Centurion games vs Deception games in 30k

[m0nolith]

For a little while now I have been a lot more into Centurion games over regular games, mainly due to the lack of suitability of space marines on the field with all that AP3 all over the place and the occasional game devolving into being a tankfest.

 

For those of you who don't know, Centurion is a type of game mode that the global Heresy community has been using for a little while now. Its a system somewhere between regular games and Zone Mortalis. Essentially it prevents you from using most vehicles like tanks, flyers, drop pods and the like, and while you can use walkers like Contemptors, you're restricted to using 0-1 unit of things like Leviathans, Jet bikes, bikes, and a few others.

You can find the rules here.

 

But in Book 8 we received official FW rules with their take on Centurion in the guise of the the first half of the Condax campaign, called Deception.

This mode is similar to Centurion in its limitations, with a few differences like the ability to use one tank and losing the ability to use any vehicles which have over 4 Hull Points (meaning Leviathans are out). 

 

My question is what are people out there seeing people play between these two systems given the fact that we have official FW rules now?

Is everyone all over the new campaign system or are most sticking with community made centurion rules?

[TheTrans]

Down in Aus it seems it seems like they are sticking to Cent which is a damn shame given I'm a Mechanicum player :'(. 

[Bung]

No one in my group would play centurion games. No tanks but but a Leviathan? Even for the suggestion you would be send to a memtal hospital. Either tanks and Leviathans (restricted 0-1) or non of them.

[Cadmus Tyro]

I wasn’t aware of the new gaming mode in book 8, I’ll take a look.

 

With regard to Centurion, IMHO it’s unbalanced and tends to be championed by those who stand to benefit the most from it.

 

As an iron hands player, the rules encourage a tank heavy list. We have a RoW that gives tanks outflank and 6+ save, heck one of our special characters has to be deployed in a Tank with AV13 minimum. Centurion seriously messes with the strengths of my legion.

 

On the other hand iron warriors can run extremely strong infantry based centurion lists, as can world eaters.

 

In my experience, you just have to take the tools to deal with AV saturation. I mean, investing in some meltabombs is a fairly cheap and reliable option.

 

Most infantry heavy lists I play tend to do well, but tactical marines do feel a little underwhelming and often contribute very little. I suppose that is the attraction of Centurion mode, to make tactical useful. IMHO, just giving tacticals access to meltabombs would really change things up. Perhaps give them some sort of rule of “limited supply”, and only allow half the squad to attack with them.

 

Anyway, what do I know! Just a few of my thoughts!

 

Cadmus

[m0nolith]

I wasn’t aware of the new gaming mode in book 8, I’ll take a look.

 

With regard to Centurion, IMHO it’s unbalanced and tends to be championed by those who stand to benefit the most from it.

 

As an iron hands player, the rules encourage a tank heavy list. We have a RoW that gives tanks outflank and 6+ save, heck one of our special characters has to be deployed in a Tank with AV13 minimum. Centurion seriously messes with the strengths of my legion.

 

On the other hand iron warriors can run extremely strong infantry based centurion lists, as can world eaters.

 

In my experience, you just have to take the tools to deal with AV saturation. I mean, investing in some meltabombs is a fairly cheap and reliable option.

 

Most infantry heavy lists I play tend to do well, but tactical marines do feel a little underwhelming and often contribute very little. I suppose that is the attraction of Centurion mode, to make tactical useful. IMHO, just giving tacticals access to meltabombs would really change things up. Perhaps give them some sort of rule of “limited supply”, and only allow half the squad to attack with them.

 

Anyway, what do I know! Just a few of my thoughts!

 

Cadmus

Fair enough, but the question wasn't about the validity of Centurion games, but whether players are seeing more Centurion games or Deception games.

[Brofist]

My 'league' of about 20 rejected centurion for the same reason as Cadmus. Just not well balanced. So we've seen zero centurion games. There isn't any interest in Deception yet, though we might try it if it looks better written. We mostly play ZM, regular games, and some Tactical Strike.

[Cadmus Tyro]

 

I wasn’t aware of the new gaming mode in book 8, I’ll take a look.

