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.

nou wrote:

Of course it does, in „Advantage in Multiplayer Games”. This is 100% what GW does via balance dataslates, temporary add-ons like Crusher Stampede and generally shuffling validity around. The randomness of purchase that you think is absent from 40k, because you buy a specific box of miniatures is succesfully introduced by unforseeable period of validity of such purchase, which not only gives incentive to but stuff, but also exploits the fear of missing out. Just ask around on Dakka, if people who freed themselves from churn and burn felt like quitting an addiction.

Which leads me directly to quitting any further discussions with you, in this or other threads. I don’t see any point in wasting my time on your delusions of grandeur.

Except people don't blind-buy balance dataslates or boxes of minis. It's not a Skinner box if the reward is guaranteed - if you were familiar with the works of B. F. Skinner at all, for whom the Skinner box is named, you'd know that intermittent and random reward is required for it to fit the definition. I'm not saying that GW's model is good, in fact I've been criticizing it up and down these forums quite frequently. I'm saying it's not the same thing as the optimized gambling addiction ccg or lootbox game model.

If you can't handle discussion and have to quit doing so, don't put that on me - that's all on you for not understanding what's going on.

When you buy a munitorum points update, you don't know all the points that are about to be updated- you may know a few via leaks, but certainly not all.

Campaign book content with AoR's and Supplements... Not all of those details are known either- you know what factions will be affected, and SOME of the effects, but not all.

I do get your point; if you define the "Blind Buy" is THE most important element of CCGs, then it is true that the connection with 40k isn't as strong.

But I think it's kinda two separate discussions: when most people cite similarities to Magic, they are talking about GAME PLAY similarities. You seem to deny that game play similarities exist because the companies don't have identical sales models...

Which has little to do with what most people here seem to be referencing when they talk about how CCGs have impacted 40k.

PenitentJake wrote:
When you buy a munitorum points update, you don't know all the points that are about to be updated

I mean they do list every unit even without a change, right?

PenitentJake wrote:
When you buy a munitorum points update, you don't know all the points that are about to be updated- you may know a few via leaks, but certainly not all.

Campaign book content with AoR's and Supplements... Not all of those details are known either- you know what factions will be affected, and SOME of the effects, but not all.

Wat? I knew all relevant content of every single book bought (or decided not to buy) since the start of 8th. Even if leaks are incomplete, pre-ordering isn't the only way to buy a book, you can just wait for the reviews and then make a decision based on perfect knowledge.

Hecaton wrote:

nou wrote:


Poke all you want, it doesn't change the fact that in the back of my mind is that old MTG feeling anytime I play a strat.
I don't get that feeling when I play non-GW minis/wargames (well except for in X-Wing - Pokemons "gotta catch 'em all" concerning the upgrade cards is in effect in 1e. No idea about 2e)
Nor have I ever gotten the D&D feeling while playing a GW minis game. Sure, a wizard using up a limited spell slot might resemble using a strat. But the difference lies in the "story". Even at our most Hack & Slashiest we've always been trying to tell some sort of "story" in D&D. That is not really ever been the case in 99.9999% of all the Warhammer (FB/40k/Sigmar/etc) I've played. Not even in our recent Crusades & Path to Glories.

Your feelings aren't necessarily rational, however, and definitely aren't in this case. You and you alone are responsible for your irrational feelings.

So it's irrational to think "This game mechanic directly reminds me of this other games mechanic."?
Anyways, I doubt you're qualified to determine what's rational or not.

But I think it's kinda two separate discussions: when most people cite similarities to Magic, they are talking about GAME PLAY similarities. You seem to deny that game play similarities exist because the companies don't have identical sales models...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

you know, a Spell is something very different from a Spell because the one comes as card in booster pack, while the other is written in a codex

so they can never be similar, even with the exact wording and if the function the same in game, it is just impossible that those are similar


so the big thing why 40k and MtG are not the same and don't share any similarities, are cards and random boosters

we just ingnore that you can buy individual cards or even decks for Magic, as well as you have to buy boxes combined with useless models to get the one strong one in 40k (which is kind of similar of buying displays in Magic)

PenitentJake wrote:
When you buy a munitorum points update, you don't know all the points that are about to be updated- you may know a few via leaks, but certainly not all.

Nah. Your friend who bought the book before you will tell it. It will be summarized on some review site. It's not like a pack of Magic cards where you don't know what random selection of cards will be inside it.

PenitentJake wrote:

I do get your point; if you define the "Blind Buy" is THE most important element of CCGs, then it is true that the connection with 40k isn't as strong.

