels in Youtube make battle reports, lore videos or model reviews about something else, as soon as people stop talking it hurts as it is harder for new players to get into it

PS: the last boykott from Youtube because of GWs policy, was going in that direction (like the Reddit 40k Meme sub only allowing Battletech Memes), it just did not lasted very long
even the hardcore boycotters (? boycottiers?) switched back to how glorious GW is with the Squat preview

Organised boycots don't work. what works is the game getting bad enough to where people simply stop playing and everyone online talks about how their communities are quickly dying, aka what happened in 7th.

People generally came back for 8th, maybe they will come back the next time it happens, maybe they won't. Time will tell.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I appreciate the post above as it really dives into some specifics on the current game.

A game design/analysis tool I've found helpful over the years is to consider the "types of thinking" a given game require. You can break types down into three big buckets:

(1) Spatial modes of thinking: things having to do with positioning and maneuver across geographic space, where matters of proximity, distance, orientation, etc matter and being able predict or envision possible future physical board states. The domain of abstract strategy games but also many "tactical" or strategic warfare games.

(2) Psychological modes of thinking: relates to the psychology of opponents, ability to bluff and feint and deceive, okay mind games, leverage personal knowledge and insights of other players, understanding others risk tolerances, etc. Encompasses games from poker to modern social deduction and party games.

(3) Logistical modes of thinking: pertains to things that can be calculated, optimized, or deducted to correct solutions, risk management, logistics, resource management/conversion, etc.

What we've seen, especially in the last 10-15 years I feel, is a heavy shift it many games more towards logistical modes of thinking. We can see this in the evolution of 40K - changing from a game with lot of detail and rules geared around "spatial thinking" shifting and giving way to logistical thinking. Where once we were primarily concerned about leveraging cover and LoS, and individual model facing (ala 1st and 2nd Ed), and vehicle facing, and lines of retreat - we are now concerned with managing pools of CPs and optimizing stacking stratagems and other layered numerical advantages. Position and maneuver had been dramatically simplified and replaced with a system heavily geared around optimization and execution of a pre-programmed plan of action.

100% this. 40k is a lot more about book keeping of special rules and abilities then it is about movement on the table compared to 3e through 5th (and perhaps earlier but I started in 3e)

There's no need to boycott, just don't pay for things you don't think they have that value.

For those who already have the models, playing without buying new stuff has the same effect of boycott, it's still no money for GW. It's what I already do because I'm not willing to pay the current GW prices for 40k's models. It has nothing to do with the game's rules but the concept is the same.

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

For 100s to thousands more dollars than Mansions of Madness or Cards Against Humanity?

This defense is really mind boggling.

The cost of those "100s to thousand more dollars" shouldn't be referred to the game. It's the cost of the hobby, not (only) the game. Those dollars might be a worthy investment if you like to assemble, paint and collect/display the models, other than playing. If you're only interested in playing something, rather than specifically playing 40k, I have bad news for you.

I have a gut feeling that the number of people who like to assembled 9 voids weavers, 5 NDKs, 9 buggies, 6-8 raiders, 40-60 of identical infantry models is rather low. I can imagine someone let say liking how X, Y and Z unit looks and having one of each, maybe even with load out options. But I have my doubts there were many people that enjoyed painting and assmbling a horde of poxwalkers and horrors for their soup army.

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

For 100s to thousands more dollars than Mansions of Madness or Cards Against Humanity?

This defense is really mind boggling.

The cost of those "100s to thousand more dollars" shouldn't be referred to the game. It's the cost of the hobby, not (only) the game. Those dollars might be a worthy investment if you like to assemble, paint and collect/display the models, other than playing. If you're only interested in playing something, rather than specifically playing 40k, I have bad news for you.

I have a gut feeling that the number of people who like to assembled 9 voids weavers, 5 NDKs, 9 buggies, 6-8 raiders, 40-60 of identical infantry models is rather low. I can imagine someone let say liking how X, Y and Z unit looks and having one of each, maybe even with load out options. But I have my doubts there were many people that enjoyed painting and assmbling a horde of poxwalkers and horrors for their soup army.

You're ignoring everyone who doesn't built or own a tourney list.

Karol wrote:

I have a gut feeling that the number of people who like to assembled 9 voids weavers, 5 NDKs, 9 buggies, 6-8 raiders, 40-60 of identical infantry models is rather low. I can imagine someone let say liking how X, Y and Z unit looks and having one of each, maybe even with load out options. But I have my doubts there were many people that enjoyed painting and assmbling a horde of poxwalkers and horrors for their soup army.