With regard to Centurion, IMHO it’s unbalanced and tends to be championed by those who stand to benefit the most from it.

As an iron hands player, the rules encourage a tank heavy list. We have a RoW that gives tanks outflank and 6+ save, heck one of our special characters has to be deployed in a Tank with AV13 minimum. Centurion seriously messes with the strengths of my legion.

On the other hand iron warriors can run extremely strong infantry based centurion lists, as can world eaters.

In my experience, you just have to take the tools to deal with AV saturation. I mean, investing in some meltabombs is a fairly cheap and reliable option.

Most infantry heavy lists I play tend to do well, but tactical marines do feel a little underwhelming and often contribute very little. I suppose that is the attraction of Centurion mode, to make tactical useful. IMHO, just giving tacticals access to meltabombs would really change things up. Perhaps give them some sort of rule of “limited supply”, and only allow half the squad to attack with them.

Anyway, what do I know! Just a few of my thoughts!

Cadmus

 

Fair enough, but the question wasn't about the validity of Centurion games, but whether players are seeing more Centurion games or Deception games.

I thought the answer to your question was heavily implied in my response, I just added a little discourse. In answer to your question, no we don’t play centurion due to inherent balance issues. I’m interested to see the rules in book 8, but we have not utilised them as yet.

 

Cadmus

[Vykes]

Huh... odd discrepancy in experiences I guess, I'm almost the exact polar opposite of Cadmus in that regard.

 

Centurion is about the only type of 30K game locally where we can ensure any degree of relativistic balance and hope for narrative flavour, as the other 15-20 players in our league are dead 'ard tournament types (we even had a facebook post in our group locally decrying a certain European city's clubs as just 'not getting competition' when he showed up with a full knight and custodes army as first choice).  I haven't heard a single thing about book 8's Deception mode because everyone's talking about how to win big with Daemons of the Ruinstorm and all the new little gribbling goblins in the psyarkana armoury. Seeing more than 20 basic infantry on the field in 2.5K means bringing a mirror and putting it next to the table.  

 

Centurion here is championed by the narrative folk who want the Heresy battles to look and play more like the heresy was described during the earlier run of the Black Library series, not for the 'Blood and Guts and Tears' tournament gamers. Frankly, it also works as the expectations are a lot lower for it being competitively driven.  

[m0nolith]

Huh... odd discrepancy in experiences I guess, I'm almost the exact polar opposite of Cadmus in that regard.

 

Centurion is about the only type of 30K game locally where we can ensure any degree of relativistic balance and hope for narrative flavour, as the other 15-20 players in our league are dead 'ard tournament types (we even had a facebook post in our group locally decrying a certain European city's clubs as just 'not getting competition' when he showed up with a full knight and custodes army as first choice).  I haven't heard a single thing about book 8's Deception mode because everyone's talking about how to win big with Daemons of the Ruinstorm and all the new little gribbling goblins in the psyarkana armoury. Seeing more than 20 basic infantry on the field in 2.5K means bringing a mirror and putting it next to the table.  

 

Centurion here is championed by the narrative folk who want the Heresy battles to look and play more like the heresy was described during the earlier run of the Black Library series, not for the 'Blood and Guts and Tears' tournament gamers. Frankly, it also works as the expectations are a lot lower for it being competitively driven.  

This pretty much mirrors my experience with it, especially since its more of a narrative game.

 

There have been a few folks over here giving Deception a shot and the review so far has been that its pretty cool.

...but it still irks me to have any tanks on the table, so I plan on sticking with Centurion for now.

[Marshal Rohr]

Centurion is a great way to enforce a relatively balanced game without restricting units or legion specials. It does adversely effect the ‘tank legions’ while boosting the ‘infantry legions’. If you take that into account with your opponent before the game (which you should be doing naturally since Centurion rules are house rules) you might be able to work something out. Say, a sicaran in an iron hands list, and your opponent knows to work in some lascannons and conversion beamers on contemptors.