And it is. The "Skinner box" is defined that way; reward has to be random and intermittent. In terms of how people spend money on 40k, it's not the same.

PenitentJake wrote:
But I think it's kinda two separate discussions: when most people cite similarities to Magic, they are talking about GAME PLAY similarities. You seem to deny that game play similarities exist because the companies don't have identical sales models...

No, people in this thread have been conflating them. I understand the difference. There are a number of significant differences between Magic and 40k, the most significant of which are that 40k is a perfect information game, and that there is no spatial element to Magic. The supposed similarities between Magic and 40k have nothing to do with "CCG elements," and I'd be happy to demonstrate that. It's just that most of the people in this thread are only surface level familiar with MtG and its history, and have jumped up ideas of their own assessment of it to 40k.

PenitentJake wrote:
Which has little to do with what most people here seem to be referencing when they talk about how CCGs have impacted 40k.

Again, some people were actively confusing the two, if you look upthread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

So it's irrational to think "This game mechanic directly reminds me of this other games mechanic."?
Anyways, I doubt you're qualified to determine what's rational or not.

Only if it's incorrect and based on, as I said upthread, bug-eyed atavistic fear of CCGs rather than anything factual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

But I think it's kinda two separate discussions: when most people cite similarities to Magic, they are talking about GAME PLAY similarities. You seem to deny that game play similarities exist because the companies don't have identical sales models...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nope, I did not, but I'm sure you'll misrepresent what I say regardless, just like you went on a tear about how Conquest was "Herohammer." It's just buzzwords that you're trying to force because you have a snap judgment not based on facts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
you know, a Spell is something very different from a Spell because the one comes as card in booster pack, while the other is written in a codex

so they can never be similar, even with the exact wording and if the function the same in game, it is just impossible that those are similar

Hey guess what, the psychic phase in 2e actually used a shuffled deck of cards to power them. So 40k has *less* card game elements than it did. Or were you aware of that fact lol?

 kodos wrote:
so the big thing why 40k and MtG are not the same and don't share any similarities, are cards and random boosters

we just ingnore that you can buy individual cards or even decks for Magic, as well as you have to buy boxes combined with useless models to get the one strong one in 40k (which is kind of similar of buying displays in Magic)

It's not the same because the boxes don't have random contents.

As I mentioned, very big differences between 40k and Magic are that 40k is a perfect information game (like chess) whereas Magic has hidden info. Also, 40k has spatial relationships/elements, whereas Magic has none.

a perfect information game like chess?

of course, because in chess, when I build my list for black, there is the chance that the models I chose get different rules in 2 weeks and other models are moved to legends
without me even have a chance to know what the rules will be or what models will be valid by the time I purchase them

yeah, 40k is totally like chess and not even close to MtG

I really missed the thrill of chess that the models I buy, based on the information I have might be trash a week after because of random changes for the sake of changes


Have you even played 40k once?
are you just looking up information on wikipedia what the game is about and try to tell people who have played it for 20 years that they don#t know what the game is?

I think at this point its fair to say that Hecaton is one of those individuals that will double or triple down on pretty much anything in as aggressive a manner as possible.

From the topic at hand, the MtG CCG argument vs Power Levels probably don't mean anything to each other lol.

Most of us hear know what is meant when we say 40k seems similar to a CCG, and the people that sign my checks also know what is meant when they say it and put it in their design documentation, so ... at this point I think we just move on and get out of this lawyering hell that we seem to have descended into. Individuals saying that 40k is nothing like a CCG don't change my opinion on the matter, nor the language I use in game design documentation with other game designers. Same as flat earthers don't change my life in regards to how I view the planet and the universe it sits in.

I realize its the internet and par for the course but Power Levels vs Points in 10th level

 kodos wrote:
a perfect information game like chess?

of course, because in chess, when I build my list for black, there is the chance that the models I chose get different rules in 2 weeks and other models are moved to legends
without me even have a chance to know what the rules will be or what models will be valid by the time I purchase them

yeah, 40k is totally like chess and not even close to MtG

I really missed the thrill of chess that the models I buy, based on the information I have might be trash a week after because of random changes for the sake of changes


Have you even played 40k once?
are you just looking up information on wikipedia what the game is about and try to tell people who have played it for 20 years that they don#t know what the game is?

