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.

As with every new WH40K edition I need to see only one thing before I even check anything else to decide if it is worth returning.

If we take an average 25minutes at the gaming table :
- is it 5 minutes of making decisions and performing moves vs 20 minutes of doing several steps of mindless RNG and other tedious admin (like in all wh40k iterations so far)
or
-is it 5 minutes of quick, unobtrusive resolution vs 20 minutes of actually playing the game - making moves, decisions, choices (like in a well designed, modern tabletop game)

 Galas wrote:
Modern Warhammer 40k, even the people that likes it, will tell you its a very tactically shallow game.

Bwahahaha!!! 40K has always been a D&D game with too many combatants—long before CCGs existed.

 Galas wrote:
Modern Warhammer 40k, even the people that likes it, will tell you its a very tactically shallow game.

Its "ingame tactics" dont come from realistic wargaming simulation but out of abstract gamey tabletop rules. Its all about counting inches, dancing, LOS blocking terrain, pile ins, consolidations. Its a ugly game to watch and to play at top level.

It lacks any of the amount of tactics you would expect of a proper squad level wargame: Cover fire, supression, smoke screens, running from cover to cover, anti-tank vs tanks and all the tactical implications of vehicles, morale, etc... plus the fantasy rules one would expect from warhammer: powerfull but dangerous psychic rules, duels and characters dunking on challenges, etc...

So when you play Warhammer 40k in today day and age you dont feel you are playing a game thats trying to simulate a battle (Thats what a wargame is) but you feel like you are playing a card game: I activate my Ballistarus Dreadnought and I use this power on it, he shots and kills your unit, now you'll shoot and kill it on your next turn, trading in my favour.

40K has never been a wargame. Period.

This is not up for debate. It's a fact. If you guys fell for the marketing at the time, that's on you.

If you dont see a difference in how the game functions now and the evolution of the rules between RT and now 11th, thats on you.

Does it even count as a wargame if there's not a 4-star general umpiring?

Selfcontrol wrote:


40K has never been a wargame. Period.

This is not up for debate. It's a fact. If you guys fell for the marketing at the time, that's on you.

It very much is up for debate. It's not really been much of a wargame for several editions, but it certainly has been at points in the past. You can debate how good a wargame it is or was, but I think it would be difficult to support the claim it's never been one.

 Nevelon wrote:
Did anyone watch any/all the games to glean info? I was half listening to the first, but was distracted. They did mention something a out fast rolling and wound allocation that sounded new.

I skimmed through, but got bored quickly when there was no mic on the players - just official commentary played over the top. Auspex Tactics has done a good summary vid with most of the gameplay changes highlighted. The only other thing I noticed was that the new enhancements that are unit upgrades seem to be ok to duplicate - in a couple of games multiple units had the same enhancement applied to them.

What I read up was point upgrades are back.

 Galas wrote:
If you dont see a difference in how the game functions now and the evolution of the rules between RT and now 11th, thats on you.

Neither RT nor 2nd, nor 3th-7th were wargames.

There are plenty of reasons to not like current 40K. Saying it’s because it’s "not a wargame anymore" isn’t one of them, because 40K has never been a wargame in the first place.

Selfcontrol wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If you dont see a difference in how the game functions now and the evolution of the rules between RT and now 11th, thats on you.

Neither RT nor 2nd, nor 3th-7th were wargames.

There are plenty of reasons to not like current 40K. Saying it’s because it’s "not a wargame anymore" isn’t one of them, because 40K has never been a wargame in the first place.

Perhaps you could explain what exactly you think a wargame is, and what are some good examples of such?

Selfcontrol wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If you dont see a difference in how the game functions now and the evolution of the rules between RT and now 11th, thats on you.

Neither RT nor 2nd, nor 3th-7th were wargames.

There are plenty of reasons to not like current 40K. Saying it’s because it’s "not a wargame anymore" isn’t one of them, because 40K has never been a wargame in the first place.

As someone who does professional wargaming, I would say 2nd ed certainly was and RT could be, but at a level that most wargames abstract away. But there is a strong roleplay element with some wargames and it had that somewhat.

Can't speak to the rest. In terms of 'game' wargames I think they met the definition. A core objective, perhaps a secondary task or series of tasks. The game had meaningful manoeuvre. While complicated it was still complex.

Modern 40k is extremely complicated but not that complex. The design space has shrunk as the tactical tabletop layer has changed, with tactics shifted into cards and trading decisions. They also changed the decision making space with the army seletction. Not bad on its own but when you have limited choice on the tabletop it is cumulative.

