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.

 Sherrypie wrote:

There are. 40k is not one of them, nor is it trying to, being an over the top heavy metal album cover in a tabletop game form. That point is not important here, when we're discussing the times when such exceptions happen and how many 40k scenarios in particular revel in setting them up. So instead of saying "such Pyrrhic victories make no sense" (to you), the question being asked is "how does it still make sense even if the victor lost most or everything" and exploring that option.

This is literally "consider how to fit the narrative to the rules". I also can make random gak up - but it isn't any more narrative than "all my soldiers had their lunchboxes and got better after eating, because of my chapter's super secret Matter Recombination Gland - a mutation in their geneseed. And it fixes their armor too."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

100% casualties isn't "some of them beaten up". Casualty in 40k means the model cannot fght any more. Considering Marines can fight with one arm removed, or half their head gone - and PLAGUE MARINES can endure even more before collapsing, I would say they're a good bit worse than "beaten up". And given the rarity of Terminator suits, the Tau would've had to lose like a major leader or minor planet to make the loss worthwhile. Don't forget, the death-guard literally cannot replace their terminator suits. Once one's done, it's done. And since they were all incapable of fighting, barring "a wizard did it" as a narrative tool, the Tau probably finished most them off and captured most of the suits to boot.

That's one way to think about it, not an objectively correct one. All that removal means is that said model stops fighting effectively for the duration of the game. Just by taking your previous read on the duration of the game (which is, again, your subjective take on it), the game is so short that a casualty could just as well represent a soldier being temporarily knocked out by banging their head against a wall after being thrown by an explosion. Becoming unconscious, stunned or dazed is a very normal thing on the battlefield. Or being buried under rubble for a moment before digging themselves out after the firing ceases, powered armour is very handy in that regard. Again, the point is to make narrative sense of the abstracted game results as they happen, which isn't hard unless you're taking a very strictly literal read on the game moves.

As for the rest, you only need a "wizard did it" if you can't look at the game as a snapshot of the larger fight. Can't force you on that point, but that really hasn't been a problem in my circles for decades.

Instead of torturing the narrative until it complies with the rules...

...how about make the rules actually represent the universe they are ostensibly set in?

Funny thing is...wars don't generally irl be decided by who kills most stuff. So why you insist 40k has to?

tneva82 wrote:
Funny thing is...wars don't generally irl be decided by who kills most stuff. So why you insist 40k has to?

Who, me? I am not insisting that at all. If that is what you are getting from my words, then I am sorry I failed to communicate well.

ccs wrote:
The only thing you've gotten right in there is players needing to communicate. But that's been true since before 40k existed....
You do not need large collections & high degrees of system mastery to enjoy a game of 40k.
Likewise you can generally* get by the same models/army for many years.

If 40k required a high degree of system mastery to enjoy a game of 40k, I'd never enjoy a game of 40k.

My last 3 games of 40k have been quite enjoyable as well as insanely close. I am finding that I enjoy Open War games where 3 cards are drawn per category and each player get to veto one card from each category. So far, every game I have played that way has come down to the wire.

As for narrative, I always include it in my games as I came from TTRPGs are realistically got into miniatures war gaming to get much of the RPG experience without needing more than a single person. Which is much easier to coordinate than a group of people. Examples of mission narratives have been:

3 dead Skitarii scouts recorded the strength, positions and plans of a Black Legion Black Crusade (Abaddon's 13 Black Cursades aren't the only ones) but were unable to upload the information to the Noosphere before being terminated. Without this information, AdMech forces will lack vital information on the Chaos Space Marines to mount a proper defense. Conversely, the Black Legion forces want to determine what information these Skitarii scouts had to make future adjustments to their crusade, and if possible, download scrap code viruses to further disrupt the defense should CSM be unable to take control of the ground.

Black Legion forces are performing a material raid of Imperial armory sites to sustain momentum in an ongoing Black Crusade. However, a Daemon Prince has learned that Custodes have been alerted to the sector and wishes a re-match ever since the closing days of the Horus Revolution. Doubly so since then, they have ascended to become a Daemon Prince. For daemon and daemonkin forces, casualties aren't an issue, provided they are able to gloat and defeat at least a few Custodes. The remaining CSM aren't about to take much risk, leaving with as much loot as they can before the Talons of the Emperor can secure the planet.