I think at this point it is perfectly clear for everyone in this thread, that if something isn’t 100% the same, then it’s 100% entirely different

Auticus, you're right about how we should probably just move on... But stoopid me wants to say just one more thing:

So Hec, this is not said to invalidate your point, because it doesn't actually do that, it just sorta muddies the water a bit... I say it for the sake of demonstrating a thing or two about nuance in a medium where people are encouraged to fall into strict binaries:

40k ISN'T exactly a perfect information game. It's close enough that your point is still relevant- it's certainly CLOSER to a perfect information game than most CCGs. But you do build your armies before you even know who your opponent is going be.

And there is a randomly shuffled deck of cards that changes missions and game state when you use the open war deck. Ditto on the tempest of war deck.

Again, it doesn't exactly invalidate your point- I do get what you're saying. But back when I actively played Magic, I could fairly reasonably predict the strategies that I'd see employed against me based on colour choice.

In much the same way you know you're coming up against void weavers if you play against harlies, you could predict some direct damage if you were up against red.

 kodos wrote:
you know, a Spell is something very different from a Spell because the one comes as card in booster pack, while the other is written in a codex

so they can never be similar, even with the exact wording and if the function the same in game, it is just impossible that those are similar


so the big thing why 40k and MtG are not the same and don't share any similarities, are cards and random boosters

we just ingnore that you can buy individual cards or even decks for Magic, as well as you have to buy boxes combined with useless models to get the one strong one in 40k (which is kind of similar of buying displays in Magic)

This maybe funny to some people, but most people around here glue the print outs of their spells, stratagems to MtG cards and not everyone has them in protectors so for some armies like ad mecha, it looks like a beefy side deck or part of a deck.

Hey guys, quick question. I was playing a game of 40k the other day and my opponent abused the stack to wipe out the unit I was playing a stratagem on? Something about Armor of Contempt reflecting bullets of peons back? Look, I'm not fussed about him using an older version of Armor of Contempt, but does my Splinter Twin still activate?

Like, I'm using Splinter Twin on a group of Necron Warriors, he plays Armor of Contempt reflecting damage I did during the main phase back to my Warriors. Would my Splinter Twin still create a copy of my Warriors?

Also, while I'm here. What other units are necron players currently using on the sideboard. I find having Cryptforge Mystic to pull out bonus relics in the harlequin matchup pretty important.


EDIT: When playing narrative which ruleset should we use? Standard, Legacy, Commander (wtf, I can run marine, adeptus AND guard loLL!) or Booster Draft

There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.

Toofast wrote:
There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.

Erm...

Look, I won't say there's nothing to compare between MtG and 40k, but they're more than different enough that an MtG card would make NO SENSE as a stratagem.
And vice-versa too.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Toofast wrote:
There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.

Erm...

Look, I won't say there's nothing to compare between MtG and 40k, but they're more than different enough that an MtG card would make NO SENSE as a stratagem.
And vice-versa too.

https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=442130

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Toofast wrote:
There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.

Erm...

Look, I won't say there's nothing to compare between MtG and 40k, but they're more than different enough that an MtG card would make NO SENSE as a stratagem.
And vice-versa too.

https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=442130

What's a creature? How does player damage work-I thought we were dealing with models and units? How do I pay the costs on the top right?

A creature is basically anything in 40k, ignore the player part, the cost is one command point.

Underworlds is more akin to a ccg and it's still vastly different. The people who make the argument 40k is becoming similar to MtG need to enlarge their gaming experiences. There are numerous board games that the 40k strategem system draws parallel to that make more sense than MtG.

Also, while the ruleset of MtG is constantly expanded upon, WotC keeps a living rulebook that is turough and puts any other nerd game to shame. If GWs goal was to produce the best miniture game in the world, their rulebook would mirror the success of MtGs.

Edition churn makes money printer go burr

if GW would have just copied the "need to hve good rules to get the tournament scene going", instead of the "Edition churn makes money printer go burr"

 JNAProductions wrote:
How does player damage work-I thought we were dealing with models and units? How do I pay the costs on the top right?

you need to wait for the official FAQ to clear this up
would not be the first rule in 40k that is written out of context and makes no sense, while RAI is clear what it should do

 kodos wrote:
if GW would have just copied the "need to hve good rules to get the tournament scene going", instead of the "Edition churn makes money printer go burr"

 JNAProductions wrote:
How does player damage work-I thought we were dealing with models and units? How do I pay the costs on the top right?

you need to wait for the official FAQ to clear this up
would not be the first rule in 40k that is written out of context and makes no sense, while RAI is clear what it should do

Clearly the RAI is that damaging a player directly would instead *reduce* their victory points by that amount.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 kodos wrote:
if GW would have just copied the "need to hve good rules to get the tournament scene going", instead of the "Edition churn makes money printer go burr"

 JNAProductions wrote:
How does player damage work-I thought we were dealing with models and units? How do I pay the costs on the top right?

you need to wait for the official FAQ to clear this up
would not be the first rule in 40k that is written out of context and makes no sense, while RAI is clear what it should do

Clearly the RAI is that damaging a player directly would instead *reduce* their victory points by that amount.