 Nevelon wrote:
Did anyone watch any/all the games to glean info? I was half listening to the first, but was distracted. They did mention something a out fast rolling and wound allocation that sounded new.

No need. I'll read all about it when my Armageddon box arrives.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If you dont see a difference in how the game functions now and the evolution of the rules between RT and now 11th, thats on you.

Neither RT nor 2nd, nor 3th-7th were wargames.

There are plenty of reasons to not like current 40K. Saying it’s because it’s "not a wargame anymore" isn’t one of them, because 40K has never been a wargame in the first place.

Perhaps you could explain what exactly you think a wargame is, and what are some good examples of such?

here is some options for reading
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6494481b9e7a8b00139329d8/Influence_Wargaming_Handbook_web.pdf
https://www.professionalwargaming.co.uk/Complete-Wargames-Handbook-Dunnigan.pdf

 Galas wrote:
Modern Warhammer 40k, even the people that likes it, will tell you its a very tactically shallow game.

Its "ingame tactics" dont come from realistic wargaming simulation but out of abstract gamey tabletop rules. ...

I activate my Ballistarus Dreadnought and I use this power on it, he shots and kills your unit, now you'll shoot and kill it on your next turn, trading in my favour.

Current 40k boils down to two main goals; trading effectively, and putting units in the right place at the right time.

I think the 'tactical' aspect essentially relies on how well you understand what an opponent can do. An experienced player who is aware that their opponent could reposition and grab an objective or wipe out their tanky centrepiece unit will be playing quite differently to a casual player that just wings it and gets caught out.

Functionally it's a fancy version of rock/scissors/paper. You want to have your Scissors units in position to score an objective or kill an opponent's Paper, while not losing them to Rock. If you don't fully understand which opposing units are which then there's much less depth of tactical planning.

The 40K setting itself never allowed it to be a wargame.

Between RT where a GM was recommended, the fantasy factions that more or less ignored entire rules, the absurd technologies (and magic !) with entirely invented effects (some of them absolutely lethal when combined in certain faction combos, to the point that it was practically impossible to counter them), and the very fact that army list building and purchasable options allow for an enormous degree of tailoring against your opponent in an extremely "gamey" way, 40K has always been, first and foremost, a board game.

You can add as much suppressive fire as you want, add or remove initiative, make grenades either actual weapons or just an initiative bonus on the charge, include morale rules or not, but when you have entire armies that, for entirely lore-driven reasons, simply ignore some rules, or are bizarrely vulnerable to certain other rules, then it is not a wargame. You are firmly in the real of a board game. The illusion of 40K being a wargame never worked on me.

 Galas wrote:
It lacks any of the amount of tactics you would expect of a proper squad level wargame: Cover fire, supression, smoke screens, running from cover to cover, anti-tank vs tanks and all the tactical implications of vehicles, morale, etc... plus the fantasy rules one would expect from warhammer: powerfull but dangerous psychic rules, duels and characters dunking on challenges, etc...

It has all of those things.

So when you play Warhammer 40k in today day and age you dont feel you are playing a game thats trying to simulate a battle (Thats what a wargame is) but you feel like you are playing a card game: I activate my Ballistarus Dreadnought and I use this power on it, he shots and kills your unit, now you'll shoot and kill it on your next turn, trading in my favour.

I have never felt as though I was playing with cards instead of models.

catbarf wrote:It's a way of describing the perception that modern 40K derives its depth/tactics more from abstract resource mechanics, bespoke special abilities, and ability synergies- all typical characteristics of CCGs- than from core rules and WYSIWYG wargear/upgrades as in earlier editions or traditional wargames.

This makes sense to me but those aren't really characteristics I associate with CCGs specifically? If anything, my first thought would be video games, and I have felt that with the emphasis on standing in abstract circles for "victory points" and activating unit abilities (popping cooldowns?) that the latest editions have felt too similar to a video game than what I'm looking for in a tabletop game. But there's also just too much more going on in a wargame than a card game for me to be able to associate a wargame as being equivalent or even steering in the direction of. The wargame would have to lose the concepts of movement, range and line of sight, at minimum, for me to be like "yea, okay, this is feeling like a card game".

The good news is, 11th edition looks like they're killing that "standing in circles" concept at least!

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If you dont see a difference in how the game functions now and the evolution of the rules between RT and now 11th, thats on you.

Neither RT nor 2nd, nor 3th-7th were wargames.