Genestealer Cult promethium refinery workers have noted strange flora in an area of high radiation. Upon investigation, the Cult learned that Nurgle's bloom has infected the refinery and at minimum threatens to expose the cult should quotas not be met, and worst case scenario this could be the beginning of a full scale Chaos invasion. In the interim, promethium must be secured to meet Imperium quotas. After which, the Death Guard threat can be further explored to determine if it is worth fighting, or if contacting the planetary governor to get outside aid should be brought in (such as space marines) where the cult simply can go underground until the Nurgle threat is dealt with and Imperial expeditionary forces leave. The promethium must flow regardless.

All 3 of these scenarios absolutely don't matter if a side is tabled, since total destruction of forces won't stop what the battle already set in motion. The information, material or other is far more important than the warriors and equipment used to obtain them.

So, I agree with Unit.

In a system where narrative is included in missions, this can still happen. In fact, if the narrative was included in missions, we wouldn't have to make up why we won outside of a gamey stand in circle mission. We could have it so you needed people with particular skills to go forward and sever datalinks with electromagnetic weapons so their information can't reach their superior, or to collect weapons to resupply their troops.

The issue isn't that narrative can't possibly exist. I can pretend my Necrons stopped taking their Flintstones vitamins, and that's why they are weaker than Space Marines, and the one Marine unit that stole them get Transhuman physiology for a turn. But I don't have to if there's a narrative in the mission already there. It's not a lack of creativity on our part, it's a lack of creativity and an over reliance on the players not caring on Games Workshop's part.

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:
What rubbish. The only thing you've gotten right in there is players needing to communicate. But that's been true since before 40k existed....
You do not need large collections & high degrees of system mastery to enjoy a game of 40k.
Likewise you can generally* get by the same models/army for many years.

Bruh if I bought clowns and my opponent bought Orks or Guard, no amount of communicating is gonna make games fun.

Then don't be TFG & bring clowns.

But seriously? Yes, there is some amount of communication that'll result in a fun game with those forces. And if you insist upon playing such a match-up outside a tourney then it's on you & your opponent to find out what that is.

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:
What rubbish. The only thing you've gotten right in there is players needing to communicate. But that's been true since before 40k existed....
You do not need large collections & high degrees of system mastery to enjoy a game of 40k.
Likewise you can generally* get by the same models/army for many years.

Bruh if I bought clowns and my opponent bought Orks or Guard, no amount of communicating is gonna make games fun.

Then don't be TFG & bring clowns.

So you're saying if someone is attached to a unit or an army then 40k breaks down, you know- just like AnomaderRake said and you called "rubbish". Pick a lane mate.

I play orks vs harlequins pretty often and never had problems even before the points changes. In real life no one spammed voidweavers (in fact many players didn't even have a single one of those) and an ork player with a large collection can definitely play strong lists in any casual to semi competitive meta. We're still talking about two average gamers who want to play with each other, not random ork player who wants to win a major event.

At the moment it's actually me, ork player who can field any lists archetype barring the kill rigs, that have to tone down against the harlequin dudes.

Of course if two players only have 2000 points each of miniatures and one brings orks while the other one brings harlequins chances to have a good time are pretty low.

ccs wrote:
Then don't be TFG & bring clowns.

Why does choosing to play any army instantly make someone a TFG?

What if someone likes Harlequins, or has been playing them since they first got an article in Citadel Journal? Now suddenly they're the donkey-cave for simply using them?

Regardign the phrase "if they made 40k properly it could be played on planet bowling ball", this is a nonsensical standpoint. It's along the same lines as "If the computer security was designed properly then it wouldn't matter if my password is "password"".

Cover and line of sight blocking is a needed part of the game to reduce lethality, deny targets, and so on. It's part of the game, as much as charging into close combat is. planet bowling ball will always favour the long ranged guns, because if it didn't, then cover would make them overpriced.

