EmperorsChampion wrote:
These are all great replies. I tend to see a traditional battle as something which involves two armies, not really tailored to face one another, but rather an all comers list. Nothing generally spammed, maybe one or two prized units which make up the center piece of the army. Few MCs and no super heavies. Defiantly a theme is a big part of it as well.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Traditional 40k would be armies chosen from the many books available, any legal Formations or Detachments, any amount of legal Flyers or LOWs and everyone involved just happy to be playing a game and throwing some dice on a mission in the rulebook. So, following the rules as provided and enjoying it.

Non-traditional to me is trying to pull out random restrictions or force someone to play a list they didn't want to bring in the first place. Sadly, it's very difficult to have a traditional game these games.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
We have different definitions of traditional then. My traditional game of 40k follows the rules presented. My classic game of 40k only had my Fleet of Claw models able to run, and I sure do miss that exclusivity... But having older rulesets on a pedestal isn't tradition, it's just classic.

But you do have to realize, the game right now is all about restrictions between the two players to find the middle ground of fun. How many posts here on Dakka are complaints about the power levels and how outclassed certain builds or entire factions are? That's just how it is now. Therefore, my traditional doesn't have any of that. It's just two people playing Warhammer 40k with the current ruleset and having fun.

 EmperorsChampion wrote:
In your point of view, what would be a traditional game of 40k? How would the lists be built? I'm just curious as to what others might think what it would be.

 Yarium wrote:
Like the_scotsman said, it depends when you started. I'd say the same as Xerics (change "no formations" to single-CAD only, and 1500 points), but with an added caveat... 40k no longer follows the rules that lead to traditional game-play. The very core of the game has changed that favours a different style from what I would consider traditional.

Codex-wise, there's far more power in the codexes now than there were in "traditional" times. Drop Pods offer far more reliability than any deep strike in ye olde timese, Winderiders can have heavy weapons on each and every model as a fast, evasive TROOP choice, and the access to improved cover and invulnerable saves has never been easier. Yes, in ye olde times, a Carnifex was difficult to gun down before it reached your lines (still just at T6 and a 2+ save), and it didn't even have access to Run moves.

But the foundational rules of the game also supported this. There was no jump-shoot-jump, no running unless you had fleet (though you could run and charge if you had it), dangerous terrain was LETHAL (no armour saves against it), no snap shooting (you just didn't shoot), no jinking, moving at all reduced rapid fire to a single shot within 12 inches, and the most survivable units in the game had a 5+ Invulnerable save, followed by a 5+ Feel No Pain (which very, very few units in the game had access to).

You can't go back to that without literally going back to previous gaming editions.

The game is far faster now. Armies are larger for the same points cost, but they kind of need to be because everything is so much better than it used to be. Frankly, I think the game works better when you have more tension from actions requiring longer investments. But that might just be me.

 Yarium wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
We have different definitions of traditional then. My traditional game of 40k follows the rules presented. My classic game of 40k only had my Fleet of Claw models able to run, and I sure do miss that exclusivity... But having older rulesets on a pedestal isn't tradition, it's just classic.

But you do have to realize, the game right now is all about restrictions between the two players to find the middle ground of fun. How many posts here on Dakka are complaints about the power levels and how outclassed certain builds or entire factions are? That's just how it is now. Therefore, my traditional doesn't have any of that. It's just two people playing Warhammer 40k with the current ruleset and having fun.

Agreed, different definitions.

I'd also agree that the game is currently in a spot where mutually agreed upon restrictions are at their greatest level since the game's inception. It's practically impossible to have a game without restrictions (even the max-4 rule in Magic: The Gathering decks, which is agreed upon by every player I've ever spoken to ever, is but a convention agreed to by all players, and forms the basis of most tournaments, but is not an actual rule within the primary rules set), but the amount and variety of 40k's restrictions are harmful to the health of the 40k community. To continue the Magic-analogy, Magic has different "formats", with "Legacy" being the least restrictive, and "Block" being the most. Legacy format allows you to play with any card from Magic's history, while Block only lets you play with the cards released in the past 3 or 6 months. This is because the creators of the game recognize that the design of cards changes with time, and the possible interactions of cards grows over time, to the point that it would not be enjoyable to all players to only ever have "everything is legal" be the norm. 40k has no similar system in place, and due to the effectively sporadic nature of codex releases, can't follow the same clear format transitions that Magic does. Additionally, we're only given each other as benchmarks to guide our decisions. Hence, I don't believe it's wrong for people to try restrictions, but it is all too easy for these restrictions to overlap in such a way that it drives the community further apart rather than closer together.

 Bottle wrote:
CLEANSE!

 edbradders wrote:
Back when I started playing you needed your opponent's permission to use a named special character. I can't remember if it was part of the rules or if it was just a house rule at my local GW though.

 ColdSadHungry wrote:

Having said that, in all walks of life people like traditional things. And there's a reasonn for that - traditional often translates as more simple. And simple is much better for consumers usually.

For me, traditional or not, I like to know the number of points we have available and build around that.

 Xerics wrote:
Traditional would also be able to walk into your FLGS and actually get to play a game. These days you have to set a date, grill a trout and hunt a bear while hoping on one foot to find a game.