Exactly, as you said they're a tiny and irrelevant fraction of the playerbase. Not sure why you bring them up to the discussion to be honest.

Well I maybe irrelevant, being a single human. but lists with 5 NDKs, 6+ raiders, spamed units etc are common as dirt. Meaning it is something all people playing have to deal with. I could be not playing the game at all, and it would still be a problem.

PenitentJake wrote:

The role-playing question is an interesting one to me, because my Crusade experience is very much akin to role-playing games. Obviously any purpose-built RPG is going to be a better RPG than any table-top game that contains RPG elements. But 40k has never been a better RPG than it is now... Though I will say, there's a lot riding on how they handle Chaos, because they are the ultimate Warband faction, and their rules need to reflect that. But Crusade has been very good from the 25PL- 40PL range- provided you've been lucky enough to have your bespoke codex content yet. The Tau, GSC, Druhkari, and Sisters Crusade content is really off the charts; Armies of Faith and Torchbearer Fleets are very cool. The previews of the Nid Crusade content look promising too.

I have 2 problems with Crusade as an RPG system; you and I have had this discussion before but I think it bears repeating to the wider audience:
Problem 1: If you don't follow the GW Approved™ way your army is supposed to tell it's narrative, then you don't get to tell your narrative. I'm an Eldar player. The first thing I did when I opened the Eldar codex was flip to the Crusade rules. "Paths, huh?" I said. "I wonder how my grav-tank and Engine of Vaul army will fit into the Path structure."
Spoiler alert: it didn't, and doesn't. I get to continue using the Warhammer 40k rulebook for most of the units in my army - and, what's worse, they're the units whose story I was most excited to tell. So? I'm selling my Eldar locally. Because the Crusade content didn't encourage me to build my character but rather encouraged me to build GW's character and follow their Path progression system. This would be akin to you wanting to play an Elven two-handed fighter in DND and being told "Sorry, Elves can only play archers and battle mages". I've had this problem with Sororitas too but it is even worse for my eldar, to the point where I don't even want the army anymore, if GW's opinion is that the eldar never field tanks or engines of Vaul narratively (or rather that those vehicles will never be narratively significant).

Problem 2: The core rules themselves aren't immersive. It's hard to write a narrative of a battle action by action with the current structure of 40k. I can go into more detail about this, but the general point is things don't behave on the tabletop the way they would in universe. I can pick some examples out of some prior posts if you would like - in fact, here's one from back in the day:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn it from a (war)GAME into a WAR(game).

Right now, playing 40k feels like playing a GAME. I'm not re-enacting an epic battle or telling the story of characters on a board.

Captain Krassus screamed into the vox: "All Armageddon Steel Legion, raise high the black banners, now is our time! Fix bayonets!" signaling the epic charge.

BUT he couldn't have predicted the cunning of the Rule System, his true foe:
"Sir, we're out of command points, you can't give orders from within a Chimera!" screamed the driver, as he repeatedly shifted from reverse to forwards, jerkily trying to run Orks over like the zamboni scene in Austin Powers. After all, only a fool would drive past enemy infantry that offered practically no threat and bypass hardened positions with maneuver - and the mechanized units of the Armageddon Steel Legion were no fools!

And thusly on the cusp of victory did the planet of Armageddon fall, defeated not by the cleverness of his foe or superior force or tactics, but by the universal laws which this commander foolishly disregarded when he embarked upon his mechanized transport. Who was he to think he could give orders from a Chimera freely? To be a man in such times...

PenitentJake wrote:
As for immersive, again I can't agree- but again, I'm a campaign player, so of course I find it immersive- I've got an entire penitent mission working toward redemption, a fledging cult that is infecting citizens with the genestealer curse and a Dark Eldar Archon who is sponsoring two Wych Cults who compete in the Arena for the right to realspace raid, feeding their dead to the mysterious Haemonculus who has taken up residence beneath the Arena.

I don't really understand why this is impossible in any other iteration of 40k - you could tell these same stories in 4th edition, or 2nd edition (Well, DE didn't exist but you get the idea).

PenitentJake wrote:
What I will say, by way of agreement, is that I don't feel that anyone is likely to experience the game at its best if all they do with it is play unrelated 2k matches in stores. The game is made to do so much more than that- even matched play is meant to be more than that as Matched does include Incursion Missions in addition to Strike Force missions, and it does also have campaign content.