[Cadmus Tyro]

Centurion is a great way to enforce a relatively balanced game without restricting units or legion specials. It does adversely effect the ‘tank legions’ while boosting the ‘infantry legions’. If you take that into account with your opponent before the game (which you should be doing naturally since Centurion rules are house rules) you might be able to work something out. Say, a sicaran in an iron hands list, and your opponent knows to work in some lascannons and conversion beamers on contemptors.

 

I think that just adds more issues, the inherent drawbacks of not using any tanks for the iron hands are not mitigated by adding a single sicaran, the issue for me is mainly around the lack of transports for mobility. How would you mitigate the “stand and fight” and “rigid tactics” rule? How would compensate for making our main RoW unusable? If I play centurion, I take my alpha legion ;).

 

AV saturation is not the main balance problem in 30k, try playing Talons or thousand sons, good look trying to play these guys in centurion mode!

 

With regards to the perception of how Vykes depicts battles of the HH, my opinion differs slightly. I think the mass infantry engagements detailed in the early books are a depiction of the legions at war in the great crusade, when thy face the enemies of humanity. In this context a single legionaries superiority is enough to carry the victory. The turning point for this type of warfare is Istvaan, when the legions turn their weapons on each other, the tactics change. I feel standard AoD games depict this unforgiving and deadly environment really well.

 

I’m glad you guys get some good games in with centurion mode, for me that’s what HH is about, enjoying the game and the narrative. If you can achieve that with the centurion mode rule set keep using it! I just think there are potentially better ways to balance the game.

 

Sorry for derailing the thread again Monolith!

 

Cadmus

[Mogsam]

I've always thought of Centurion as a plaster for stopping some of the most power gamey options in 'normal' 30k. But certain lists should absolutely hammer other people.

 

My first ever experience of ZM was taking 30 breachers and some dreads/castalax as support (TSons), thinking it was nice and fluffy for a boarding defence party. My &(event) opponent took a leviathan, Salamanders hamminators, a chaplain and a praetor on jetbike tooled out. Oh.. and 10 tactical marines. Suffice to say I got my head kicked in an lost in about 30 minutes.

 

Rather than creating new modes of play, I think it's better to Foster the culture that asks the 'should you' take that unit rather than 'can you' take that unit. After all, 80-90% of the lists I see at narrative events are fun! Just those last few double Knight primarch lists, super heavy gun lines or maxed out medusas.

 

Oh an dive never heard of deception! Don't know anyone who bought book 8!

[Brofist]

Yeah man. If cent works for you other guys I'm not here to knock it. Our group just felt it didn't address balance issues, so you're effectively layering house rules onto those problems and creating new ones as a result. We've focused on our gaming culture instead, which has been a good long term investment for our community.

[Captain_Krash]

Infantry are awesome and every army should be using them IMO.

 

But what about fluffy players wanting to field a Armored Spearhead detachment. Every Legion had Armored Detachments...and are pretty neat to see in general as most people don't field that Rite of War. Especially if it's a non conventional legion such as a Night Lord Armored Spearhead. One can imagine all the flak and scrutiny that Praetor would get as the Master of that company. But he would push on besides what his other more deranged brothers may think as he has a job to do. Tt is just as important as Flaying and killing as Night Lords do. All kinds of interesting possibilities.

 

Krash

[Marshal Rohr]

An armored spearhead vs armored spearhead game would be awesome

[Imren]

I disagree that IH would be weak in Centurion games.Take a unit of 6 scimitars and dance around your enemy units hosing down them with S6 volkite at a distance, avoid close combat (easy done with your jetbike mobility) and enjoy effectively T6 against shooting attacks, combine that with 2+ save, and you have one of the stronger units in the (centurion play style) game.

 

Take another unit of three javelins with cyclone missile launchers (or lascannnons), multimelta and hunterkiller missiles, and deal with the heavy infantry and leviathans at distance if you don't want to come up close and personal by meltabombing them with your infantry.

 

So you can listhammer away the apparent weaknesses of some legions in centurion style.