And that's why points aren't really for balance. Just to facilite quick game with some semblance of idea that you might be at least SOMEWHERE in the same galaxy for balanced game.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
So, I agree with Unit.

In a system where narrative is included in missions, this can still happen. In fact, if the narrative was included in missions, we wouldn't have to make up why we won outside of a gamey stand in circle mission. We could have it so you needed people with particular skills to go forward and sever datalinks with electromagnetic weapons so their information can't reach their superior, or to collect weapons to resupply their troops.

The issue isn't that narrative can't possibly exist. I can pretend my Necrons stopped taking their Flintstones vitamins, and that's why they are weaker than Space Marines, and the one Marine unit that stole them get Transhuman physiology for a turn. But I don't have to if there's a narrative in the mission already there. It's not a lack of creativity on our part, it's a lack of creativity and an over reliance on the players not caring on Games Workshop's part.

Or have you considered that leaving the players to make their own narrative is the point?
There are currently 19 armies in 40k (condensing all the Imperial Marines barring Grey Knights and discounting Inquisition and Assassins as they aren't proper armies). On top of those 19, there are about 7 subfactions per army (Space Marines, of course, have more) and there are rules to create custom subfactions. Each subfaction will have it's own goals, intentions, tactics and secrets plus whatever the individual army leader wants and the player's own narrative choices.
Do you think it would be easier to design missions that are generic and can be crafted to suit every single army in the game or to make missions that fit one very specific narrative for each mission? Even the missions in campaign supplements are designed so that any army can play any scenario despite them being tied to events within the books.

I agree with unit, they could do a hell of a lot more when it comes to narrative scenarios but in order to do so the first thing they need to do is reduce lethality. The odd phyrric victory is perfectly fluffy, constant phyrric victories may be fluffy if you reallllly stretch it but it sure is boring for a game mode that is meant to encourage story telling.

 Gert wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
So, I agree with Unit.

In a system where narrative is included in missions, this can still happen. In fact, if the narrative was included in missions, we wouldn't have to make up why we won outside of a gamey stand in circle mission. We could have it so you needed people with particular skills to go forward and sever datalinks with electromagnetic weapons so their information can't reach their superior, or to collect weapons to resupply their troops.

The issue isn't that narrative can't possibly exist. I can pretend my Necrons stopped taking their Flintstones vitamins, and that's why they are weaker than Space Marines, and the one Marine unit that stole them get Transhuman physiology for a turn. But I don't have to if there's a narrative in the mission already there. It's not a lack of creativity on our part, it's a lack of creativity and an over reliance on the players not caring on Games Workshop's part.

Or have you considered that leaving the players to make their own narrative is the point?
There are currently 19 armies in 40k (condensing all the Imperial Marines barring Grey Knights and discounting Inquisition and Assassins as they aren't proper armies). On top of those 19, there are about 7 subfactions per army (Space Marines, of course, have more) and there are rules to create custom subfactions. Each subfaction will have it's own goals, intentions, tactics and secrets plus whatever the individual army leader wants and the player's own narrative choices.
Do you think it would be easier to design missions that are generic and can be crafted to suit every single army in the game or to make missions that fit one very specific narrative for each mission? Even the missions in campaign supplements are designed so that any army can play any scenario despite them being tied to events within the books.

The missions are a symptom of badly written core rules, basically from the ground up.

There is a balance between player narrative and overall narrative. Player narrative should weave into the overall narrative, not just be whatever. I can write 'whatever' narrative on the back of a napkin and even whip up some rules to play it.

But GW says: "THERE ARE NO RULES! THE SETTING IS MORE LIKE GUIDELINES!" and then says "boy look how much we are supporting narrative play compared to the past, amirite?"

How much do you want to bet the Chaos corruption mechanics that are coming for Crusade don't exclude Grey Knights? Or Tyranids?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The missions are a symptom of badly written core rules, basically from the ground up.

There is a balance between player narrative and overall narrative. Player narrative should weave into the overall narrative, not just be whatever. I can write 'whatever' narrative on the back of a napkin and even whip up some rules to play it.

