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.

When GW announced that there would be 3 ways to play I was thinking of something closer to 3 modifications to the actual rules. Not 3 sets of missions with 2 systems for list building. I know we haven't seen it all yet. But I feel like they have talked about it enough to know that casual, narrative, and competitive just looks like different lists of missions with guidelines for list building.

I don't know exactly what I was expecting. But I felt like it would be a more granular rule set with more detailed or less detailed rules. IGOUGO vs alternating activations. Something that would have actually been 3 games using the same core unit profiles but allowing people to play different actual games with them.

But that doesn't appear to be what we have.

Some people will prefer power and some will prefer points. Build your list using either system. Then pick some missions. Does it really matter that they call them narrative? Does the game actually change because you pick a scenario that has you set up differently and comes with some unique strategems? It's still the same game.

I guess I just wanted more out of 3 ways to play. Bummer.

I'll reiterate what I said elsewhere; ways 1&2 are for people who physically, mentally or from a perspective of ROI can't handle way #3. That they're putting so much work into way #3 is welcome though.

I'd suggest that future side games along the lines of Necromunda will scratch the itch you're mentioning, as that's the only way GW will make money in alternate rule systems without cannibalizing from the central game.

I am not concerned about who the current "3 ways to play" are for. It's irrelevant. My concern is that the 3 ways to play don't actually change anything in terms of how you play besides mission types.

Lets disregard points vs power levels. It's nonsense. Anyone can build their lists using either method and still participate in any of the missions from all "3 ways to play".

2 ways to build your lists would be a very accurate statement about the newest edition of the game.

But 3 ways to play is just... nonsense. You have a single 12 pages of core rules. Modular advanced rules that can be used or not as the players see fit (stronghold assault and such). and 3 sets of missions going from quick and light simple missions, more advanced missions, and what I assume will be asymmetrical narrative missions.

The truth is we have 1 way to play. 2 ways to list build and a smattering of different missions to meet the time and preference of the players exactly like 7th had (though I expect these ones to be better put together and integrated into the rules).

There are 3 ways to play

1 - 2000 points of math
2 - 100 points of math
3 - Screw math, just drop a handful of models on the table!

Why would you expect anything like this ?
they have been quite clear from the beginning on what to expect.

There are rules for the tournament minded croud, for those who don't mind it if you go ~50-100 pts over as long as it is roughly matching and there is anything goes as long as we have fun.

If you want other ways to play then there is
-Shadow war
-40k
-30k
-40k using epic rules.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Why would you expect anything like this ?
they have been quite clear from the beginning on what to expect.

There are rules for the tournament minded croud, for those who don't mind it if you go ~50-100 pts over as long as it is roughly matching and there is anything goes as long as we have fun.

If you want other ways to play then there is
-Shadow war
-40k
-30k
-40k using epic rules.

I didn't really "expect" it. I hoped.

They said 3 ways to play. They didn't really deliver.

 Lance845 wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Why would you expect anything like this ?
they have been quite clear from the beginning on what to expect.

There are rules for the tournament minded croud, for those who don't mind it if you go ~50-100 pts over as long as it is roughly matching and there is anything goes as long as we have fun.

If you want other ways to play then there is
-Shadow war
-40k
-30k
-40k using epic rules.

I didn't really "expect" it. I hoped.

They said 3 ways to play. They didn't really deliver.

Points. (Now)
Power. (Looser but still able to make a rough balance.)
Whatever. (Complete freedom of whatever you like).

I count three.

 Lance845 wrote:


I didn't really "expect" it. I hoped.

They said 3 ways to play. They didn't really deliver.

What did you "hope" for? 40k, Monopoly and connect 5? It's the same game, different modes. Not three different games.

pm713 wrote:

Points. (Now)
Power. (Looser but still able to make a rough balance.)
Whatever. (Complete freedom of whatever you like).

I count three.

Again, that is ways to build a list. Not ways to play the game.

They've never made it any secret that the "three ways" were "full points, fast points, or no point", so I don't know why you're trying to make it sound like GW cheated you when they've been telling you exactly what they meant the whole time.

Are they making too big a deal out of essentially just formally declaring points to be "optional"? Yes, after all given the choice most people will still prefer points, and the people who don't likely houseruled to simplify or ignore them anyway. So it's not a big deal and GW getting all excited about it is kind of silly.

But they've never lied about it, they've always made it perfectly clear what they meant by "three ways".

I really think you were expecting too much then. Three ways to play the same game might have been clearer.