 

 

Consequently, "competitive" centurion lists tend to be based on assaults squads, scmitiars and javelins and volkite culverin squads. They are the stronger options of units in the centurion rule set, they have high damage output combined with very good mobility and therefore overcomes the main drawbacks with centurion games (footslogging/slow infantry that makes the game tactically more predictable right after deployment).

[Cadmus Tyro]

I disagree that IH would be weak in Centurion games.Take a unit of 6 scimitars and dance around your enemy units hosing down them with S6 volkite at a distance, avoid close combat (easy done with your jetbike mobility) and enjoy effectively T6 against shooting attacks, combine that with 2+ save, and you have one of the stronger units in the (centurion play style) game.

 

Take another unit of three javelins with cyclone missile launchers (or lascannnons), multimelta and hunterkiller missiles, and deal with the heavy infantry and leviathans at distance if you don't want to come up close and personal by meltabombing them with your infantry.

 

So you can listhammer away the apparent weaknesses of some legions in centurion style.

 

 

Consequently, "competitive" centurion lists tend to be based on assaults squads, scmitiars and javelins and volkite culverin squads. They are the stronger options of units in the centurion rule set, they have high damage output combined with very good mobility and therefore overcomes the main drawbacks with centurion games (footslogging/slow infantry that makes the game tactically more predictable right after deployment).

Well, you’re entitled to disagree, although, do you have any experience playing iron hands in centurion to validate your opinion?

 

You list a number of units that are competitive in a centurion game which are common to all legion lists. I think the only iron hands specific rule which you quote is the “inviolate armour” rule, essentially giving us T6 Jetbikes. Any legion can be competitive, but some have distinct advantages over others which causes bias.

 

I was hoping to avoid this, but let’s chat about some rules that the Xth have.

 

Rigid tactics - can’t have more jetbikes/bikes/jump pack units than infantry. So your “competitive” fast attack lists are already disadvantaged compared to other legions which can take assault marines to fulfil standard troops etc.

 

Stand and fight - cannot voluntarily go to ground and must pass a Ld in order to run. Hopefully you can see the significant disadvantage in an infantry heavy list here....

 

Inviolate armour - -1 to wound on incoming fire, great advantage.

 

Special characters -

Castreman Orth - cannot be taken

Autek Morr - cataphractii, again limited mobility in a close combat dedicated unit.

 

Special units -

Gorgons/immortals - both short ranged so limited by movement. But durable.

 

Rite of war -

Head of the Gorgon - blessed auto restricted to dreads, cannot outflank tanks, cannot take advantage of dedicated land raider transports.

Company of bitter iron - benefits to immortals in the enemy deployment....

 

Anyway, yes you can play iron hands and could build a semi competitive list, but don’t try and argue that T6 jetbikes outweigh the other disadvantages detailed above.

 

Cadmus

[Marshal Rohr]

You’d just need to compensate with a city-fight/zone mortalis level terrain density and the disadvantages would be negated. It would also be extremely accurate to the lore when the Hands dismount for urban and zine mortalis fighting. The Dread bonuses and inviolate armor would really come into their own as breachers and tacticals can survive shooting to close and destroy. Not to mention Gorgons and Cataphractii wrecking face up close.

 

I could see the insanely thematic list now: mortificator with a dread spearhead and iron father advancing ahead of gorgons and immortals. That would be an awesome looking army.

[Imren]

 

I disagree that IH would be weak in Centurion games.Take a unit of 6 scimitars and dance around your enemy units hosing down them with S6 volkite at a distance, avoid close combat (easy done with your jetbike mobility) and enjoy effectively T6 against shooting attacks, combine that with 2+ save, and you have one of the stronger units in the (centurion play style) game.

 

Take another unit of three javelins with cyclone missile launchers (or lascannnons), multimelta and hunterkiller missiles, and deal with the heavy infantry and leviathans at distance if you don't want to come up close and personal by meltabombing them with your infantry.

 

So you can listhammer away the apparent weaknesses of some legions in centurion style.