There are plenty of reasons to not like current 40K. Saying it’s because it’s "not a wargame anymore" isn’t one of them, because 40K has never been a wargame in the first place.

Perhaps you could explain what exactly you think a wargame is, and what are some good examples of such?

here is some options for reading
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6494481b9e7a8b00139329d8/Influence_Wargaming_Handbook_web.pdf
https://www.professionalwargaming.co.uk/Complete-Wargames-Handbook-Dunnigan.pdf

I think that's just a fundementally different definition of the term wargaming.
Like saying boy-racers aren't racing if it isn't Formula 1

 Nevelon wrote:
Did anyone watch any/all the games to glean info? I was half listening to the first, but was distracted. They did mention something a out fast rolling and wound allocation that sounded new.

Only thing I saw was they made the tournament rule of "ground floor ruins are always completely LOS blocking even if there's open windows" an official rule now.

Removed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Did anyone watch any/all the games to glean info? I was half listening to the first, but was distracted. They did mention something a out fast rolling and wound allocation that sounded new.

Only thing I saw was they made the tournament rule of "ground floor ruins are always completely LOS blocking even if there's open windows" an official rule now.

They did break down fast rolling to hit and saves and provided diagrams of each on screen.

Auspex Tactics did a pretty decent summary.

Tracked that down and watched it.

Liking what I’m seeing so far. Going to interesting to get the whole picture, but pretty optimistic for 11th at the moment. Will take some getting used to once the tricks and corner cases are learned. And then FAQ’d/nerfed.

Selfcontrol wrote:
The 40K setting itself never allowed it to be a wargame.

Tell that to Epic: Armageddon. A masterpiece of a wargame in the 40k setting.

Genestealer Cult cheapy detachments are up. Kind of losing the will to care very much. I guess the main lament is that this probably means Final Day is cast into the abyss - at least for a while. (This was always the most likely result, but I had hoped otherwise.)

Sped through the games yesterday (I don't have 12~ hours to sit watching a ceiling camera). Not sure if it was the dice or the lists, but the first two felt kind of one-sided. I sort of joked with Jidmah a few weeks ago that one of the missions seem to be "just win" (in the context of 9th/10th) - and some of these felt that way. If you can control the middle of the table (even if that just by screening stuff out etc) then you sort of walk away with it.

The game with the pros was perhaps unsurprisingly much closer - but it also had by far the most complex primary missions. (It probably won't be complex with a bit of practice, but there's more to it than "kill something and hold something").

For all the mockery of how 40k has no tactics etc (questionable) - there's always a concern if it ends up being a fun game for pro's playing properly, but a bit of a slog for amateurs playing amatuerishly. I think this was arguably the engine behind changing 9th. No one really likes losing in the deployment phase, but having to spend 3+ hours to confirm it.

"how well should a bad player perform" is probably a problem as old as casual wargames are. There are definitely some players that are just bad and they don't want to get better.
Which is fine, if they're okay not winning.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is every faction getting a focus? Or just some?
I'm mostly concerned with the Tau, I'm not convinced hiding in ruins with like 12" visibility is going to do them any good at all.

Of course it's a wargame. It's a game solely about war, what else would it be?

Have any of the new detachments been more then 1detachment point? Eldar armored host looks to be reworked in the new system. Not sure how I feel about that. I’ve always been a fan of the grav tanks, so getting the full support with all the enhancements and strats was something I enjoyed. If it’s reduced to a 1 point one, we can only expect a scant handful of options. Of course, it makes it better for having the rest of your detachment points to boost the passengers. But if you want the mech to be the focus, we lost a little bit here.

What is / is not a wargame isn't necessarily a question for this thread, I don't think, nor is "W40k is not a wargame" a meaningful criticism OR defense of its game design.

From 4chan:

Fakest rumour going.

RazorEdge wrote:From 4chan:

Billicus wrote:Fakest rumour going.

Yea, seems they already have the 30k stuff to scratch the “classic 40k” itch. While not a 100% match for people wanting retro/middlehammer games, it’s pretty close. And if they add another ruleset for 40k they risk fragmenting their playerbase.

 Nevelon wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:From 4chan:

Billicus wrote:Fakest rumour going.

Yea, seems they already have the 30k stuff to scratch the “classic 40k” itch. While not a 100% match for people wanting retro/middlehammer games, it’s pretty close. And if they add another ruleset for 40k they risk fragmenting their playerbase.

Yeah, "We already have Horus Heresy" was exactly my thought, especially when they mentioned TOW since GW has referred to TOW as the "Horus Heresy of AOS" a few times.