Open play will probably have rules for various types of multiplayer games, it might have rules for "Triumph & Treachery" style games too (making alliances and breaking them mid game).

Narrative Play will probably have rules for various campaign styles, like map campaigns, matrix campaigns, ladder campaigns. It will also have rules for asymmetrical missions, and Plantstrike and Cities of Death will probably go into here too.

Matched Play will have both Eternal War and Maelstrom game types. It'll probably have extra rules for balance (perhaps restricting psychic powers or numbers of detachments), it will probably have alliance rules too.

That seems like loads of rules to me (mainly based on what the GHB for AoS brings). They've already talked a little about the advanced rules Cities of Death will bring (like the advanced ruin rules). I would think you'd be very excited by it all!

For most gamers, Matched Play will be the default gamemode. Narrative Play will be the games you strive to have (and spend months preparing for) and Open Play will have tons of ideas for when all your friends are together and you want to play a big multiplayer battle!

 Purifier wrote:

What did you "hope" for? 40k, Monopoly and connect 5? It's the same game, different modes. Not three different games.

A version with alternating activations was my biggest (but I knew it was unrealistic) hope.

But variants in that kind of vein.

You have a unit data sheet with the characteristics. But the core mechanics, these 12 pages of rules, are what put those characteristics to work.

It's easy enough to make variants on those core rules that adjusts how the game plays and how people approach it. Even something as simple as the way a turn is structured changes a lot.


What we have been shown so far is not 3 different modes. Look at everything they have said about each of the 3 ways to play. Is any of it actually any different from any of the 7th edition missions that showed up in one supplement or another? Again, ignore the power vs points, vs free for all. It's just list building. The actual playing of the game is a new edition with a redo of everything 7th had. Narrative missions. Maelstrom of War and such. Kill points.

Just because they tell you it's 3 ways to play and place them into "categories" doesn't mean they are actually giving you anything more than what they did before.

Now I know I sound real negative right now. I am pumped for 8th. I really like a lot of the changes. Game looks to be heading in a direction that makes it not a chore to play. I am just bummed that "3 ways to play" is a paper thin statement with no substance behind it what-so-ever.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

What did you "hope" for? 40k, Monopoly and connect 5? It's the same game, different modes. Not three different games.

A version with alternating activations was my biggest (but I knew it was unrealistic) hope.

But variants in that kind of vein.

You have a unit data sheet with the characteristics. But the core mechanics, these 12 pages of rules, are what put those characteristics to work.

It's easy enough to make variants on those core rules that adjusts how the game plays and how people approach it. Even something as simple as the way a turn is structured changes a lot.


What we have been shown so far is not 3 different modes. Look at everything they have said about each of the 3 ways to play. Is any of it actually any different from any of the 7th edition missions that showed up in one supplement or another? Again, ignore the power vs points, vs free for all. It's just list building. The actual playing of the game is a new edition with a redo of everything 7th had. Narrative missions. Maelstrom of War and such. Kill points.

Just because they tell you it's 3 ways to play and place them into "categories" doesn't mean they are actually giving you anything more than what they did before.

Now I know I sound real negative right now. I am pumped for 8th. I really like a lot of the changes. Game looks to be heading in a direction that makes it not a chore to play. I am just bummed that "3 ways to play" is a paper thin statement with no substance behind it what-so-ever.

Yeah, you are totally wrong about narrative vs matched. There's WAAAAY more difference between those two game modes than list building and thinking that's all it is is how we end up with army balance like 7rh has. Narrative and Matched play operate under the fundamental difference that the point of narrative play is to have fun and tell a story and the point of matches play is to win. No one should really care too much about who wins in a narrative game so long as some cool gak happens and matched is where every ounce of gamesmanship you have should come out to play.

As for the rest, it seems like you didn't really want 3 ways to play, you wanted 3 GAMES to play, and guess what? They gave you that, they just didn't handhold you through it.

Literally anything you do technically qualifies as open play, that's how OPEN it is. Want an alternating activations mode? Open play. Want a variant that uses cards instead of dice? Open play. Want to play warmahordes? Open play. Doing your taxes? Technically open play.

What games workshop has done instead of creating some silly minigames or 'side modes' or whatever, what they've done is given you a sandbox where literally anything you want to do with you miniatures is officially supported by the ruleset. I kinda don't get where all this attitude keeps coming from from people. People brag all the time on this forum about their hipster 5th/2nd/Malifaux hybrid ruleset they made or w/e but the moment GW says 'hey, go nuts, we got your back!' Everyone starts smack talking anything that isn't tournament caliber beatdown games.