I think there are a lot of people who want 2k matched to be the game at its best. They expect that, because it's the default mode. And it is certainly fair to say that the game should be fun in any format and at any size. But using a 2k roster to field 25PL games in a map-based campaign is just awesome- there's a whole other layer, because you can only use 25PL at a time, so you can have different parts of your roster specialize against specific opponents within the campaign; you can choose to grow veteran units at the opportunity cost of keeping other units green until their turn comes; you can grow your army fast or slow.

And make no mistake about it; the game IS specifically designed to facilitate and encourage this type of play. Your preferences, desires, gaming environments or other circumstances may make it improbable or even impossible for you to play it that way. But it is worth acknowledging that things some people feel are lacking from the game are merely lacking from their preferred format.

There are things I want from narrative play that Crusade does not and cannot deliver without a rewrite of the core rules. It is not a panacea for issues unless you're ONLY willing to follow the GW Approved™ way that your army is supposed to work. THERE SHALL BE NO SORORITAS TANK UNITS, so sayeth GW. THERE SHALL BE NO ELDAR GUARDIAN ARMIES, LEST THEY PROCEEDETH ON FROM BEING GUARDIANS, so sayeth GW.

Dudeface 803732 11343117 wrote:

You're ignoring everyone who doesn't built or own a tourney list.

yes, show me those foot DE or harlequin armies, orks not running buggies, tyranids not playing some version crusher stamped etc If those lists weren't common and only limited to tournament, then all the forums and w40k related sites wouldn't be in constant uproar about lists that look strangly very much alike tournament lists. And it seems to be a world wide thing too. If you think that the norm for w40k is an army of marine with a unit of tactical marines, intercessors, assault intercesors and other singles then you have to play in a place where highlander is very common.

What I lament most about Crusade play is it seems to have totally replaced narrative missions.
That is to say; actual themed narrative missions retelling key events.
They sell a campaign book telling the story of a particular campaign, packed to the brim with narrative content they say.
We get a smattering of agendas, relics, and abilities for the combatants involved.
Not one mission to retell the story of that climatic battle. Nothing.

The "narrative missions" we get are literally just matched play. There is not difference.
The primary objective are all the same "score VP if you have some of these 6 arbitrary points".
They've replaced secondary objectives with "agendas" which are for all intents and purposes secondary objectives that just give xp instead of vp.

I don't feel like crusade helps me tell a story. It feels like jumping through arbitrary hoops to get xp to spend on extra abilities and relics and stuff. There's no inherent story in there.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 803732 11343117 wrote:

You're ignoring everyone who doesn't built or own a tourney list.

yes, show me those foot DE or harlequin armies, orks not running buggies, tyranids not playing some version crusher stamped etc If those lists weren't common and only limited to tournament, then all the forums and w40k related sites wouldn't be in constant uproar about lists that look strangly very much alike tournament lists. And it seems to be a world wide thing too. If you think that the norm for w40k is an army of marine with a unit of tactical marines, intercessors, assault intercesors and other singles then you have to play in a place where highlander is very common.

That is normal and people don't play highlander specifically, they just build rounded fluffy armies.

Tournament play and players are the minority by all accounts.

On the subject of narrative play, and more generally too, 40K is like going off to college - it's entirely what you make of it. Which is to say, in my view the 40K rules as written should be a starting point for making the game and it's universe your own, not the end point.

Of course, this means finding players that are on board with this - be it garage hammer or whatever.

--------------------

We're playing a map based campaign right now, using a set of missions that we designed and that tie into the strategic map. Depending on where the battle takes place and whether both sides are trying to engage each other or one side is trying to avoid the encounter, we have missions covering ambushes, raids, bunker assaults, point control, zone recons, etc.

Most of the role playing comes through because of the persistent and slowly evolving lists and the strategic implications of winning/losing certain battles. The varied objectives sets the stage for interesting and unexpected outcomes, which in turn affect the strategic layer.