How does player narrative not tie into the wider 40k story of "There is only war"? Unless you aren't actually hurting your enemies in the games you play and don't take any damage in return, I'd say you're playing into the overall narrative pretty well. We're talking about a setting the size of a galaxy where wars are won and lost by millions if not billions of lives. The rules of war don't exist and modern wars or even historic conflicts don't hold a torch to what 40k is. There are demi-gods and daemons walking around alongside Private Kevin and his laser gun. If you want GW to provide you with reasoning for every single possible narrative then you are nuts.

But GW says: "THERE ARE NO RULES! THE SETTING IS MORE LIKE GUIDELINES!" and then says "boy look how much we are supporting narrative play compared to the past, amirite?"

Where does GW say that? Like I'm genuinely curious where that is written. I also want to know what your guidelines are to make the game narrative. There is Crusade for making your own narrative with tools provided both in Codexes and campaign books, there are a lot of different campaign books with lots of different missions, game rules, and add-ons like Warzones so that you can make the game more narrative. The only way GW could do better would be to make every single rulebook and campaign supplement free.
And as a side note, haven't people been complaining for years because, in their opinion, GW was making 40k too set in stone? Now you're complaining the sandbox setting is too sandboxy. I just can't understand what it is you're complaining about.

How much do you want to bet the Chaos corruption mechanics that are coming for Crusade don't exclude Grey Knights? Or Tyranids?

I have no idea if it will or not because funnily enough, I haven't got the rules. I will say that the Torchbearer Fleet rules from WD were very specific with what you could and could not do with regards to army building and honestly, I think you're making up excuses to be angry with this point.

 Blackie wrote:


Of course if two players only have 2000 points each of miniatures and one brings orks while the other one brings harlequins chances to have a good time are pretty low.

how many teens do you think start the game by buying 6000pts of any army, or multiple armies at 2000pts? This is some avarge player is a 30+ year old returning to the game after X years, while having a few armies stashed already and another few bought or ordered from ebay.

 Gert wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The missions are a symptom of badly written core rules, basically from the ground up.

There is a balance between player narrative and overall narrative. Player narrative should weave into the overall narrative, not just be whatever. I can write 'whatever' narrative on the back of a napkin and even whip up some rules to play it.

How does player narrative not tie into the wider 40k story of "There is only war"? Unless you aren't actually hurting your enemies in the games you play and don't take any damage in return, I'd say you're playing into the overall narrative pretty well. We're talking about a setting the size of a galaxy where wars are won and lost by millions if not billions of lives. The rules of war don't exist and modern wars or even historic conflicts don't hold a torch to what 40k is. There are demi-gods and daemons walking around alongside Private Kevin and his laser gun. If you want GW to provide you with reasoning for every single possible narrative then you are nuts.

The fact that you don't apply your own logic to the rules is hilarious.

No, I am not actually hurting my enemies in return, nor am I being hurt.

I've had IG companies wiped out to a man - but no, they're back next week for more! Precious and irreplaceable artefacts, lost to the foe on the battlefield? No, we recovered the Blade of Conquest, silly.

It's Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain level stuff. "I'll get you next week, Enemy Army!!! And maybe that time I will WIN the rolloff to go first! Mwahahahahaahah!" Says the defeated villain whose stuff is all fine and so is his opponent's.

"Finally, the ancient and venerable Baneblade, Mars Triumphant, is destroyed, and the Chaos armies celebrate by destroying it again next week, and the week after that..."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It's Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain level stuff. "I'll get you next week, Enemy Army!!! And maybe that time I will WIN the rolloff to go first! Mwahahahahaahah!" Says the defeated villain whose stuff is all fine and so is his opponent's.

"Finally, the ancient and venerable Baneblade, Mars Triumphant, is destroyed, and the Chaos armies celebrate by destroying it again next week, and the week after that..."

So what would need to be changed in order to solve this? Considering that most people have a fixed set of units available, this recurring army phenomenon is pretty much a given. The only way around it would be to reduce lethality to the point where casualties are greatly reduced across the board and armies can logically persist across multiple games or campaigns.

The only way this could be simulated is either by a ban of use of specific units in X next games, or the physical destruction of the model post game.