ERJAK wrote:

Yeah, you are totally wrong about narrative vs matched. There's WAAAAY more difference between those two game modes than list building and thinking that's all it is is how we end up with army balance like 7rh has. Narrative and Matched play operate under the fundamental difference that the point of narrative play is to have fun and tell a story and the point of matches play is to win. No one should really care too much about who wins in a narrative game so long as some cool gak happens and matched is where every ounce of gamesmanship you have should come out to play.

I don't think this is true. I see what your saying. I have seen some others say it. But I think when 2 players set up for a narrative game that narrative game has win/loose conditions for each side. They may be asymetrical, but they exist. And the way you are going to get cool stories out of that is each side trying to win and the interesting counter play that comes about when you try to stop your opponent while trying to achieve your own goal.

And the idea that matched is all WAAC idiots is also false. Many who play "matched" love when really cool gak happens on the table just as much.

As for the rest, it seems like you didn't really want 3 ways to play, you wanted 3 GAMES to play, and guess what? They gave you that, they just didn't handhold you through it.

Literally anything you do technically qualifies as open play, that's how OPEN it is. Want an alternating activations mode? Open play. Want a variant that uses cards instead of dice? Open play. Want to play warmahordes? Open play. Doing your taxes? Technically open play.

What games workshop has done instead of creating some silly minigames or 'side modes' or whatever, what they've done is given you a sandbox where literally anything you want to do with you miniatures is officially supported by the ruleset. I kinda don't get where all this attitude keeps coming from from people. People brag all the time on this forum about their hipster 5th/2nd/Malifaux hybrid ruleset they made or w/e but the moment GW says 'hey, go nuts, we got your back!' Everyone starts smack talking anything that isn't tournament caliber beatdown games.

The rest of this post seems to be a lot of nonsense. I have seen no rule that says open play is anything but the free for all that unbound was in 7th.

There is a Tabletop RPG system written by Eden Studios called the Uni System. They have basically 3 versions of it. A very Rules Lite cinematic version (buffy the vampire slayer the RPG), and very Rules Heavy (All Flesh Must Be Eaten (A zombie game)) that does a lot to emulate reality, and a mid ground that allows for not needing to keep track of if your character is hungry or tired but also not allowing players to hack into anything because they have the skill "Computer stuff!".

They all run basically the same but different aspects of the game are expanded or condensed depending on the version.


If I was making a table top war game and I was pitching 3 ways to play, I would have a very rules lite version to help introduce new players to the game and make for quick and friendly fast games (this is basically the 12 page core rules we have for 8th). I would have a very rules intensive version that pandered to those who are looking for realism in their games. Include model facings and the such. Keeping the firing arcs from vehicles in 7th (This sounds miserable to me but some people on here say they liked it so clearly there is a market for it). And something sitting in the middle.

I would have expected 3 actual ways to play. Not just 3 sets of missions.

Well one thing to keep in mind is the list building methods are separated from each other in a way, because if I bring a fully pointed list to the table you can't play against me with a PL list or slap an Imperator Titan on the table and say "Let's go!"

Well, you can sort of I guess, it's not like GW will dispatch the Inquisition if you do, but I (and I imagine most other players) would refuse to play unless both lists were built the same way. If you did insist on a PL or Open list, at the very least I'd say "Well then hold on, let me get my PL/Open list".

At any rate though, it's hard to be disappointed about GW delivering exactly what they said they would, when they've been saying this whole time that it was what they were going to do.

It's like, "GW says what it was going to do, then does it. Hugely disappointed." Ooookay?

 ross-128 wrote:
Well one thing to keep in mind is the list building methods are separated from each other in a way, because if I bring a fully pointed list to the table you can't play against me with a PL list or slap an Imperator Titan on the table and say "Let's go!"

Well, you can sort of I guess, it's not like GW will dispatch the Inquisition if you do, but I (and I imagine most other players) would refuse to play unless both lists were built the same way. If you did insist on a PL or Open list, at the very least I'd say "Well then hold on, let me get my PL/Open list".

At any rate though, it's hard to be disappointed about GW delivering exactly what they said they would, when they've been saying this whole time that it was what they were going to do.

It's like, "GW says what it was going to do, then does it. Hugely disappointed." Ooookay?

Like you say, they are separated from each other in a way. But list building isn't really playing. It's just part of setting up.