Or you get to give them a free slap.

PenitentJake wrote:
Auticus, you're right about how we should probably just move on... But stoopid me wants to say just one more thing:

So Hec, this is not said to invalidate your point, because it doesn't actually do that, it just sorta muddies the water a bit... I say it for the sake of demonstrating a thing or two about nuance in a medium where people are encouraged to fall into strict binaries:

40k ISN'T exactly a perfect information game. It's close enough that your point is still relevant- it's certainly CLOSER to a perfect information game than most CCGs. But you do build your armies before you even know who your opponent is going be.

A "perfect information game" refers to a game where you know everything about the game state and know all your opponent's options. In any given game, there is never any hidden information. Perfect information does not mean that there isn't any chance involved, it just means that all players have the same information available to make decisions. Chess or Monopoly are games with perfect information available to all players.
MtG has hidden information which means that there are parts of the game which you don't know about, but are known to your opponent - your opponent's hand, face down cards, the order of your deck, etc. Hidden information allows you to bluff about what you can do and what you cannot do. Poker is the best example of a game without perfect information.

40k absolutely does not allow any hidden information to do that and goes into great lengths to maintain perfect information - you are not allowed to hide what is in your transports, you have to declare what reinforcements you have, even when GSC are placing ambush markers, the opponent has perfect information about what units could jump out of that blip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Toofast wrote:
There could be a stratagem with the exact same wording as an MtG card and certain people here would argue no similarity at all because they seem to have developed an emotional attachment to their existing stance.

So you are saying that a game of MtG using the Warhammer 40k set plays EXACTLY like a game of 40k would?

What 40k players typically don't understand is that there is vastly more to MtG than "pay resource: get effect" and that the "pay resource: get effect" mechanic is as common to gaming as rolling dice is.

Seems to be a lot of pedantry against people saying that the game since 8th has taken a lot of modern bored and card game ideas, especially given how previous 40k or even more so WHFB looked.

Its clearly a popular decision and though i personally prefer the old school wargame i understand gw must go with at least the type of game the customer wants. Even no nothing eejits like me can see how much more "gamey" (cue arguments about definitions) it has become.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How does player damage work-I thought we were dealing with models and units?

I think player damage utilises the dreadnought-sock.

@Jidmah

I do understand the term.

But I stand by my post. When you build an army list, you don't know who you are facing or what the mission is- although with secondaries, agendas and modern mission design, this is kinda muddy too.

The genestealer blip information? Sure you know which units COULD come out of each blip, but you don't know which ones will. The controlling player doesn't even necessarily know which will go where when they deploy the blips.

And then there are the Open War and Tempest of War decks- another double blind.

And you can say Magic ISN'T a perfect information game, but you can memorize every card that's legal for the format you're playing.

Dai wrote:
Seems to be a lot of pedantry against people saying that the game since 8th has taken a lot of modern bored and card game ideas, especially given how previous 40k or even more so WHFB looked.

Its clearly a popular decision and though i personally prefer the old school wargame i understand gw must go with at least the type of game the customer wants. Even no nothing eejits like me can see how much more "gamey" (cue arguments about definitions) it has become.

It wouldn't be the internet without microscopic micro level pedantry

I have a feeling most of the pedants know exactly what we are talking about, but for the sake of doubling down and arguing will continue to argue.

As a laughing aside... the steam game I alluded to a few pages back was basically 40k in card form. The studio had the license pulled because they didn't like how close to the actual game of 40k it was and wanted different mechanics put in. That was a couple of years ago before the COVID thing started, but having been a testing part of that project, I can confirm. It was 40k in card form. The only difference was no models, no measuring distances. While NDA prevents me from getting too into the weeds on details, you had a collection of resource cards, and you had three levels of deployment.

You tapped units to attack other units in the proper range, and other actions could generate resources points which you could use to tap your resource power cards to give your forces a boost or hurt your enemy. Some did the equivalent of mortal wounds. Some summoned free cards from your deck.

And the deepstrike cards were my favorite because it was literally tap this card, do damage to any card on the table. You had deepstrike counter cards that you could trigger tap to prevent the damage (representing your screens of chaffe).