 BertBert wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It's Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain level stuff. "I'll get you next week, Enemy Army!!! And maybe that time I will WIN the rolloff to go first! Mwahahahahaahah!" Says the defeated villain whose stuff is all fine and so is his opponent's.

"Finally, the ancient and venerable Baneblade, Mars Triumphant, is destroyed, and the Chaos armies celebrate by destroying it again next week, and the week after that..."

So what would need to be changed in order to solve this? Considering that most people have a fixed set of units available, this recurring army phenomenon is pretty much a given. The only way around it would be to reduce lethality to the point where casualties are greatly reduced across the board and armies can logically persist across multiple games or campaigns.

You hit it right on the nose - actually make 40k a wargame. Rebuild it from the ground up to support verisimilitude.

The campaign system "At The Sharp End" for Chain of Command is an example of such a system for a platoon to company scale (i.e. 40k scale) miniatures game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The missions are a symptom of badly written core rules, basically from the ground up.

There is a balance between player narrative and overall narrative. Player narrative should weave into the overall narrative, not just be whatever. I can write 'whatever' narrative on the back of a napkin and even whip up some rules to play it.

How does player narrative not tie into the wider 40k story of "There is only war"? Unless you aren't actually hurting your enemies in the games you play and don't take any damage in return, I'd say you're playing into the overall narrative pretty well. We're talking about a setting the size of a galaxy where wars are won and lost by millions if not billions of lives. The rules of war don't exist and modern wars or even historic conflicts don't hold a torch to what 40k is. There are demi-gods and daemons walking around alongside Private Kevin and his laser gun. If you want GW to provide you with reasoning for every single possible narrative then you are nuts.

The fact that you don't apply your own logic to the rules is hilarious.

No, I am not actually hurting my enemies in return, nor am I being hurt.

I've had IG companies wiped out to a man - but no, they're back next week for more! Precious and irreplaceable artefacts, lost to the foe on the battlefield? No, we recovered the Blade of Conquest, silly.

It's Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain level stuff. "I'll get you next week, Enemy Army!!! And maybe that time I will WIN the rolloff to go first! Mwahahahahaahah!" Says the defeated villain whose stuff is all fine and so is his opponent's.

"Finally, the ancient and venerable Baneblade, Mars Triumphant, is destroyed, and the Chaos armies celebrate by destroying it again next week, and the week after that..."

The size 40k games are the numbers are irrelevant. Not even ig company is lost in typical 40k game(hundreds isn't norm) and we are talking galaxy where regiment lost is but a blip.

40k games are tiny insignificant skirmishes. Lose to a man 100 game and it's but a blip in radar. 40k games aren't big important battles.

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The missions are a symptom of badly written core rules, basically from the ground up.

There is a balance between player narrative and overall narrative. Player narrative should weave into the overall narrative, not just be whatever. I can write 'whatever' narrative on the back of a napkin and even whip up some rules to play it.

How does player narrative not tie into the wider 40k story of "There is only war"? Unless you aren't actually hurting your enemies in the games you play and don't take any damage in return, I'd say you're playing into the overall narrative pretty well. We're talking about a setting the size of a galaxy where wars are won and lost by millions if not billions of lives. The rules of war don't exist and modern wars or even historic conflicts don't hold a torch to what 40k is. There are demi-gods and daemons walking around alongside Private Kevin and his laser gun. If you want GW to provide you with reasoning for every single possible narrative then you are nuts.

The fact that you don't apply your own logic to the rules is hilarious.

No, I am not actually hurting my enemies in return, nor am I being hurt.

I've had IG companies wiped out to a man - but no, they're back next week for more! Precious and irreplaceable artefacts, lost to the foe on the battlefield? No, we recovered the Blade of Conquest, silly.

It's Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain level stuff. "I'll get you next week, Enemy Army!!! And maybe that time I will WIN the rolloff to go first! Mwahahahahaahah!" Says the defeated villain whose stuff is all fine and so is his opponent's.

"Finally, the ancient and venerable Baneblade, Mars Triumphant, is destroyed, and the Chaos armies celebrate by destroying it again next week, and the week after that..."