Like I have said. I like a lot of what I am seeing of 8th. 90% great changes. I would have liked a more tactical overwatch closer to whats in SW:A. I would have preferred some more interesting FoC lists. Right now it looks kind of dull to me. Gotta see the whole picture to know for sure. I would have liked more diversity in the "3 ways to play" by having 3 actual ways to play.

Well I'm sure the 'meta' of all three game systems will be very different. I feel a lot of people playing open play want a different expierience than the people wanting matched etc etc. I'm happy with it, there are a lot worse things coming in 8th I think

 Lance845 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Yeah, you are totally wrong about narrative vs matched. There's WAAAAY more difference between those two game modes than list building and thinking that's all it is is how we end up with army balance like 7rh has. Narrative and Matched play operate under the fundamental difference that the point of narrative play is to have fun and tell a story and the point of matches play is to win. No one should really care too much about who wins in a narrative game so long as some cool gak happens and matched is where every ounce of gamesmanship you have should come out to play.

I don't think this is true. I see what your saying. I have seen some others say it. But I think when 2 players set up for a narrative game that narrative game has win/loose conditions for each side. They may be asymetrical, but they exist. And the way you are going to get cool stories out of that is each side trying to win and the interesting counter play that comes about when you try to stop your opponent while trying to achieve your own goal.

And the idea that matched is all WAAC idiots is also false. Many who play "matched" love when really cool gak happens on the table just as much.

As for the rest, it seems like you didn't really want 3 ways to play, you wanted 3 GAMES to play, and guess what? They gave you that, they just didn't handhold you through it.

Literally anything you do technically qualifies as open play, that's how OPEN it is. Want an alternating activations mode? Open play. Want a variant that uses cards instead of dice? Open play. Want to play warmahordes? Open play. Doing your taxes? Technically open play.

What games workshop has done instead of creating some silly minigames or 'side modes' or whatever, what they've done is given you a sandbox where literally anything you want to do with you miniatures is officially supported by the ruleset. I kinda don't get where all this attitude keeps coming from from people. People brag all the time on this forum about their hipster 5th/2nd/Malifaux hybrid ruleset they made or w/e but the moment GW says 'hey, go nuts, we got your back!' Everyone starts smack talking anything that isn't tournament caliber beatdown games.

The rest of this post seems to be a lot of nonsense. I have seen no rule that says open play is anything but the free for all that unbound was in 7th.

There is a Tabletop RPG system written by Eden Studios called the Uni System. They have basically 3 versions of it. A very Rules Lite cinematic version (buffy the vampire slayer the RPG), and very Rules Heavy (All Flesh Must Be Eaten (A zombie game)) that does a lot to emulate reality, and a mid ground that allows for not needing to keep track of if your character is hungry or tired but also not allowing players to hack into anything because they have the skill "Computer stuff!".

They all run basically the same but different aspects of the game are expanded or condensed depending on the version.


If I was making a table top war game and I was pitching 3 ways to play, I would have a very rules lite version to help introduce new players to the game and make for quick and friendly fast games (this is basically the 12 page core rules we have for 8th). I would have a very rules intensive version that pandered to those who are looking for realism in their games. Include model facings and the such. Keeping the firing arcs from vehicles in 7th (This sounds miserable to me but some people on here say they liked it so clearly there is a market for it). And something sitting in the middle.

I would have expected 3 actual ways to play. Not just 3 sets of missions.

You're missing the point in that first section, it's not that you DON'T win in narrative it's that winning isn't the POINT of narrative. The fundamental core of why you're doing what you're doing is completely different between the two. A Matched play game has more in common with a tournament game of warmahordes than a narrative game.

As for your suggestion to what you'd do with 3 ways to play I have to say that it seems to me like a giant waste of time. There's no meaningful differentiation between the 3 setups, it wouldn't be '3 ways to play' it would be '1 way to play but occasionally you have to read more'. Even in your example way 2 is so inconsequential even you didn't bother to give it meaning. Scalable complexity A) doesn't do anything to impact the actual nature of the game you're playing, just how long it takes to learn it and B) is made irrelevant by just making the initial ruleset really good.

The 3 ways to play model GW put forward is vastly superior (though definitely not perfect) because it stops to ask you WHY you're playing the game and not just 'how much bookkeeping do I have to do'

Side note: the sigmar model of open play is so broad that pretty much any game could fall under it's umbrella, yes the taxes thing is hyperbole but it is a valid point that anything you do, any game you play with Citadel Miniatures technically qualifies as open play because the whole mode is about player freedom.