Anyway - this is a personal example, but I think our group is willing to take rules as a starting point and just add to them or modify to make the game we want it to be. It would like to think more players and communities would be interested in making the game their own and having those conversations about what people want to get out of their game time. But I get that it's a tough situation to crack.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 803732 11343117 wrote:

You're ignoring everyone who doesn't built or own a tourney list.

yes, show me those foot DE or harlequin armies, orks not running buggies, tyranids not playing some version crusher stamped etc If those lists weren't common and only limited to tournament, then all the forums and w40k related sites wouldn't be in constant uproar about lists that look strangly very much alike tournament lists. And it seems to be a world wide thing too. If you think that the norm for w40k is an army of marine with a unit of tactical marines, intercessors, assault intercesors and other singles then you have to play in a place where highlander is very common.

Those people are not posting on reddit or forums.

As with everything, the majority of people are tuned in to the online community. The very fact that you see them talking makes them a minority.
Which is not the say the opinion of the actual majority needs to be different, just that the majority is basically all silent.

I bet there are a ton of foot DE armies, Orks without buggies and non Crushing Stampede nids. Your just not hearing about them.

Mezo's post illustrates a problem with Crusade.

No one ever had trouble making up rules to play Narrative games, or adjusting rules to fit narrative campaigns. The rulebooks even had guides on how to do this - they were "official" in that sense. There is a whole "CAMPAIGNS" chapter in the 4E rulebook for example, complete with crusade-like unit upgrades but also guides for different types of campaigns (rolling/ladder/map etc), how to build campaign appropriate terrain based on world types (and what rules they might have), and unique and innovative narrative missions. There are stealth missions, where deploying your entire army may be a bigger drawback than sneaking past the sentries with your elite squad, for example.

In 9th, Crusade was different from all this - billed as "pick up and play" where even your most hardcore tournament player could be on the other side of the table from you and you could still tell your story. In fact, I think they said exactly as much on Warhammer community.

Unfortunately, the sacrifices it made to be "playable as a pickup" was most of the content from the CAMPAIGNS section except for the unit progression. and now you can't pickup game with it anyways

I agree the core rules are actively hostile to narrative games. Every victory being a phyrric victory with a handful of non casualties, characters hanging back, units so often getting to do so little. Even if you explicitly roleplay the game, with decisions based on how you thinka unit would behave rather than looking at the gamestate it just does not work for me.

They had random campaign systems knocked up on the back of a beer mat during lunch hour for white dwarf back in the day that were better than crusade and this is ignoring the core rules issues.

 Ordana wrote:

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 803732 11343117 wrote:

You're ignoring everyone who doesn't built or own a tourney list.

yes, show me those foot DE or harlequin armies, orks not running buggies, tyranids not playing some version crusher stamped etc If those lists weren't common and only limited to tournament, then all the forums and w40k related sites wouldn't be in constant uproar about lists that look strangly very much alike tournament lists. And it seems to be a world wide thing too. If you think that the norm for w40k is an army of marine with a unit of tactical marines, intercessors, assault intercesors and other singles then you have to play in a place where highlander is very common.

Those people are not posting on reddit or forums.

As with everything, the majority of people are tuned in to the online community. The very fact that you see them talking makes them a minority.
Which is not the say the opinion of the actual majority needs to be different, just that the majority is basically all silent.

I bet there are a ton of foot DE armies, Orks without buggies and non Crushing Stampede nids. Your just not hearing about them.

You're probably right but the squeaky wheel gets the grease is basically how everything in society works now. So all those people playing armies in non-competitive lists just have to deal with the nerfs they get because of squeaky wheels complaining about win-rates.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

kodos 803732 11342742 wrote:
If you love 40k, love it for what it is and not for something it will never be

So what is 40k then?

It's not tactically deep.
It's strategically easy to figure out.
It's not good for role-playing.
The rules aren't immersing.

So what is 40k?

I'm going to go with: "An entertaing enough way to spend Thur evening with some friends."
I don't think it's ever needed to be more than that.

For 100s to thousands more dollars than Mansions of Madness or Cards Against Humanity?

This defense is really mind boggling.

1st; not a defense of anything.
2nd; Sure I can enjoy an evening of board gaming with the right group. The people I play miniature wargames (including, but not limited to 40k) with aren't that group. Maybe 1 or 2, but as a whole....nope.
3rd; Cards Against Humanity is not anywhere on my list of enjoyable things. Because once you know how the people you play it with think there's no challenge & it's just wasting time that could be spent playing anything else. Even Monopoly & Talisman are better than CAH.
4th; What's $ got to do with wether or not I find it entertaining?

But since you don't like my answer, why don't you give it a shot & tell me what you think 40k should be to me.