The size 40k games are the numbers are irrelevant. Not even ig company is lost in typical 40k game(hundreds isn't norm) and we are talking galaxy where regiment lost is but a blip.

40k games are tiny insignificant skirmishes. Lose to a man 100 game and it's but a blip in radar. 40k games aren't big important battles.

Funny that literally the same folks keep coming back with the same relics and wargear and traits and MORE EXPERIENCE.

"no this Mars Triumphant is a different replacement one to the Mars Triumphant that you destroyed last week. Yes, same name and it gained XP and battle scars from that battle, but no yeah totally different tank and crew. A replacement." *Nodnod*

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Funny that literally the same folks keep coming back with the same relics and wargear and traits and MORE EXPERIENCE.

"no this Mars Triumphant is a different replacement one to the Mars Triumphant that you destroyed last week. Yes, same name and it gained XP and battle scars from that battle, but no yeah totally different tank and crew. A replacement." *Nodnod*

This you?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Who, me? I am not insisting that at all. If that is what you are getting from my words, then I am sorry I failed to communicate well.

What you seem to want is every single game ever to be part of a massive narrative that never ends and every single person who plays 40k has to do the same. Sometimes people just want to chuck dice and hang out with friends for gods sake.

Dai wrote:
I agree with unit, they could do a hell of a lot more when it comes to narrative scenarios but in order to do so the first thing they need to do is reduce lethality. The odd phyrric victory is perfectly fluffy, constant phyrric victories may be fluffy if you reallllly stretch it but it sure is boring for a game mode that is meant to encourage story telling.

How many off the narrative scenarios GW has released for 9th have you tried?

 some bloke wrote:
Regardign the phrase "if they made 40k properly it could be played on planet bowling ball", this is a nonsensical standpoint. It's along the same lines as "If the computer security was designed properly then it wouldn't matter if my password is "password"".

Cover and line of sight blocking is a needed part of the game to reduce lethality, deny targets, and so on. It's part of the game, as much as charging into close combat is. planet bowling ball will always favour the long ranged guns, because if it didn't, then cover would make them overpriced.

Line of sight and blocking isn't exclusive to terrain. You can have models block other models or give models LoS like in Warmahordes where all models have a 180 degree line of sight and can block LoS to models directly behind them.

The range of guns again is a separate problem. 40k already has a problem with the range of guns being universally too long and boards being too small. Again to point at Warmahordes it solves this by having gun ranges being very short. If I remember rightly "long range" in Warmahordes is 14" or so (this is the range of a rifle on a sniper themed model).

Again as Voss said it might not be FUN but it should be playable.

Short answer, yes! And no.

If you put the time in with like minded players its the same as always.

But if anyone is optimising, keeping up with rules, etc, and you aren't using scenarios that give you an advantage, the games are in no way enjoyable.

The imbalances are just too wide and the gameplay 'gotcha' style isn't pleasant (gotcha because you simply will have no inkling what the combo or card being played will do). The games are too long as well to easily play lots are learn and unless you bring in restrictions even less balanced at 500 points.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I will slightly disagree with your Thermopylae metaphor. In 40K the 2 sides are equal whereas in the context of Persians and Greeks that small unit of Spartans delayed almost the entire Persian army. This enabled the Greeks to gather their manpower and organize against the Persian invasion. In 40K there isn't really that scale of conflict being reflected. Both sides are of equal stature and therefore each side is equally expendable. If you're going to claim that the defender was a delaying force then it couldn't have been defending much since the attacker isn't using overwhelming force to capture/overrun the objective/defenders to get to their goal. If you're going to play a Thermopylae type scenerio then the defender should have maybe 500 points to the attackers 2000. Both sides should start with CPs equal to what their starting points are (3 and 12 respectively). Then you declare that the defender has to keep the attacker from exiting some limited area of the map. Should the attacker not get X amount of points off the map before the end of Turn 5 the defender wins. Anything else the defender loses. That's a Thermopylae scenerio.