 

 

Consequently, "competitive" centurion lists tend to be based on assaults squads, scmitiars and javelins and volkite culverin squads. They are the stronger options of units in the centurion rule set, they have high damage output combined with very good mobility and therefore overcomes the main drawbacks with centurion games (footslogging/slow infantry that makes the game tactically more predictable right after deployment).

Well, you’re entitled to disagree, although, do you have any experience playing iron hands in centurion to validate your opinion?

 

You list a number of units that are competitive in a centurion game which are common to all legion lists. I think the only iron hands specific rule which you quote is the “inviolate armour” rule, essentially giving us T6 Jetbikes. Any legion can be competitive, but some have distinct advantages over others which causes bias.

 

I was hoping to avoid this, but let’s chat about some rules that the Xth have.

 

Rigid tactics - can’t have more jetbikes/bikes/jump pack units than infantry. So your “competitive” fast attack lists are already disadvantaged compared to other legions which can take assault marines to fulfil standard troops etc.

 

Stand and fight - cannot voluntarily go to ground and must pass a Ld in order to run. Hopefully you can see the significant disadvantage in an infantry heavy list here....

 

Inviolate armour - -1 to wound on incoming fire, great advantage.

 

Special characters -

Castreman Orth - cannot be taken

Autek Morr - cataphractii, again limited mobility in a close combat dedicated unit.

 

Special units -

Gorgons/immortals - both short ranged so limited by movement. But durable.

 

Rite of war -

Head of the Gorgon - blessed auto restricted to dreads, cannot outflank tanks, cannot take advantage of dedicated land raider transports.

Company of bitter iron - benefits to immortals in the enemy deployment....

 

Anyway, yes you can play iron hands and could build a semi competitive list, but don’t try and argue that T6 jetbikes outweigh the other disadvantages detailed above.

 

Cadmus

 

 

I have a rather smallish IH army (ca 1500p, and a larger AL army) and I haven't played other game types except for ZM and centurion games.

 

Rigid tactics: I agree that it is a limitation on mobility, however, taking two units of 20x tacticals with additional CCW instead of two 15-man assault squads (both options cost around 300p when tooled up) is a tradeoff that can almost equivalently fulfil the same battlefield role (taking and holding objectives) but trading mobility to more bodies to lose while footslogging to objectives (but also gaining rapid firing bolters and the option to do FotL). Since both options equivalently fulfil the same battlefield role, I see them as equivalent in centurion style play.

 

Stand and fight: I find that the go to ground option is very very situational and the probability of needing it very low in centurion games so therefore I value this option quite low. Passing a leadership test those occasions you want to opt out of shooting and move instead is not a significant drawback since you have a 75% chance of passing with your Sgt still alive. So this one I find to be a minor drawback for IH.

 

Inviolate armour: Among top 3 most advantageous legion specific special rule in the whole game, I find this special rule so advantageous that its benefit outweighs the combined disadvantage of the other IH special rules.

 

Special characters:

• Orth: Agreed. Sucks he cannot be taken.
• Morr: His disadvantage has nothing to do with IH legion specific rule, his problem is that he is wearing cataphractii armour instead of artificier armour and iron halo like other equivalent special characters (Dynat, Eidolon, Khârn, Sigismund etc)

 

Gorgons/immortals: Compared to the other legion specific units I think both of these rank quite mid tier in a centurion context. So nor significantly disadvantageous or advantageous.

 

Rites of war:

• Head of Gorgon: I agree that IH suffers here more than other legions, although the blessed auto still benefits dreads so its not a complete drawback.
• Company of bitter iron: Regardless of whether you play centurion or not Immortals will need either transport of deep-striking to get into enemy deployment zone. With the new warmonger consul this drawback is not really a drawback since book 8, quite the contrary, Immortals goes quite well with warmonger, deep-striking close to enemy units in the deployment zone, and do good work there with their volkites and wear out a charge/close combat.

So to summarize my response to your arguments: The disadvantages of the IH legion special rules in a centurion play style context does not render them worse than other legions (for centurion games), quite contrary, they still benefit from their most advantageous special rule, but also on top of that inviolate armour makes the scimitars even better (they are already without inviolate armour a very strong unit type in centurion) in that specific context/play style (less threats such as high strength large pie plates that the scimitars are vulnerable to).