Bottle has already described the differences we can expect from the thre ways of play. There are bigger differences than just list building. But don't expect a 100% Narrative driven sistem like Mordheim as the "Narrative play" rules.

ERJAK wrote:
The 3 ways to play model GW put forward is vastly superior (though definitely not perfect) because it stops to ask you WHY you're playing the game and not just 'how much bookkeeping do I have to do'

No, "how much bookkeeping do I have to do" is exactly what GW is doing. The rules for the three ways to play are the same, except for how accurate the point system is. Matched play is balanced, narrative has point costs that are deliberately inaccurate, and open play throws out points entirely. Any ideas about asking why you're playing the game are entirely an invention by certain players making their own personal assumptions about how things should work, they aren't found in the rules provided by GW.

Sounds a lot like GeeDeb said "cruise control is an option" and you heard "self driving".

ERJAK wrote:

You're missing the point in that first section, it's not that you DON'T win in narrative it's that winning isn't the POINT of narrative. The fundamental core of why you're doing what you're doing is completely different between the two. A Matched play game has more in common with a tournament game of warmahordes than a narrative game.

I think your wrong. You assume too much about peoples motivations. I will likely be using points with my group because I enjoy squeezing in the last few points to build a well rounded list, trimming a few models here to get upgrades over there.

But I also intend to play narrative missions because asymmetrical game play is often fascinating and builds to some really interesting match ups. Depends on what the missions actually are but no reason I couldn't.

As for your suggestion to what you'd do with 3 ways to play I have to say that it seems to me like a giant waste of time. There's no meaningful differentiation between the 3 setups, it wouldn't be '3 ways to play' it would be '1 way to play but occasionally you have to read more'. Even in your example way 2 is so inconsequential even you didn't bother to give it meaning. Scalable complexity A) doesn't do anything to impact the actual nature of the game you're playing, just how long it takes to learn it and B) is made irrelevant by just making the initial ruleset really good.

Again, I disagree. Because the point is that people will choose the complexity they get the most enjoyment out of. People pick different games right now because they like or dislike how indepth the rules are. To reiterate, my preference would be for variances on the turn structure and the way units are activated (alternating activations vs IgoUgo vs alternating within a phase (I move you move I shoot you shoot)). I have seen way too many threads in the proposed rules on ways to change that, which would have a drastically meaningful impact on the way the game was played, to think it would be unwelcome if the 3 ways to play were built off of that.

The 3 ways to play model GW put forward is vastly superior (though definitely not perfect) because it stops to ask you WHY you're playing the game and not just 'how much bookkeeping do I have to do'

Side note: the sigmar model of open play is so broad that pretty much any game could fall under it's umbrella, yes the taxes thing is hyperbole but it is a valid point that anything you do, any game you play with Citadel Miniatures technically qualifies as open play because the whole mode is about player freedom.

Various different lists of missions that help encourage different types of attitudes is one thing and could be entirely separate from, and usable in, every type of game play that I listed above.

There are other rules that are present in Matched Play for balancing and are not present in the others because screw balancing. Such as "half your army must start on the table." Doesn't work for narrative because maybe your narrative is that everyone is dropping in like awesome Rambo commandoes, so it's left out of Narrative.

It's a framework for you to build your own narrative in. Lazy? Maybe. But GW has in no way promised you anything that you're being snubbed.

PourSpelur wrote:
Sounds a lot like GeeDeb said "cruise control is an option" and you heard "self driving".

Have an exalt; that made me laugh quite hard.

What I was getting was 'Three ways to play means 3 different games!' when, i'd suggest, the gaming community is better served by them pouring their efforts into making one game *well*.

 Peregrine wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
The 3 ways to play model GW put forward is vastly superior (though definitely not perfect) because it stops to ask you WHY you're playing the game and not just 'how much bookkeeping do I have to do'

No, "how much bookkeeping do I have to do" is exactly what GW is doing. The rules for the three ways to play are the same, except for how accurate the point system is. Matched play is balanced, narrative has point costs that are deliberately inaccurate, and open play throws out points entirely. Any ideas about asking why you're playing the game are entirely an invention by certain players making their own personal assumptions about how things should work, they aren't found in the rules provided by GW.

This is just incorrect. They have different rules. Just look at the Three rules of one that Matched play has in Age of Sigmar or the Rules for different types of narrative campaings for narrative play. For 8th they have already confirmed some specific Matched Play rules, like the 50% of your army need to be in the table at the beginnin of the battle, or restricting the number of Detachment you can take, etc...
The differences are in the rules also, not just in the "point system" you are using. Or not using one at all.