But armies don't have to be equal, that is just up to the scenario choice. 40k forces don't need to be equal and in many of the more interesting scenarios they aren't. A couple of weeks back I played an urban defence mission with 3000 points against a constantly reinforced attacker that had rolled through like 5000-6000 points of models by the end as destroyed units attacked again. Likewise, a traditional Meat Grinder mission from way back has usually been "attacker has twice the points, they win if the defender has zero models left at the end". Another personal favourite scenario, Glazer's Creek, has a 1000 point contingent of slowly whittled defenders up against multiple waves of more numerous enemies that break off when half of any single wave are killed. Like in Thermopylae, where the terrain prevented the Persians from using their massive numbers decisively, there is no stipulation that says a 40k game needs to be symmetric, even if that is usually desired for pick-up gaming. Nor do the numbers have to be reflective of the absolute forces available to each sides, as the games we play are localised snapshots of larger conflicts, mostly highlighting the rare mano-a-mano climaxes of months of arduous struggle.

The main point still remains the same: it is possible, and sensible, to see victories with heavy or total losses. That such casualty rates are arguably too common in 40k games is a wholly unrelated discussion, even if it seems that Unit can't separate the two and makes life that much harder for themselves.

As for scale, like I previously said, that's the narrative context to be taken outside the table. Any game that would care about the details of the fight at Thermopylae itself wouldn't care about the larger scale actions either beyond how it establishes the victory conditions: if a game did, it would be more akin to a hex'n'counter grand strategy game at a different level of abstraction.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
So, I agree with Unit.

In a system where narrative is included in missions, this can still happen. In fact, if the narrative was included in missions, we wouldn't have to make up why we won outside of a gamey stand in circle mission. We could have it so you needed people with particular skills to go forward and sever datalinks with electromagnetic weapons so their information can't reach their superior, or to collect weapons to resupply their troops.

The issue isn't that narrative can't possibly exist. I can pretend my Necrons stopped taking their Flintstones vitamins, and that's why they are weaker than Space Marines, and the one Marine unit that stole them get Transhuman physiology for a turn. But I don't have to if there's a narrative in the mission already there. It's not a lack of creativity on our part, it's a lack of creativity and an over reliance on the players not caring on Games Workshop's part.

Unit does have a lot of cool thoughts on narrative, and experience with other systems who do narrative in a way that he prefers. I do tend to respect his comments regarding narrative, though I often disagree.

But those missions that don't explain exactly "what" the objectives are seem to me to be the exact kind of missions that Unit needs, because one of the issues with Unit's preferences is that he doesn't like it when GW gives him too much detail, because when that happens, he doesn't feel like he's playing his dudes.

For example, MOST sisters try to advance in rank far enough that they can become sanctified enough to bless their fellow soldiers with the light of the emperor; many will aspire to sainthood; some will swear a penitent oath upon failure, and some who have sworn a penitent oath will redeem themselves. Many sisters players are grateful to have rules to do these things, but Unit has different things he wants to do with his sisters, so all this does is force him to not play his dudettes.

Most Archons do try to conquer territory in Commorragh to gain leverage over the minions they seek to recruit and most players like the minigame of fighting for territory, taking territory from rivals, earning the respect of the Trueborn or bloodbrides. But Unit doesn't want to do that either, cuz "not his dudes".

I suspect if in 9th edition 40k, if you created a mission like some of the Infinity scenarios mentioned- rescue civilians, hack data terms to interfere with environmental conditions, Unit would probably say "My dudes don't like civilians, why would rescue them- not my dudes, stop trying to shoehorn me into the Company's story and let me tell my own" or "my dudes aren't hackers though, and we like being surprised by battlefield conditions beyond our control because it tests our mettle and makes us stronger in the eyes of the emperor- not my dudes!"

I have a pet theory that if the game WASN'T 9th ed 40k, Unit would be fine with both of these missions... He generally seems to not only be fine with restrictions in other games, but seems to actually kind of like them- a progression system in Chain of Command that allowed him to choose from a handful of long term and handful of short term goals for his faction as well as a handful of battlefield actions that relate to those goals would probably seem flexible and satisfying to Unit, even though in 9th ed 40k such a thing would seem to merely limit the individuality of his dudes. But that's just a theory, and it isn't really fair to Unit for me to assume that, especially since it doesn't really move the discussion of 40k forward.