 

Cheers

[Noserenda]

See im not sure how Centurion set up supports narrative gaming, in fact it makes armies more balanced/gamier, less narrative. Unless you happen to already be drifting that way. The core of narrative gaming is always going to be conversations with your opponents rather than more and more list restrictions and a pickup opponent.

Personally one of our group proposed it a while back when it was new and got laughed out. It was bad enough trying Highlander style lists in more playable games!

 

[Imren]

See im not sure how Centurion set up supports narrative gaming, in fact it makes armies more balanced/gamier, less narrative. Unless you happen to already be drifting that way. The core of narrative gaming is always going to be conversations with your opponents rather than more and more list restrictions and a pickup opponent.

 

Personally one of our group proposed it a while back when it was new and got laughed out. It was bad enough trying Highlander style lists in more playable games!

 

 

 

I see no opposition between games being narrative and balanced/gamier, its not a either-or relationship between those game characters. A narration can be easily made up adhering to the fluff (or not) regardless of Centurion play style, ZM or full out unrestricted apocalypse game with the strongest, biggest units.

[Vykes]

...

Personally one of our group proposed it a while back when it was new and got laughed out. It was bad enough trying Highlander style lists in more playable games!

 

 

-Lofts a brow more than a few centimeters- And... people are supposed to like the 'talk to your opponents before the game to make it a narrative experience', eh? 

 

Honestly I guess it'll all depend on the group but there's definitely a gap here in expectations.  A lot of 'the local yokels*' view Frontline mainstream missions as being just the basis for 'tournament prep'.  If it's 30K with regular missions, then ya gotta go win this one, gonna smash it up for when LVO, Gencon, and... I don't remember what the other local all-game tournament bash is.  I get strange looks when I line up infantry squads to make firing lines rather than press the unit coherency max.   

 

But, suddenly, if you bring up something like ZM or Centurion and they take it less seriously because they're less primed for it being something they're going to take joy in mashing their opponent into the pavement on.  And suddenly, some slip occurs, some odd unit choices, stuff they had in their collection from 6E and haven't taken out of mothballs in years.  Plus, a lot of our tournaments hold both Frontline and Centurion events simultaneously or near simultaneously: guess which one is considered the 'for funsies' option that gets lots of pictures of breachers storming a hill against recon scouts? 

 

It's not that Centurion is inherently more narratively structured (that depends on a whole host of other things), but it suits some of my ideal cinematic taste and people here are less likely to just build to dominate.   

 

"Hey dudes, I just murdered Vykes in 30K!" 

"Mmmkay, so did I.  He wins, like, one game in five.  What'd you use?" 

"Well I used a bunch of javelins and a quad mortar battery with kheres mortis dreads in Centurion." 

"... Mmmkay, so, like, you didn't actually play anything?  Hey, how many rending harpies is 'too few' in a Ruinstorm list?" 

 

*I say it in jest, obviously.  Got some good sorts and a few questionable ones who really.... really like winning, and some others that are actually pushing for a narrative event strictly labeled as a non-tournament.  So there's definitely some weirdos like me around. 

[Cadmus Tyro]

Vykes, you’ve just highlighted one of the most frustrating elements of 30k for me. The black and white perception that people have about narrative and WAAC play styles.

 

Everyone is different, we all sit somewhere on the spectrum between Narrative and WAAC. For myself, I really enjoy narrative gaming, but to do this properly takes a lot of effort. The best narrative game I ever had was a scenario for four players on a ZM board. But it took several hours for me to write and balance the scenario and write the corresponding fluff. Everyone enjoyed it, but for me that level of input into the game wasn’t sustainable and nobody else in the group was willing to share that burden. But that’s where narrative gaming seems to be the most enjoyable IMHO.

 

On the flip side, I also like building a robust list and applying tactics to that list. For my alphas I will take quad mortars and leviathans, but I will also take other units like head hunters etc. My enjoyment is not in winning, but the inherent competition involved in the gaming process. Often I’ve found that a game I have played in tactically well, is lost (or more commonly drawn) on the basis of victory points. The actual “scene” on the table top can differ vastly to the actual outcome of the battle.

