PDA

View Full Version : Three ways to play - Could this work with 40k?



Yrch
25-04-2016, 12:27
First things first:
Yes, 40k needs a cleanup, there are a lot of problems with Rules n stuff but thats not the subject here :P

So, AoS will basicly get three sets of rules: Open, Narrative and Tournament.
I was wondering if this could also work with Warhammer 40.000.
A lot of new Books added very fluffy rules to the armies (KDK, Tau, the new Space Wolfes stuff) and in most Supplements you will find new Altar of War missions to play.
So with the next edition of 40k could you imagine having it some more fleshed out rules for unbound, lighter rules to play narrative or stuff like that?

WarsmithGarathor94
25-04-2016, 12:48
I think its a good idea to be honest

Tylertt
25-04-2016, 13:39
Definitely can only be a good thing moving forward!

blackcherry
25-04-2016, 13:43
I think it may be a good thing, especially if GW get help from tournament runners as they have with AoS.

That way, players won't feel they 'have' to play things a certain way to get a pickup game.

duffybear1988
25-04-2016, 13:55
I'd rather they just wrote some good army lists for a change.

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 16:20
I'd rather they just wrote some good army lists for a change.

They'll definitely need tournament organizers help with that...

lanrak
25-04-2016, 19:19
I really can not see the point with 'narrative rules.'
Every one I know can just make up cool stuff as they want to.

The rules should be written for pick up games/ tournaments.Then there should be campaign rules , with lots of additional scenario specific stuff.

That is all that is needed really.

Well written rules for competitive play, and well written rules for campaign play.
And leave it up to the players house rule anything they want to agree to in their player group.:cool:

Yvain
25-04-2016, 21:00
I really can not see the point with 'narrative rules.'
Every one I know can just make up cool stuff as they want to.

The rules should be written for pick up games/ tournaments.Then there should be campaign rules , with lots of additional scenario specific stuff.

That is all that is needed really.

Well written rules for competitive play, and well written rules for campaign play.
And leave it up to the players house rule anything they want to agree to in their player group.:cool:


The narrative rules are for their story line. Basically they have premade story scenarios that fit with their fluff campaign books. It is one of GWs better ideas, where they release mini campaigns for factions a la deathstorm and the two recent Tau books.

Haravikk
25-04-2016, 21:10
Thing is, it's not really about narrative vs competitive; good, balanced rules should be just as good for both. While a narrative setting might have wilder and more unusual scenarios etc., they should be using the same, balanced, core ruleset.
Of course, fluffy and thematic rules are important to establishing the character of an army but there's no reason they can't also be well-balanced against other forces.


In fact, if the game rules are balanced and updates are focused on refinements rather than shaking things up, then we could shake off the need for new units added to every army with every update; most of the time they're unjustified and often feel forced or gimmicky. If the game is properly managed then armies shouldn't always need new stuff, as new players will join to buy the existing models. The focus should then be on encouraging players to have multiple armies, and to develop narrative campaigns exciting battles that move the setting forward and let players participate in the story, with new releases for campaign specific limited-time-only characters and such, or unique scenery kits that fit the setting.

Every time marines get something new it makes my skin crawl, as it just feels wrong; especially when there is so much that could be done just by introducing chapter specific squad boxes that capture what's unique about each chapter, but don't necessarily radically change them (i.e- we don't all need unique devastator squad types in the rules, but unique boxes that capture the character of how a chapter's devastators differ would be nice with visual adornments, differences in stances etc. My favourite marine releases of all time are the Dark Angels and Black Templars upgrade sprues (the Ravenwing and Dark Angels veterans especially).

MusingWarboss
25-04-2016, 21:22
I think it could work nicely for an 8th edition. Needn't be quite as draconian a switch as happened with fantasy but I've said before a rulebook that incorporated a basic and advanced section in to allow for freestyle play, narrative and competitive would be good. It would also work for pickup games too.

Unfortunately as illustrated a few posts above, the tournament mindset refuses to accept that games can be played in any other way and must insist that only competitive rules exist and everyone else can go house themselves.

It'd be nice to see a return to a mindset where all types of play are equally valid and that no type takes superiority over another. If someone wants to play specific narrative campaigns either devised by themselves or GW then they can do, likewise anyone who wishes to play with whatever's available can do and yes, you can also setup competitive games too. All valid.

Y'know GW managed this back in 1987 with WFB 3rd. It's sad they managed to mangel it all a decade later.

So yes, explicitly put the three types of playing style out there in the rules and let the gamers choose what they want to play when they want to play it without some snooty sod going "no, no, no - you can't play like that because I need points/omg the imbalance/I can't use my netlist" etc.

WarsmithGarathor94
25-04-2016, 22:33
Why should te rules focus on getting people to collect multiple armies

MusingWarboss
26-04-2016, 02:09
Why should te rules focus on getting people to collect multiple armies

They don't. They're offering three styles of play. You can use the same army for all three in different configurations.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. Still, back in the day it was pretty normal for people to have two or three armies on the go, so even that's not a daft concept. However the prices today prevent a lot of people from concentrating on more than one force.

Perhaps a reason why skirmish is all the rage? Less models per team, more options open to collect different factions? Or games.

Zustiur
26-04-2016, 02:22
I'm building something very much like this into my ruleset. I call it standard/competitive/narrative.
Standard has restrictions on things like super heavies to ensure pick up games have a degree of balance.
Competitive places a different set of limits with the emphasis being on the organizer having the final say.
Narrative is more or less do what you want, with room for random events, mysterious terrain etc and emphasis on all players involved crafting their army lists together to make a good story.

sent via tapatalk

WarsmithGarathor94
26-04-2016, 09:44
They don't. They're offering three styles of play. You can use the same army for all three in different configurations.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. Still, back in the day it was pretty normal for people to have two or three armies on the go, so even that's not a daft concept. However the prices today prevent a lot of people from concentrating on more than one force.

Perhaps a reason why skirmish is all the rage? Less models per team, more options open to collect different factions? Or games.

I was refering to haravikks comment that the rules should focus on getting people to start new armies instead of adding more new units?

Haravikk
26-04-2016, 12:49
I was refering to haravikks comment that the rules should focus on getting people to start new armies instead of adding more new units?
Ah, that's not what I meant. I kind of went off on a tangent about how a balanced rules-set would (and should) change how model releases are handled; instead of shoe-horning stuff into armies just to give them more toys to buy, and to try to squeeze more money out of the existing players who already have a good sized army, the focus of the company should be on selling existing models to new players, and getting existing players to buy into narrative campaigns and/or other armies. This is something players should want to do anyway, and is very much helped by the rules being well balanced, as people are put off buying an army if they think they're only going to lose games with it; the rules themselves wouldn't directly encourage this, just make it an easier decision to make.

In other words; rules don't need to be profit-driven to make profit, in fact balanced rules can work just as well in favour of the game, as the profit should come from growing the community with more players, and lots of stuff for existing players to do, i.e- instead of always releasing new editions you release new narrative campaigns, as competitive players don't necessarily want to re-learn a new ruleset every few years, and narrative players don't necessarily want to either, they just want to play fun games that tell their army's story. Any updates to rules should reflect changing trends, so if everyone is taking lots of vehicles, then perhaps they need to be toned down in favour of infantry etc. rather than big changes that shake things up for a while, but when the dust settles we realise the game is just more broken than ever.


This is in some ways where AoS has the right idea; with a basic rules-set that's completely free. Once you add a tournament points system on top it's playable there, while adding campaign rules lets you play a narrative campaign, or you can just play a casual game with whatever feels fair and just have at it.