One thing that Unit and I do absolutely agree on is that GW should release a Big Book of Crusade. This would include tons of maps for folks who like to set things in the cannon verse; it would include several different campaign systems that GM's could use;it would contain additional short/ long term goals for each faction; most importantly perhaps, it would include a system for creating these things yourself so that you weren't limited by the specificity of premade story hooks.

As an example of something in Crusade that both Unit and I would like to see improved, lets look at planet and system generation in Crusade. So far, Tau, Genestealer Cults and Tyranids generate planets which they then seek to control. The current system has Tau generating an entire system of planets with Diplomatic and Military Thresholds, Assimilation abilities and Supply Line abilities. GSC, however, has you generating planets one at a time, and they have a balance of 4 Instituions that need to be infiltrated. The Tyranids also generate planets one at a time, but they have Biomass and Resistance Crushed Thresholds for each stage of their invasion.

Now what both Unit and I likely think is a more ideal solution is that there is a generic method for generating systems and the planets within them in such a way that they provide support for EVERY faction's Crusade. I can sort of fake it- like I can generate a system of planets using Tau rules, and then I can add Instituions, Biomass and Resistance Crushed Thresholds to the planets I've already created. But that isn't quite as elegant as a system that just gives you rules for bringing enough detail to a planet that every faction can meaningfully interact with that planet in their own way to further their own short and long term goals. A Big Book of Crusade would be the perfect place for such a system.

 Gert wrote:
What you seem to want is every single game ever to be part of a massive narrative that never ends and every single person who plays 40k has to do the same. Sometimes people just want to chuck dice and hang out with friends for gods sake.

Unit was pretty explicitly talking about narrative campaigns, not every casual pick-up game of 40K.

I tend to agree that for a narrative campaign, the Crusade system of coming back with the same forces every week, all resurrected and back to full health after being killed to a man last week, is weird. It also completely kills the idea that a 2000pt battle is just the pivotal part of a larger battlefield; the contrivance that explains why a character like Abaddon or Guilliman only ever seems to have a few dozen dudes in tow.

For a campaign, I would prefer a system that suggests I actually have an army at my disposal, fighting over a defined area of terrain, with asymmetric battles being possible depending on how forces are arrayed. There would have to be concessions to what I actually have in my collection, and a little bit of contrivance might still be needed ('no no, this isn't the Baneblade from last week, this is a totally different one that has never been seen in the same room'), but it wouldn't have to be too complicated. White Dwarf used to have campaigns like this.

To me it feels very much like Crusade is escalation-league gameplay first and narrative support second- which it seems is what Unit is criticizing.

Edit: And maybe it's not fair to criticize Crusade as being unsuited for campaigns; maybe that's not the intent to begin with, and it's really just meant to spice up playing against the same people with the same forces, and that's fine. Maybe the mission design where objectives are abstract tokens that give you abstract points for standing next to them work really well for tournament play and aren't intended to be narratively-focused, and that's fine. But I do think it is then fair to point out that those systems aren't narratively-focused, and explaining gameplay outcomes narratively requires post-hoc rationalization of the gameplay rather than the gameplay being designed to convey a narrative to begin with.

 Grimtuff wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:
What rubbish. The only thing you've gotten right in there is players needing to communicate. But that's been true since before 40k existed....
You do not need large collections & high degrees of system mastery to enjoy a game of 40k.
Likewise you can generally* get by the same models/army for many years.

Bruh if I bought clowns and my opponent bought Orks or Guard, no amount of communicating is gonna make games fun.

Then don't be TFG & bring clowns.

So you're saying if someone is attached to a unit or an army then 40k breaks down, you know- just like AnomaderRake said and you called "rubbish". Pick a lane mate.

I think you've selectively missed this bit of what I wrote:
"But seriously? Yes, there is some amount of communication that'll result in a fun game with those forces. And if you insist upon playing such a match-up outside a tourney then it's on you & your opponent to find out what that is."

Getting a decent game between two vastly un-equel forces requires some more effort than just walking into the shop & playing some random Matched Play mission.