 

I think I get away with more brutal tactics/lists with my alpha legion, probably because the fluff supports that type of play style and people expect it. However, I’ve found time and time again that the players that invest in an infantry heavy list (ie tactical marines) are able to compete by virtue of target saturation and number of scoring units on the table, most games are fairly close as a result. Issues arise when you introduce extreme variables (non legion based lists).

 

Over time I have learnt to adapt my play style to my opponent. My aim is for us both to enjoy the game, but it takes time to learn the values of each player and it can create uncertainty in list building as the area of “competitive play” and what is considered competitive is incredibly subjective (although there are clear exceptions).

 

I think those at the more narrative end of the spectrum need to accommodate other play styles, step up to the competition a little bit. Those at the WAAC end perhaps need to regulate their list building. But i think it’s wrong to assume that our play style is “the only way” 30k should be played.

Time and conversation (building friendship within your player base) seems to be the only solution to this ever changing issue. The aim is enjoyment of the game.

 

Cadmus

[Marshal Rohr]

A lot of groups I see default to ‘good’ units because of pricing, as well. A Leviathan costs the same or little more than ten breachers to purchase the models for, but is far more effective in the game, incentivizing people to be economical with their purchases. So they might want to play narratively, but the units they’ve purchased are powerful. Meanwhile, 30K also attracts a niche group of hobbyists who will drop the cash to make 30 breachers for their Imperial Fists/Ultramarines that are promptly eviscerated by the Leviathan.

 

You also run into different definitions of narrative, both are valid and that causes some issues, too. For instance, someone wanting to run Horus and Justaerin in every game to recreate moments from the books is playing just as narratively as someone wanting to run their Captain they made up. The Heresy is inherently a historical wargame, so building armies around historical figures is part of the main draw. It’s also an expansive ‘historical rpg’ style game, where my captain that has barely ever seen the Primarchs is just as narrative as Horus’ spearhead. When those two types of narrative run into each other it can leave a sour taste.

 

I think a good middle ground for groups to adopt is to determine what each member finds to be fun and narrative, and then build it into the gaming schedule. Say Cadmus and I were in the same group. We could meet up on a Saturday and play a more competitive game because Cadmus is itching to try a new combo. The next time we meet up, we could do a Zone Mortalis Centurion game or two at low points value that’s over pretty quickly and roll on the Conquest buff tables to determine earned traits for the next time we do a narrative game. A lot of people don’t like this because it takes a little more grease but I enjoy asymmetric games, and the Heresy is the best system outside of Kill Team vs Mooks you can do it. Say Cadmus takes his no holds barred list but my all on foot Fists set up in trench lines with an Aquila redoubt. Cadmus gets replenishing units when the Aquila wipes them out, because the winner of the game isn’t determined by victory points or objectives or being in a deployment zone, but something narrative, like if he can get his warlord into the Aquila stronghold and mine is holding him off for six turns. That’s a rough idea but you get the picture.

[Vykes]

Vykes, you’ve just highlighted one of the most frustrating elements of 30k for me. The black and white perception that people have about narrative and WAAC play styles....

 

I think those at the more narrative end of the spectrum need to accommodate other play styles, step up to the competition a little bit. Those at the WAAC end perhaps need to regulate their list building. But i think it’s wrong to assume that our play style is “the only way” 30k should be played.

Time and conversation (building friendship within your player base) seems to be the only solution to this ever changing issue. The aim is enjoyment of the game.

 

Cadmus

 

-shrugs- That's not exactly what I said, Cadmus but I getcha.  It's not narrative vs. WAAC, but it is absolutely tournament vs. cinematic.  The 'narrative' element often feels spoiled when thematic narrative unit choice plays second base to list elements based on quantifiable cost-benefit analysis.  But what do you want me to say?  That it's not the case?  I'm fine with 'all is dust grey' shades of thinking, and that is indeed the case: however, my particular group and league very much tends towards the competitive element.  And despite the organizers often best efforts, the particular play style divide tends to factionalize people between the tournament and non-tournament styles, thus reinforces the status quo of black and white gaming by pushing people into those camps. 