When its license was pulled for being too close to 40k, we all had a long hard laugh because most of the people on that team were either current or past 40k players and we all joked about the current 40k being a lot like card games, and that experience pretty much solidified it for me.

40k has very few similarities to wargaming and more similarities to tabletop boardgaming or card gaming in model form. Can't really say it doesn't work though. Its massively successful.

PenitentJake wrote:
@Jidmah

I do understand the term.

But I stand by my post. When you build an army list, you don't know who you are facing or what the mission is- although with secondaries, agendas and modern mission design, this is kinda muddy too.

The genestealer blip information? Sure you know which units COULD come out of each blip, but you don't know which ones will. The controlling player doesn't even necessarily know which will go where when they deploy the blips.

And then there are the Open War and Tempest of War decks- another double blind.

And you can say Magic ISN'T a perfect information game, but you can memorize every card that's legal for the format you're playing.

Don't take that personally, but you clearly don't understand the term. You took the dictionary meaning of the words and have come up with an definition of your own.

Perfect/hidden information only refers to decision making during the game, list or deck building plays no role in this - in 40k, I know the exact content of your army the second we start to play. In MtG, unless you or me have a card that gives this information away, you will never know what the exact content of my deck is. There has been a tournament player who won a GT who forgot to put a way to win in his deck - players just assumed he had one and conceded games when he hit his combo-out. There have been players who did a mulligan to zero and then conceded after finding out what is opponent's deck was without giving away what his own deck - just so he could have the edge in game two. Neither will ever happen in 40k, because there is no hidden information between opponents.

In any game of 40k, at any point during the game, you know everything your opponent knows. There is nothing you can hide, there is nothing to bluff about.
In any game of MtG, outside of rare occasions, both players never have access to the same information.

Same for GSC blips. When I deploy army, I know exactly what your army can do and which units can be deployed on a blip. I know how much infantry you have, whether you have anti-tank, what range your weapons have and what unit upgrades you bought. I might have to take chances, but for every single blip I exactly know the worst thing that can jump out of it.
If you play against a MtG morph deck, you have no clue whatsoever what is hiding behind those face-down cards - you can't even tell what color or type those cards are, not even what type of deck you are facing. It could be anything from an aggressive red/green deck or a blue lock-down combo.
And no, you can't play around every single one of the 199 morph cards there are - playing around a wrath or counterspell that isn't there is good way to lose.

In MtG, players will play spells that might have no effect, because they don't have perfect information.
In 40k, you will never pay CP for a stratagem that will absolutely have no effect, because you know everything about the game at all times.

In MtG players will attack with a big creature and then have it killed because the one card in their opponent's hand was a combat trick. The might have even done this intentionally just to get the information whether they have a trick or not.
In 40k you know exactly what stratagems the unit you are charging has available and can make your decision based on that.

40k having no hidden information is the prime reason why people feel like "Gotcha!" moments are a dick moves. In 40k a perfect player will never make a move that is not optimal to them, just like in chess.
In MtG baiting your opponent into doing something that is not optimal for them is an important part of the game. In MtG, you have to hide what options you have, while trying to find out what your opponent can do, just like in poker.

And that's precisely why people are saying that MtG and 40k are in no way alike - they are completely different games, just like Chess and Poker are despite both having kings and queens.

And that's precisely why people are saying that MtG and 40k are in no way alike

Despite several bullet points that show how they are alike.

No one is saying they are identical to each other. Nor are they saying that 40k is a card game.

Its been entirely that it feels in many places to be like a card game and given bullet points showing where those points lay.

To whit no one has disagreed with, but plenty of arguing continues anyway among other ways to split hairs.

MtG and 40k ARE completely different games. And 40k borrowed some elements of MtG in their game design, to which many people can feel that influence in the games that they play.

To whit game designers themselves use the term in their design documents to illustrate those elements when discussing projects.

Despite tabletop games being different than card games, the philosophy and elements that bind them together are today in many places similar or the same.

Discussing the differences of the two does not disprove that they don't contain similarities. It is argument for the sake of argument to prove that the two are not the same, which I don't believe anyone here is trying to argue. I don't think anyone in here has said that the two games are the same.

It was said that 40k is like a CCG in many ways - to which was expounded that 40k feels like a CCG in many ways and then bulleted out what those similarities were.

To whit the counter argument was "no you're dumb, those are digital game elements not CCG elements that you are discussing" -> where we then went further down the rabbit hole to discuss where today's digital gaming was inspired by to be what it is today (the MtG of yore).

To say that MtG and 40k are in NO WAY alike... is very disingenuous. Especially after so many examples of how they are similar have been given.