 

But that monochromatic divide exists as a self perpetuating feature reinforced by the type and style of game that is most often played.  I can list twenty people in my 30K group and tell you which ones will be into supporting a narrative format.  Of them, I can also tell you which ones are going to bring and build lists that are maximized for performance characteristics even on an intuitive level regardless of what type of mission/game is decided*.  The divide isn't narrative (at least, not here), but the perception of thematic gaming does take a hit when you let slip the reigns a little and see some of the results.  

 

Looping the discussion back around: the unspoken community agreement is that when we hold tournaments, we hold two events.  Event #1 is Frontline 2.5K style gaming, the usual 3-6 round scaled tournament that you see, and event #2 is Centurion with 3-6 rounds at 1.5K.  The rewards/awards for Frontline tournament is always greater and hinges more on victory conditions rather than the intangibles.  Thus, it's self reinforcing but also has the effect of creating a fairly well defined community split between the two gaming orthodoxies based on what they want.  The most competitive/tournament people in our area simply do not play Centurion by choice. 

 

We can talk about adaptation all day, but this is one of those, 'I will never roll dice as well as James Steiner' moments.  Some people really do intuit the mathhammer very well and act accordingly: and some of us can't resist that Turn 6 charge to knock out an enemy unit because it brings a climactic end to the game.  I mean, I had an absolutely awesome game about 2 weeks ago against an opponent who is self-admittedly in the competitive camp, and we got to talking about this very thing: the type of lists that were brought reflect the player quite a bit.  I mean, I lost that game in the end but that was mostly unrelated to gaming styles and more that his leviathan saved his phosphex shot, was just on the edge of range, and obliterated a 20 man tactical unit with praetor and apothecary in one perfect volley that was poised to take an objective and win it for me.  

 

For the record, I do think what Marshal Rohr said is likely true: people look at the cost, physical and points, of a leviathan and pick it over a squad of breachers 9 times out of 10.  The reasons are multitudinous, but in the end it does tend to work better and really looks the imposing centerpiece on the battlefield.  But conventional wisdom says 'put it in a drop pod' and it's drilled in so hard that putting one on foot ends up getting that 'can it deploy like that?' face.  Likewise, the Rohr has the right of it; Horus and 20 Justarian is super fluffy and narrative but can also hit like a brick.  Add to it some transports and a reaver squads and you've got something that resembles books and can work well in a competitive environment. The lists between tournament and casual aren't always so different that they can't take the field against one another in 30K: but there is definitely some outlyer units which frustrate that balance. 

 

Like I said: I do feel the need to say that it's not about narrative gaming, that's perception.  However, the tournament vs 'casual'/cinematic is a self propagating issue, at least as far as the local experience goes.  And looping it AAAAALL the way back around, one of the primary reason why we haven't had a game of Deception is because no one has flipped to that section in the book or gotten past the arguments around list building for Daemons of the Ruinstorm and Psyarkanna that has completely dominated every discussion surrounding book 8.  I asked 3 people who own the book what they thought of it, and I got blank looks and an "Oh   that's actually a thing?!"  

 

* While I like going off topic this is very off topic.  Playing in my last list-locked league I came up against an Imperial knight player who utterly brutalized me in a 2.5K match in 15 minutes flat to the point it was effectively a board wipe and I couldn't win what should have been an utterly unwinnable mission for him.  When he mentioned he 'probably wouldn't play knights in the next league'... and is, by the way, I just said "Yeah they don't exactly offer a style of play conducive to the usual assortment of mission rules.  So long as it's not the pre FAQ custodes Primarch captains, or Sekhmet Court of the Crimson king you'll be fine."  He then revealed that his other army is a full Sekhmet Court of the Crimson king, and when I asked 'why not just go with a few tacs/recon to kill the perception of WAAC?' I got a shrug and a reply of 'Who can resist?'